The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-11 00:00:00

CHANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY.

The LORD CHANCELLOR was occupied the whole morn•
ing, with arguments in the part-heard appeal of Campbcl.
v. Mackay, which appear likely not to be concluded to-day

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

ANSDLLL V. \SHITE.

In this case, which was reported in The Sun of yester•
day, the MASTER of the ROLLS dissolved the injunction.

GILES V. GILES-PENFOLD V. PENFOLD.

The MASTER of the ROLLS said that an objection had
been taken to the reading of the evidence in this case
(which was on the day before yesterday), which, in the par-
ticular form brought before him, had not occurred during
the period he had sat in the Court as Judge. The plain-
tiff filed a bill, describing herself as " Ann Giles, widow."
The bill was filed against certain persons, who put in their
answer, and issue was joined between the parties, who pro-
ceeded to examine witnesses. In the regular course of
proceeding, publication was made of their depositions,
and the cause was brought to a hearing. In this
state of things, application was made to the Court for
leave to amend the record, by adding a next friend. Leavo
was given, and the record was altered only in the descrip-
tion of the plaintiff. Instead of being described as " Ann
Giles, widow," she was described as " Ann, the wife of
John Penfold, commonly called Ann Giles," she having
married a second husband, her first husband being still
living, and lie having also married a second time. A sup-
plemental hill was then filed by the plaintiff against John
Penfold, her first husband, and the original and supple-
mental bills, were brought in together. It was now objected
that the evidence could not be read against John Penfold,
who was a new party to the record, but only against the per-
sons who were parties to the cause in its original form, and
against whom the examination of the witnesses took place.
No case of an objection precisely in this form had been
produced, and his Lordship considered it was an objec-
tion that could not prevail. It had been also urged that
his Lordship should reject the evidence, because the wit-
nesses would not be subject to an indictment for perjury.
He should have been glad to have had some authority to
show that where persons were examined as witnesses
in a regular course of proceeding, and swore falsely, that
they could not with success be indicted for perjury,
if from any circumstance any additional facts were placed
on the record. Could it be said that if a defendant put in
an answer, falsely stating circumstances material to the
cause, and that if there was an amendment to the bill after
that answer was put in, there could be no indictment for
perjury ? In the absence of all authority on the subject,
the Learned Judge could attach no importance whatever to
the argument, and therefore he was of opinion the evidence
must be read.

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings in Banco.)
RUSSELL V. MEREDITH.

In this case a rule had been obtained by Mr. RICHARDS
calling upon the defendant to show cause why the Master
should not review his taxation, and why the cash account
between the parties should not be reviewed. The plaintiff
had been for several years professionally employed for the
defendant's father, during his life time, and also for the de-
fendant himself. No less than fifty objections had been
raised to the Master's allocation, and the account extending
over a period of 18 years, it was extremely difficult to pro-
duce the necessary vouchers for all the items charged.
Mr. PLATT now appeared to show cause against the rule,
and the ATTORNEY-GENARAL was heard in support of it.
The COURT suggested that the parties should endeavour
to come to some arrangement, and that by striking out a
disputed sum of 5001. that might be meeting the justice of
the case as nearly as possible.
Mr. PLATT would accede to the suggestion of the Court,
and the ATTORNEY-GENERAL required time to consult his
client upon the matter.—Judgment postponed.

THE KING V. THE PROPRIETORS OF " BELL'S WEEKLY
MESSENGER."

Mr. ADOLPHUS was instructed, on the part of Henry
Morton Dyer, a Magistrate of the county of Middlesex,
to apply to their Lordships for a rule to show cause why a
criminal information should not be filed against John B.
Bell and Thomas Wade, proprietors of Bell's New Weekly
Messenger, for a libel. The affidavit of Mr. Dyer set
forth that he had been for 19 years a Magistrate for the
county of Middlesex, and for the greater part of that time
was one of the Magistrates of the Marlborough-street
Police-office, and during that time his decisions had never
been found fault with, or any action brought against him,
until the following circumstance, which had lately occurred.
On the 26th of last month a person was brought before
him by a police-officer, charged with a violent assault upon
a female, who gave his name as John Smith. The case
was investigated, and another individual, who gave the
name of William Parr, came forward as a witness, who
was recognised by one of the females as being a party
to the assault, and was accordingly put to the bar.
Mr. Dyer, who sat conjointly with Mr. Conant,