The Sun.
London, England, 1824-02-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JAI:. 31.
GARRICK V. CAMDEN.
In this cue, which was a motion for transferring to Mrs.
Paine's account her share of the legacy which the late Peter
Garrick took under the will of the late David Garrick; and in
which Mr. Bailey, the representative of the surviving trustee to
Peter Garrick's will, admitted that lie had obtained an order to
pay the money out to him.
Mr. ROSE now read a letter from Mr. Bailey, offering to
let the fund in question stand in the books of the Accountant-
General as a fund in the cause.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that this concession on the
part of Mr. Bailey, which was very handsome, would materially
facilitate his judgment : but it must be made in a more formal
way than by merely reading a letter, in orderAo its being of
any avail in the proceedings of the Court.—Judgment on 'Wed-
nesday morning.
PETITIONS IN THE MATTER Or LORD PORTSMOUTH.

EX-PARTE HENRY FELLOWES, AND EX-PARTE NZWTON
FELLOWES.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAI, presented the first of these pe-
titions from the Committee of the person and estate of the luna-
tic, praying for the payment of a sum of upwards of 5,000/.,
arrears due under the order for confirming the Master's report
upon the sum to be allowed for the maintenance of the lunatic,
and the due support of his establishment, which report recom-
mended an allowance of 7,500/. annually for those purposes.
It appeared, that on the first marriage of the Earl in 1799, he
executed deeds which conveyed his whole property out of his
own dominion into the hands of trustees, who were at that time
Mr. Hanson, Lord Grantley, and Dr. Garnet. The term of
the trust was 97 years, and the two survivors were to elect a
successor for him who should depart, continually until the end
of the term. Dr. Garnet died, and Newton Fellowes was ad-
mitted. Lord Grantley was succeeded by his nephew; and
under this management had the estate been =ducted, at the
entire discretion of the trustees, who:were !at liberty to pull
down and build up—to plant or cut down timber—without im-
peachment of waste. The petition prayed that the trustees
should be directed to pay over the arrears before described,
agreeably to the order of the Court.
Mr. HART, for Sir. Newton Fellowes, was about to speak
to the matter of the petition—
Mr. SUDDEN, for Lord Grantley, read an affidavit, in which '
his Lordship accounted for his non-compliance with the order,
by imputing to Sir. N. Fellowes an entire appropriation of the
powers and uses of the trust to himself during a considerable
number of years.
Mr. BICKERSTETH followed on the same side.
Mr. HART appeared on behalf of Mr. Newton Fellowes,
in the first place to assent to the petition of the Committee
under certain conditions ; and in the next place to present
a petition from Mr. Newton Fellowes, for the appointment of
a receiver for the Irish estates, which motion he subsequently
enlarged to a receiver for both the English and Irish estates.
—He greatly regretted the introduction of acrimony and party
squabbles of the trustees into the matter of the lunacy; and he
wondered by what construction of the rules of practice an
affidavit of one trustee, which went merely to impeach the con-
duct of another, had been introduced in a petition which lay
merely between the committee of the person of the lunatic, and
the trustees of the estate. Why had not Lord Grantley pre-
sented a petition against Mr. N. Fellowes, if he had such well-
founded causes for complaint ? On the part of Mr. Newton
Fellowes, he was prepared to accede to the order now moved
for, after having explained some few circumstances which
were recited in the affidavit of Mr. N. Fellowes, and which,
though very plain and unquestionable facts, had led apparently
to the affidavit of Lord Grantley. The Court must have
observed that the uses of the trust-deed of 1799 Were of a
very large and responsible nature, inasmuch as the entire care
and preservation of the estate were left to the discretion of the''
trustees. Various expences had been incurred in improving
and preserving the estate, which had left charges in arrear to
an amount so considerable, that the lunatic's estate was actually
not sufficient to meet them and to support him as well in that
style and dignity which were recommended in the Master's
report. Acceding to the present motion of the Solicitor-Ge-
neral, therefore, he had also to propose to the Court, that the
Master should be directed to review his report, and the order
consequent upon it, with a view to adjusting the allowance
to the lunatic, more proportionably with the receipts, pay-
ments, and demands upon the estate. It was also very desir-
able that the prayer of the petition for a receiver for the Irish
estates should be granted. lie apprehened that the best mode
of doing it would be to direct a sort of ancillary commission to
fce assse f
rt 4
n Hartley
judgments,
for the care of the estate; and to save the difficulty of receiving
the usual recoeisances, his Lordship might direct, as in the
ththat the sureties should con-
row the strictest possible fence
and protection around the property.
s
Mr. HEALD, on the part oflllr. Hanson, strongly objected to
this motion for a receiver. For nearly 30 years the property,
certain
Hartley,"o as t
both in Ireland and Is:ngland, had been managed with a degree
of prudence and integrity which took away all pretence for com-
plaint or dissatisfaction, and there could be no necessity for
taking the agency out of hands in which it had been so faith-
fully administered.
The LoltD CHANCT:LLOR recited the powers and obligations
of the trust deed of 1799, which were of such a nature that they
could never have been proposed to and received by any man in
his right Senses— so much did they make against Lord Ports-
mouth. As the power committed to the trustees were most
ample, it was their business to have seen them executed
fully and faithfully, according to the duties prescribed to
them, from one period to another. A commission of lunacy
had been established against this unfortunate Nobleman,
and the Court had directed a sufficient allowance from the
property held in trust to surround him with that sort
of establishment the comforts and respectability of which
his mind was still strong enough to enjoy. Looking upon
all that had been done, from the signing of that deed in
1799 down to the present time, oughthe to stop the allowance
ordered by the Court, in order to meet charges of repairs
and alterations which should have been discharged in due
course, tinder the administration of the trust ? He felt that
he could not do that. Sir. Henry Fellowes, the committee,
declared that he was supporting Lord Portsmouth out of his
own funds. He could not allow this to be, while the income
of the estates was applied to pay oft' charges which ought not
to have gone into arrear. The present motion must be granted,
and the order of the Court must be complied with ; nor would
he stiffer the allowance for the lunatic's comfortable support
to be postponed for any such payments. His Lordship was also
of opinion, that the trustees must act together, and that one
could by no means, whether with the consent of the others or
not, act without them. If there were any matter of grievance
between the trustees upon this subject, the proper way was,
not to file an affidavit incidentally in a cause which had nothing
to do with it, but to present a petition to-the Court and impleati
one another. He had not read over the petition for a receiver
and must therefore defer his judgment upon that point. ,

