The Sun.
London, England, 1824-03-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, MARCH 3.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, on coming into Court, stated
that he should be obliged to attend the House of Lords to-
morrow ; but that arrangements had been made by which he
should be enabled to sit in this Court on Friday and Saturday.
He would then hear farther arguments in the appeal which was
before him on Friday last. After the present week, he appre-
hended there would be no difficulty in ascertaining the days on
which he should sit here.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, IVARcn 3.

In this Court there was no trial of any interest, except to the
parties concerned.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MARCH 3.
PEYTON AND OTHERS V. WILLIAMS AND OTHERS.

This was an action, to recover a sum of 19,0001. being the
value of some goods which had tome into the possession of the
defendants, under the circumstances hereafter mentioned. The
plaintiff's were the assignees of a bankrupt named William
Grenville Peyton, and the defendants were bankers at Chester.
Some time previous to the 28th of June, Mr. Peyton borrowed
a loan from the defendants, and deposited with them, by way
of security, some Dock orders, which authorized the delivery
to them of goods lying in the London Docks, to the amount of
19,0001. On the 28th of June Mr. Peyton stopped payment,
and on the 4th of July a commission of baakruptcy was issued
against him. After he stopped payment, and before he be-
came a bankrupt, he wrote to the defendants, directing them to
take the goods out of the docks, which the defendants accord-
ingly did. The question to be decided was, whether the pro-
perty which the defendants thus possessed themselves of was
not the property of the assignees.
•
The Jury found a verdict for the defendants.
The LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE intimated, that as the question
was one of great importance to mercantile men, he would take
the opinion of the Judges upon it.
SECONDARIES' OFFICE, MARCH 3.
PINNET V. BEST.

A Jury was summoned to assess damages in this case, which
referred to two orphans, and in which Captain Best, who is
remarkable for the fatal duel with Lord Camelford, was the
defendant.
Mr. ARABIN, for the plaintiff; stated, that his client had
long lived in the humble capacity of a butler to a respectable
family, and has brought the present action in behalf of two
orphans, in the character of administrator to the effects of a
man named Newman. The amount sought to be recovered was
two hundred and fifty-three pounds. Capt. Best was well known
as a man of fashion, who, like many others, pursued a course
of animated extravagance, which led him into sharp expence,
but the correction of experience had doubtless checked the im-
petuosity of his spirit. Fortune poured in upon him in a rich
flood, and he was now in circumstances of great affluence--
What the motive of the Captain was for refusing to pay the
debt due to two orphans formed no ground for speculation
in the present case. It was only necessary to prove that it
was due, and that the plaintiff had acted in the best man-
ner in is performing his duty to the children. Their
father had been valet to the defendant, and was in truth his
factotum. As was common with the servants in the fashion-
able world, he had in the course of his service amassed money ;
and, as was equally common, helebnotokwshoaft.
thileeadmecaeassesedd,tothhaits
master, and kept an account with the defendant, as would be
seen from a book that would be produced. In the year 1821,
Newman was found dead in his bed. It was known to a man
who was in the habit of keeping the
the latter had advanced much money to his master and it was
remembered by others that the deceased had mentioned that he
had made to the Captain a particular loan of 200/. It was with
much difficulty that the accounts between the Captain and the
deceased had been obtained. Upon a Judge's order, one book
had been produced ; but the defe,ndant said that another, in
which the particular of the loan of 2001. had been made, was not
in his power, as Mr. Harrison, his attorney, had it in his pos-
session. Mr. Harrison had since died, and 4‘ de mortals nil
nisi bonzenz" was a maxim by which a Counsel should be con-
trouled upon all occasions. He was a clever man who would
not easily give up a book that might br fatal to his client's in-
terest. In the book produced there was found an increased ba-
lance of 231. to the deceased for daily disbursements ; but in that
book, as the jury would perceive, there was one item on which
he grounded his claims for the orphans. On the debit side was
the following entry—" Paid for interest 10/." There were
entries of precisely the same sum due to the deceased for three
years previous to his death from his master. Coupling this
fact with the declaration made by the deceased, of his having
made such a loan, and the obstinacy on the part of the defend-
ant in withholding the book in which the entry had been made,
the jury, whatever ingenuity might be exercised by his advo-
cate, could feel no hesitation in pronouncing him to be indebted
to the orphans in the sum of 2001., with the admitted balance
and interest.

