The Sun.
London, England, 1823-03-28 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, 111.anci
EX-PARTE BUCXMASTER.
This was the petition of John Buckmaster, of the firm of
John and William Buckmaster, tailors in Bond-street, against
whom a Commission of Bankruptcy had issued, praying his
Lordship to stay William's certificate, on the ground that the
petitioner was contesting the validity of the Commission which
had issued against him ; and before the question could be tie-
termed, William, the son, if he obtained his certificate, would
be enabled to recommence business, and secure to himself all the
custom and interest of the late partnership business.
The Loin CHANCELLOR said he never heard of a petition
presented by one bankrupt to stay the certificate of another. It
was only competent for a creditor to make such an application.
His Lordship, therefore, dismissed the petition with costs.

IN TUE MATTER OF FITCH, A LUNATIC.
This was the petition of two tenants of the lunatic's estate,
named Barclay, praying for a reduction of 25 per cent. in their
rents, on the ground of their inability to pay him at their pre-
sent rate in consequence of the low prices of agricultural produce.
The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that 45 per cent. (a re-
duction of 20 per cent. having already been made in the year
1817) was a very serious reduction in so short a time ; and he
therefore did not know whether it ought not to be referred to
the Master to report whether it would not be better for the estate
that the leases were given up altogether.—The petition was re-
ferred toy the Master.

LORD PORTSMOUTR'S CAUSE.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved the-Court, (and the mo-
tion was assented to on the other side), that the Master's report,
appointing (we were informed) Mr. H. FeHowes' Committee of
the Lunatic's person, be confirmed.—Granted.
The LORD CfiAxcuta.on, in thing, intimated to the bar,
that as the House of Lords would not sit to hear appeals on the
Wednesday and Friday after the first seal, he would sit here on
the Tuesday, 'Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday in that week.
His Lordship then adjourned to the Bth of April.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, MARCH 27.
COLOMBIAN LOAN-DOLORE? V. HERRING AND CO.

Mr. HART, on the part of the plaintiff, a holder of Colom-
bian bonds, now applied to the Court to compel the defendants,
the contractors for the loan, to file affidavits, stating the funds
now in their hands, and which the bond-holders claimed as their
property, in case the Colombian Government refused to con-
firm the contract. The defendants should also be directed to
state in those affidavits, the whole amount of dividends paid
(Particularly those to be, paid on the 11th of May next}, and
the persons to whom they were so paid.
Mr. BELL, who appeared for the defendants, opposed the
application, principally otfthe ground of the probable tlepre-
ciation of property which this motion would create if granted.
• He'conceited that the order of the Court, which' had been
tailed to regulate the defendants in the disposal of the funds in
their hands, was of itself amply sufficient, and the defendant
ought not to' be compelled to• make any statement of the funds
in their hands.

The YinEXttoYetttcrn expressed his inability to state
what effect the granting this motion would have with respect to
the depreciation of the property, but he could plainly see that it
would at )east have some effect. He agreed certainly, that the
plaintiffs had a sufficient security already with respect to the
hind's in the defendants' hands, having obtained an order of the
Cottrt for that purpose. On this ground, he should refuse the
present application, feeling also that an ulterior inquiry might
be Instituted to ascertain the facts now required by the bond-
holder: