The Sun.
London, England, 1824-01-30 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, J.tx. 29-
.
COVENT-GARDEN THEATRE.—CONST v. HARRIS.
The LoRD CHANCELLOR asked if the Counsel had any
communication to make upon his recommendation to the parties
to come to some agreement; and upon receiving a reply in the
negative, fixed on Monday next pet emptorily for his judgment.

COMMITMENTS IN BANKRUPTCY.
Mr. MoNTAGuE moved for the discharge of a person who
had been imprisoned during four years past by the direction of
the Commissioners in his brother's bankruptcy. lie had been
asked what had been done with a certain ltafin the ledger which
related to accounts between them ? His answer was, that he
had torn it out and destroyed it. The Commissioners committed
him for giving insufficient answers.
The Loup CHANCELLOR had on a former mention of the
case observed that no answer could be more sufficient, as the
man had acknowledged himself to be one of the greatest rogues
in the world. His Lordship now expressed his opinion that the
Commissioners should be more circumspect, not only in the use
of their power of imprisonment, but also in the reports which
they made of it to the Court. He had observed. on several occa-
sions of this kind, that parties had been committed for answers,
hi which they made the most explicit declarations of their own
misconduct, and for aught that appeared to the contrary in the
copies of the examinations, because these answers displeased
the Commissioners, and, for no other reason, the parties were
committed for insufficient answers. They were again and again
brought up, and each time repeated the same answerto the same
question ; and after all, this was represented to the Court as
giving insufficient answers to the questions of the Commission-
ers, though, in reality,therewas only one question put to them.

SIR GREGORY PAGE TURNER.
Mr. HART moved shortly, that a Committee of the estate
might be appointed ad interim, to support the lunatic's inte-
rest in certain proceedings at law now pending, the urgency of
which pressed too closely to admit of postponement until the
various petitiOns in the lunacy were heard. It was proposed,
that the brother of the 'lunatic should be appointed.—The mo-
tion was referred to the Master.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL again mentioned the petition of
the mother and brother•in-law, to be allowed to go in and offer
themselves for the committeeship of the estate.
The Lotto CIIANcEt heard lcnt said, that the petition to traverse
the commission must be
first, before the Court could at-
tempt to decide upon the other petitions in the matter. He did
not apprehend that the Court had the power of denying to the
lunatic the right to traverse.
Mr. SUDDEN said, that there was a very material question,
petition to traverse was really the peti-
tion which
fwsaisr—Gw. hp! t cur
rtnhee r
.

The Loft]) CRAxcELLoR appointed the hearing of the pe-
titions for Monday.
GARRICX
CAMDEN.
Mr. HART replied upon the motion in this case, which was
made on behalf of Mrs. Paine, a legatee of Peter Garrick,
who was legatee of David Garrick, that her portion of the
fund, after satisfying her creditors, might be transferred to
her account. The objection had been, that no order could be
made for her in the case of David Garrick's will, and that of
the administration of Peter Garrick's estate there was no
question before the Court; and that; moreover, Mr. Bailey,
the representative of his late brother, who was trustee to Pcter
Garrick's will, had obtained an order for the Accountant-Gene-
ral to pay oyarthis portion of the fund to him ; of which order
the other side had sufficient though not direct notice before the
filing of this bill.
Since, the adjournment of the hearing, Mr. Whitton, the
solicitor, had tiled an additional affidavit to meet this last
part of the case, upon which the Counsel were allowed to
argue.
The LORD CHANCELLOR. took the affidavit, promising to
read it over, and pronounce upon the case on Monday.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, :TAN. 29.

APPLICATION AGAINST THE MARSHAL OF THE RING'S

AENCH PRISON.

Mr. CAaLPRELI. chewed cause on behalf of Mr. Jones, the
Marshal of the King's Bench Prison, against a rule calling on
him to answer the matters contained in the petition of Mr. Duf-
field, a prisoner in his custody. The Learned Counsel said he
felt it due to the character of the Marshal to read first the peti-
tion of the complainant, and then the affidavits which gave a
full answer to his charges. The petition stated, that on the
Bth of October in the last year, a person named John Jacobs,
was committed by the Marshal for riotous and disorderly
conduct, to Horsemonger-lane-gaol. Before he went, be re-
quested Mr. Duffield to take charge of his property, consisting
of wearing appaUpl and furniture, for which purpose the peti-
tioner went to the *room occupied by his friend. While there,
he was joined by two other persons, and afterwards two officers
came to the door, and clamorously demanded admission. Think-
ing they had no right to intrude, he declined to open it, on
which they went away, but soon returned, burst open the door,
and desired hint to quit the place. He requested permission
to take an inventory of the goods, but was refused, and the
officers took possession. A message was afterwards delivered
to him, requiring hint to attend the Marshal ; but he declined,
believing the message was a mere trick, especially as the
Mashal was scarcely ever in the prison at that hour. He was
afterwards brought by force before Mr. Jones, sent to the
strong room for the night, and the next day committed for a
month to florsemonger-lane-gaol. There he was placed in a
solitary cell, damp, dark, and without fire, and contracted pains
in his limbs front cold, tiV he was sent to the infirmary by the
direction of the surgeon. .Ich was the charge: to which the
Marshal answered, first, b referring to the orders made for
the regulation of the prison in 1759, under the sanction of the
Judges of the Court, which empower the Marshal to commit
for riotous and disorderly conduct, or for possessing spiritous
liquors within the prison. His affidavit, the affidavit of the
two persons who were in the room, that of a person who was
near it, and that of the two officers, set forth that Mr. Jones
directed the officers to go and take an inventory of Jacobs'
goods ; that they found the door shut, and demanded admit-
tance; that they returned to the alarshal, who ordered them
to force the door; that Mr. Duffield and the others were play-
ing at cards, and that a quantity of gin was in the room ; that
he refused to go to the Marshal, and was taken by force ; and
that he conducted himself in so violent a manner, and with such
insolence, that the peace of the prison required that he should
be removed from its walls. W ith respect to his treatment in
the gaol, the. •Marshal stated that he knew nothing respecting
it, having simply committed him, and left the mode of his con-
finement to the gaoler and visiting Magistrates.
Mr. Duffield addressed the Court in a long speech, in which
he accused the Marshal of partiality and oppression, and charged
lite persons who had made affidavits against him with being his
tools. He was repeatedly interrupted, on the ground that his
statements were not fbunded on his petition, and that therefore
the Marshal had no means of repelling tnem ; but he perse-

vered in representing the conduct of Mr. Jones as needlessly
cruel and unjust.
The COURT declared their conviction that Mr. Jones would
have been guilty of a breach of duty had he abstained from
committing Mr. Duffield. If he had sustained any injury from
the mode of his confinement in Horsemongei-lane-gaol, they
regretted it ; but could not visit it on the Marshal. They there-
fore dismissed the charge.