The book produced.by the defendant upon a Judge's order,
was then produced. There appeared in it the successive entries
of 101. per annum, as paid by the defendant from the year 1818,
" for interest." _

Mr. ARABIN then called upon Mr. Adolphus, counsel for
the defendant, to produce the book containing the original entry
of the alleged loan for 2001.
Mr. ADOLPHUs strenuously objected to the production of the
book—first, on the ground that the notice to produce it did not
specify it with sufficient distinctness ; and, secondly, that pro-
per time had not been allowed for the purpose, the notice hav-
ing been only served the previous night.
These objections the Secondary over-ruled.
Mr. ADOLPIIUs then said, his client had not the book in his
possession. It was in the hands of Mr. Harrison's executors,
who would not give it up until they had examined their ac-
counts, and seen whether any thing was due to them from the
defendant.
The SEcoNDAnY said this was an insufficient excuse. The
possession of the defendant's attorney was the defendant's pos-
session, and the former might have been subpoenaed to attend
and produce the book, notwithstanding any existing account.
Evidence might now be given of the contents of the hook.
Two witnesses were called, but it was objected that there was
no evidence to show that the defendant had a knowledge of the
contents and that unless such a knowledge was shown, the
contents could not be made to bind the defendant.

A witness was called to give the evidence required, but it
appeared that he had only seen the book in the defendant's
room, and did not know that the latter had read it.
Mr. AnoLrHus then addressed the Jury for the defendant,
and said it would be proved, that the defendant had borrowed
2001. for the loan of which he paid interest, and that interest
had been paid through the hands of the deceased in such a
manner as to make it probable that the items were those of
payment by the deceased in behalf of his master.
Mr. Richard Lowe, an officer in the Guards, stated, that in
1817 he obtained from a Mr. Butcher a sum of 2001. for Cap-
tain Best, on his promissory note of a month's date. A year
afterwards Mr. Butcher complained that he was not paid.
Witness induced the defendant to pay interest on the sum,
and received from his valet the 101. for that purpose.
The SECONDARY 'expressed regret that the book called for
had not been produced. The person who held it might have
been subpoenaed by the defendant.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 2001.,
with interest, and the admitted balance of 231.—total sum,'
243/. 14s. 7d.

'FITE GREEN PARK.—The improvements are
nearly completed. The ground enclosed as an addition to the
garden of his Royal Highness the Duke of YORK now forms a
very handsome shrubbery ; and the Royal mansion, as well as
the whole of the grounds; is thrown open to public view by the
removal of all the old walls and cow sheds, which are replaced
by a high and tasteful iron railing, as well as on the side of St.
James's as that of the Green Park.

The proposed alterations in the laws restrain-
ing the Emigration of Artisans and the Exportation of Machi-
nery with the intended rescinding of the laws against Combina-
tions among Workmen, would effect so complete a change in
the enactments which have so long been considered necessary
for the protection of the manufactures of this country as to cause
no little alarm among the commercial interests in this neigh-
bourhood. Before a step such as this should be taken, it ought
to be proved •to a 'certainty not only that no evil will en-
sue but that absolute good will result. On a subject of
such serious such vital importance to us all, no experiments
should be tried till their certain effects are clearly and plainly
deMonstrated. We are aware that various have been the opi-
nions of political economists on this subject; that some have
advocated absolutefreedom of commerce in every branch,. whilst
others run into abundance of restrictions and protections.—
Truth and sound policy may lie in the mean ; if other nations
would adt upon a system of freedom towards us we might adopt
the same plan towards them, but till this is the case we must
act with caution and not give away the advantages we possess
without au equivalent. We,would invite the serious attention
of the commercial world ; in our opinion much danger may be
apprehended from the alteration.—( Stockport Advertiser.)