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 31.
LIBEL.
MACGREGOR V. TIIIVAITES.
Thu it will be recollected was an action for a libel brought by
Sir Gregor MacGregor against the proprietors of the Morning
Herald, for the publication of a report of certain proceedings,
which took place at the Mansion-house ; and in which Sir Gregor
was a party : which report it was alleged contained a libel on
the character of that Gentleman ; a verdict was taken for the
plaintiff, with one shilling damages on some of the counts, and
for the defendants on others.

Mr. RICHARDS now applied to the Court for a rule to chew
cause why the verdict for the plaintiff should not be enteted on
all the counts, on the ground that the plea of the defendant set-
ting forth that the publication was a correct report of the pro-
ceedings which took at the Mansion :house, on the day in ques-
tion, was no answer to the charge of libel—The Court granted
a rule to spew cause.
THE RING V. 'TILE CORPORATION OF HUNTINGGON.

Mr. BitouGriam moved for a writ of mandamus, requiring
.he Corporation of Huntingdon to proceed to the election
of a new Mayor. By a by-law of the Corporation, the office of
any Alderman being absent for six months became void, and it
was the duty of the burgesses to till up his place. The present
Mayor had been non-resident for this period, and therefore his
office was vacated. It became the more necessary to make this
application, as the office of Coroner in the town was held by
a post-captain in the navy, and its duties performed by two
Aldermen, who had no legal right to exercise its functions.
The Collin' inquired if any request bad been made to the
Corporation-to elect another Mayor.
Mr. BROUGISAN replied, that no request had been made,
but he did not deem it Tequisite.
The Coy uT said, they never granted a mandamus until af-
ter .application had been made, and had proved fruitless.—
They therefore refused the motion.