The Sun.
London, England, 1825-12-08 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, DEC. 7.
HABEAS CORPUS.-IX RE EARLY, A RANKREPT.
Mary Fowler had been committed to Newgate by the Com-
missioners for not giving satisfactory answers. A motion had
been made before the Lord Chancellor for her discharge. His
Lordship directed that she should be discharged, and advised
that an opportunity should be given to her to render the answers
required. , Meantime. the Commissioners and petitioning cre-
ditor had tiled affidavits in explanation, were now exhibited in
Court, and sustained by the arguments of Counsel, which took
up the whole of the day.—Further bearing to-morrow.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, DEC. 7.
TITHE CASE.—FpWNES L. COLLARD.
This cause, and six others brought by the same Waintiff
against other defendants, came on to be heard. They were all
for the same object, and were brought to recover from each
of the defendants the amounts due from them respectiVely for
the tithes of lands held by them in the parishes of Mockton
and Alockton Mars, ti, in the Isle of Thanet, by means of .an
account to he taken befote the Master. It appeared to be
agreed between the parties that a decree in one cause should
decide all of them, the defendants having combined to make a
joint defence. •
Mr. HEALD, with whom was Mr. ROLTPF.LL, stated the
case of the plaintiff, by which it-appeared that his title to die
tithes was not denied, but that the period at which the account'
ought to commence was alone in dispute. The plaintiff
claimed that the account should be taken from the year 1809,
and although the time limited by the Act of Parliament had

PRIG t: SEVENPNCE.

elapsed, it was contended that certain -negociations which had
tas.en place between the parties took the case out of the statut,..
The defendants had agreed that a fair and equitable adjust_
tent should be made, and although 'no sum 'was actua.li.r
named, it was obvious that this'stipulation referred not to
time . mentioned by the statute, but to the amount really
due in respect -to tidies. IVlien, therefor; it was sabse.
quently attempted by the defendants to limit the account
tc the six yaws, the plaintiff resisted it, and these bills were
tiled to procure an account before die Illaster,.and_ a report
train him as to the time which that account s:.ntild include.
.Alr. IlartT, for the e-..l.ezidant,• said, •that he had' no 'objec-
tion to an account, but insisted that the statute of the .53.1
Geo. was conclusive with respect to the time..within
which that account Should be taken. 'lt stipulated 'expressly
t'iat all,actians to recover per..ddes for •not setting out tithes
should be brought within six years; and unless the Court was
prepared to repeal that Act of Parliament, it could not extend
that period. - '
tilt. /I E I.ta replied upon the intermediate airy: gern ent.
The Vrcr, CiSANCiiLLOR diouAl:t that the Court could
only direct an' account far the siX years immediately preceding
1-belling of the bill in 182:t.
A discussion then arose as to the costa, the Counsel for the
defendant urging that suits like eught.tot to be„enco,-
rated. • The pla.Mtiff was an -attorney, and "nothing could
more easy :than for attornius, finding parsons in debt, to get a
4.,mise of their tithes, and then to commence as many actions
as they could find persons in the parish. with whom the parsoa
was on bad terths.. • "

- The VicE,CuitrreEr.r.ort - said that the question of costs
would in a great.nieasore depend upon the, report: He should,
therefore, reserve it for the present.

COURT OF KING'S 13ENCII, DEC. 7.

TIAYHIW V. ASHI2.I" AND OTHERS.

• This was an action by the endorsee against the defendants,
Ashby, Shaw' and Rowland, as.etdorsess of a bill 'of exchange
for 138/. 145., bearing date the 14th of September, IU2I, drawn:
by John Paw, upon and accepted by, Samuel Fletcher, pay-
ableahree months after date. The defendant Rowland suf-
fered judgment by default, the other defendants pleaded the
general issue.
It appeared that the three defendants had been in partner-
ship as engravers in Lombard-atteet, under the firm of Ashby
and- Rowland, but on the 21st of September in last year,
Ashby arid Shaw dissolved tl:e partnership as to Rowland.
The endorsement on the bill, by virtue of which they were
now sued,.-was in et, hand-writing of Rowland, and the
words "-Ashby.and Rowland." Mr. Mayhew, the plaintiff;
an attorney, who had been consulted as to the liability. of par-
ties to the bill, purchased it, through the medium of a man
named Gorton, for half its amount. An investigation had
taken place at the Mansion-house on a charge of forgery against
Rowland, which was dismissed ; and the question was, whether
the endorsement made by Rowland was placed on the bill before
or after the 21st of September, when he ceased to be• a partner
in the firm ; as before that. time he could charge the other de-
fendants, but not.afterwards. ,
To prove that the endorsement was made-before the dissolu-
tion of the partnership, Mr. SCARLETT, for the plainuff,-call-
ed Gorton, who poeinvely swore that the bill was in his posses-
sion a few days before the dissolution was advertised, and bore
at that time the endorsement in question. This witness had
been in difficulties, and came from prison.
For the defendants, Mr. GURNEY, after a speech strongly
denouncing the conduct 'of the plaintiff as already apparent,
called- a man named Ramer, who swore that, being in the habit
of discounting bills, this bill was offered to him in October,
and that it then bad not the endorsement of the defendants,
and if it had borne their endorsement he would have discoUnt-
ed it instead of refusing. This witness, on cross-examination,
admitted that he was examined at the Mansion-house, and there
stated that he had seen the bill in November, when the endorse-
ment was upon it, without mentioning that he had seenit pre-
viouely ; but accounted for this by saying that he did not re-
collect the circumstance till it was brought to his mind by a
later from his friend Mr. Kinnear, with whom he had *trans-
acted great business, and whom he considered, whatever the
world might say, as a man of honour. It was further proved,
that Mr. 3layliew did not apply for payment of the bill until
several days after it was due, and then did not mention whether
he applied on his own behalf or that of aolient.
The LORD CHIEF J usr icE left the case to the jury, on the
single question, whether they could give credit to Gorton's evi-
dence.

The Jury almost immediately returned a verdict for the de-
fendants Ashby and Shaw. - - -
The LORD ULI 'Er JUSTICE-4 forebore to express my opi-
nion of Mr. Mayhew's conduct until now, lest it should influence
the verdict. But I cannot allow this cause to go out of-this
public court, without publicly observing that I highly disap-
prove of the conduct of any attorney who buys a bill, on which
suspicion has been cast, for half price.

PREROGATIVE COURT, DEC. 7.
EUSTICK V. BOWDEN.

On the sitting of the Court, Sir J. Nico Lt. asked the Coun-
sel for the respective parties in this cause for a precise account
of the amount and nature of the property Lavolyed in the
decision ?

•Dr.•JENNER replied, that he understood the real property
affected by the will amounted to 9801. per annum, the personal
property being 3,500/., hut that the debts were nearly 2,0004.,
leaving only a balance of 4000/. to go to the benefit of the
estate.

Sir J. NIcoLI. observed, that that sum would be subject to
the costs of-the suit, if the Court should so decree.
Dr. LusRINGTox said, if his Learned Friend included the
Duchy property, his estimate was too high, tor the Duchy lanus
could not pass under the will.

After a ihort Conversation,
Sir J. Isitcom. said, as only a small part of the personal pie-
perty was distributable, the decision of this Court was not very
important. If the -will was declared invalid, Miss Bowden
might bring her action for the real property ; and if declared
valid, the heir at law might bring his action.
The COURT, finally, suggested an arrangement between the
parties, as the case was so full of difficulties ; and if such an
arrangement should be found impracticable, he would give
judgment in the next Term.