The Sun.
London, England, 1836-04-27 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCERY-.1--(THIS DAY.)

His Honour the VICE-CIIANCELLOR took cause petitions
;o-day. -

IN RE DEAN'S CLARK CIIARITY.
His HONOUR in this case, which came- before the Court
upon petition, .andin whieri the question was whether under
the gift, the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's were entitled to
certain property, considered that he had not jurisdiction to de-
cidethe question upon petition, and therefore directed the
parties to file an information.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

SOLITiIBY V. HUTT.

In this case, which was part-heard yesterday, the bill was
filed to enforce the specific performance of an agreement en-
tered into in May, 1833, for the purchase of an estate in Berk-
shire for the sum of 2001. The defence urged was, that the
plaintiff not having .verified an abstract of the title, and not
having procured the release cf a Conveyance which had been
Made to a Mr. Robert Southby, the bill ought to be dismissed
with costs.

Mr. PEMBERTON and Mr. PERRY appeared for the plaintiff.
Mr. TINNEY and Mr. Powis for the defendant. _ _

The MASTER of the ROLLS said he should look through the
correspondence before he gave judgment.

KING'S BENCII.-(THIS DAY.)

ATTENDANCE OF COUNSEL.

At the sitting of the Court this morning,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL apologised for riot having been
present yesterday when the case of Benton v. Peppercorn, in
which he was concerned, was called on.
Lord DEN MAN—WC have disposed of that case, Mr.
Atorney.
The ATTORNEY -GENERAL—I beg pardon of the Court, but
I believe not, my Lord.
Lord DENMAN—I read the whole of the evidence, and there
was no counsel in attendance.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL —I believe, my Lord, according
to the practice that has prevailed here, we are perfectly wil-
ling on the payment of costs—
Lord DENMAN—There was some arrangement made yester-
day, but until we know whether that has been carried into ef-
fect or not, it is only wasting the time of the Court to talk
about it. .

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL again expressed his regret at not
having been in attendance.
Lord DENaIAN-It is impossible for us not to feel very
strongly upon this matter. We understood that you were to
attend the House of Lords. The House of Lords rose at 12,
and this case was called on between one and two o'clock, and
no counsel was present.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I was engaged in the discharge
of a public duty, upon my honour.
Lord DENMAN—I think the Court is entitled to some con-
sideration. Independently of the waste of the public time,
there is some consideration due to us as individuals.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I can assure your Lordships
that I am always most anxious to treat the Court with every
respect.
Lord DENMAN—We don't want respect—we want to have
a proper attention paid to the discharge of the public business
.in this Court, and it is very inconvenient to have our time af-
terwards wasted in discussions about the circumstances which
have prevented the attendance of Counsel.
Mr. PLATT felt it right to state to the Court, that although
his name had been mentioned in the same case he was not en.
gaged in it, or he should certainly have been in attendance.
The Coma then took the case Wilson, Bart., v. Hoare and
others, from the new trial paper. The circumstances related
to the amount of fine which the trustees of the Wells Charity
were legally entitled to pay to Sir Thomas Wilson, the Lord
of the Manor of Hampstead, on the renewal of lives in a cer-
tain lease.

EXCHEQUER COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

STRONG V. DICKINSON.

The defendant was brought ,up upon habeas corpus, in
order tole discharged.
' Mr. PLATT showed cause against the rule, which had been
obtained upon an affidavit of the defendant, who stated that he
was an attorney, and that on the 23d inst. he wa3 proceeding
to the Courts at Westminster to attend the interests of several
clients ; that on coming to the Bank he recollected that he
had occasion to see a client at the Auction Mart; he pro-
ceeded there, and finished his business, and while just on the
point of starting for Westminster, an officer came in and ar-
rested Milt. The Learned Gentleman said he had three affi-
davits in answer. They stated that the defendant had fre-
quently said that he never attended to the common law busi-
ness of his office ; that when the officer arrested him upon an
execution for 4001. he said nothing about his being on his way
to Westminster, on the contrary he said he was sorry that he
had been taken, for he bad then been attempting to raise
money upon his property for the purpose of paying off the
debt ; and that he was arrested while sitting in a coffee-house.
The other affidavit said that the defendant was seen by a
person coming from the Excise-office, and that he went to
the coffee-house in question without stopping, or being
near the Bank. This was certainly upon a very different
business from. attending to his client's interests, and even allow-.
ing that his affidavit were true, still this was such a deviation
as abrogated any Privilege which be had from the Court. It
was impossible for the Court to grant the discharge upon an
affidavit which did not state from what place he had started, or
at what hour.
Mr. Sergeant LUDLOW (with whom was Mr. LEE) argued
that this was the privilege of the defendant's client, and could
not betaken away upon such a small deviation as the one in
question. There was nothing in his Learned Friend's affi-
davits to contradict that of the defendants, and according to
the precedents laid 'down in several cases which he cited, the
defendant was clearly entitled \to his discharge.
The Cower said the affid4vit of the defendant was too de-
fective for it to grant or order his discharge. As it neither
set forth the place whence he ...started, nor the hour when, it
would be perfectly consistent with the affidavit if he had started
at 7 o'clock in the morning even from St. Margaret's parish,
Westminster, with the intention of attending Court in the
afternoon, yet have been attending his own concerns all the
day. It would open the door of privilege if the Court were to
act upon such an affidavit.
Rule discharged.
. . . . .

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

BRAYE V. NAPIER.

This was originally an action for trespass, brought by the
Plaintiff against Admiral Napier, for the selzure of a steam-
vessel belonging to the plaintiff.
The defendant admitted in his plea that he did seize the
ship, but he added that he did so, but under the authority
of the Queen of Portugal, in whose service he was at
the time, that the plaintiff's vessel had attempted to break
through an effective blockade established along the coast of
Portugal, of which the plaintiff had notice, and that it was
in consequence of such attempt that the plaintiff's vessel was
seized. To this the plaintiff put in a replication, on the
ground that the defence, if good at all, duly proved that the
defendant had acted in contravention of the Act of Parliament
(the Foreign Enlistment Act) which stated that " if any na-
tural born subject of his Majesty shall, without the leave of
his Majesty, serve in any capacity on board of a vessel of war
in aid of a foreign Prince, every person so offending shall
be guilty of a misdemeanour." And also, if any person shall
furnish, fit out, or -arm any vessel of war, for any
foreign power, &c., he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. It
was also contended that, independent of the Foreign Enlist-
ment Act, the defendant, being himself a British subject,
could not, by the law of nations, enforce a blockade against
another party, who was also a British subject.
(The case was proceeding when our reporter left.)