The Sun.
London, England, 1823-01-24 00:00:00

LAW rNTELTAGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Jaw. 23.
This being the first day of term, the Loan CUA.NCELLOR
breakfasted with the !leachers and the Gentlemen of the Bar
in the Hall.
The sitting opened at ten o'clock, and continued for little
more than an hour. Nothing of public interest occurred in the
proceedings.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JAR. 23.
LORD sTRATIrmORE v. FORTUNE.
Mr. Honwz moved that an injunction •should be granted to.
stay the defendant's proceedings at law for the :recovery of
the amount of a bond of 500!. given by the plaintiff to the
defendant, and the amount of three bills of exchange for
166!. 13s. 4d. each, accepted by the plaintiff for the defendant.
Mr. Horne, in support of his motion, stated the facts of the
case as they appeared in the bill and answer. He said that on
the death of the late Lord Strathmore, in 1820, the plaintiff
the present Lord, in consequenco of the late Lord's extraor-
dinary will, found himself in entbarramed circumstances, and
employed the defendant, Mr. Fortune, of Clement 's-lane, to
assist him in his affairs and raise money for him ; and by a
letter from Calais. dated March, 1021, he agreed to pay him at
the rate of 500 guineus per annum for his services. 'While this
connexion subsisted the plaintiff' stated that he gave the de-
fendant several bills of exchange and securities for money,
for the purpose of raising money for his use, which the de-
fendant did not do, bat merely supplied him with small
sums of money front time to time, all of which the plaintiff
had since repaid, The plaintiff also states, that he gave the
defendant a picture of it;ttects discovering himself to Venus,
drawn by Nicholas Poussin, of the value of 1,0001. for the
same purpose of raising money for which the defendant bad
not accounted; and, the plaintiff' further stated, that he dia.
missed the defendant in January, 1822 ; that he had not re.
oeived consideration for the bond of 500!. nor for three bills
of 1661. l;ls. 4d. each, mentioned in the bill. The defendant,
in his answer, admitted that he had been employed by the
Plahitiff for the purposes mentioned in the bill, and had
received several bills and notes from the plaintiff, for the pur-
pose of raising Money, all of which he had again returned to
him; he further stated, that he had released the picture men-
tioned in the bill, by paying for it the sum of 1001, for which
it had been deposited as a security, by the plaintiff; and that
the picture, 'after it had been so released, was taken away by
the plaintiff without the consent of hint (the defendant.),—
Thc defendant further stated, that on Lord Strathmore's suc-
ceeding to his title, and taking the oaths before the Lord
Chancellor, in the month of July, 1021, he gave the defendant
his promissory-note for 1,0601. as a remuneration for the ser-
vices he had rendered ; and in the month of September fol-
lowing, the plaintiff and defendant came to a settlement of
accounts, when there appeared to be it sum of 5771. due to the
defendant on account of money advanced by him (the plain-
tiff's notes for 1000/. or the defendant's salary; not being taken
into account), which sum the plaintiff then paid the defendant,
and received. from him all the securities for money, which he
had formerly given him to raise money` for his. use ; and
on the 11th of January the plaintiff discharged the defendant
from his further service, by a letter, which was set foetid in the
answer, in which he expressed hiniself well satisfied with the
services he had perfOrmed ; and on the 22d of the same month
they came to en Agreetnent, by which the plaintiff gave the
defendant his bond for 5001. in payment of the 'relay due to
him ; and also accepted for hint the three bills mentioned in
the plaintiff's bill, amounting together to 600/. and payable in
one, two, and three years, ill consideration of which hills the
defendant returned to the plaintiff the note he had given the
defendant in the month of July preceding, for 1,000/.
The VicE-Cstarrotr.r.ott, on hearing Mr. Horne's state-
ment, said there did not appear tp be any thing in the case that
could justify the Court in interfering to prevent the defendant
having Ili, law rights. The Conrt must at present take the answer
to true, end without meaning to prejudge the case, he might say,
diet the recta stated in it appeared highly probably, and certain-
ly it contained nothing that could warrant the inrerference of
the Court it was not even stated in the bill that Lord Strath-
more had given the bond on which he was sued, or the bills on
which he was threatened to be sued, under any pressure of
tress; the facts appeared to be, that when he had:succeeded
in obtaining his tide, in the fulness of his gratitude for tlte
defendent'a assistance,fre voluntarily gave him a note for
1,4001., which the defendant afterwards gave up for the three
bills mentioned in the cause, amounting to 600 f., and the bond
for 5001. appeared to be given in payment of a salary, with the

amount of which, and the services that were performed for it,'
the plaintiff had declared himself well satisfied in his letters to
the defendant. Under these circumstances an injunction could
not be granted to stop the defendant's legal proceedings ; but
if the plaintiff had any equity to oppose to those legal rights,
he would have the opportunity of making it appear in the pro-
gress of the cause.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 23.
This was the first day of Hilary Term. Mr. Justice Hcit.-
itoYD sate for bail at half-past ten, but the full Court did not
sit till half-past one.

BRAITSCOMB V. BRIDGES.

The SOLICITOR.GEKERAL moved for a rule to show cause
why the verdict for the plaintiff in this case should not be set
aside, and a nonsuit entered. It was an action on the case
brought by Lady Branscomb against the proprietor of the
house in which she lodged, for an excessive distress. The Jury
found a verdict for the plaintiff, with 101. damages. At the
trial her witnesses swore that, previous to the distress, she had
made a tender of the rent due, but that the defendants refused
to accept it. The Learned Solicitor now contended that, on
proof of this fact, the plaintiff ought to have been nonsuited,
because after a tender a landlord had no- right to distraiu at
all, and therefore the action ought•to have been in trespass.
The COURT were, however, of opinion that a party, under
such circumstances, might wave the trespass, and proceed for
any illegal act in the conduct of a subsequent distress. They
therefore refused the rule.

SIR WIt..HORT V. LORD NEWRY.
SIT. SCARLET T moved fora rule to shew cause why the
verdict for the plaintiff should not be set aside, and a new trial
had. It was an action on a warranty that a horse was " quiet
in harness," . which was tried at the last sittings for Middle.
sex, when the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. It ap-
peared that the plaintiff saw the horse when ridden by Sir
Simeon Stuart, and applied to him respecting it, expressing
his wish to purchase the.. horse if it were quiet in harness.—
Sir Simeon Stuart communicated the proposal to Lord
Newry, who answered that the horse was quiet, as he had been
repeatedly driven by himself in harness with perfect safety.
;Upon this being repeated to Sir William Mort, he purchased
the horse, but the groom of Lord Newry, with whom the bar.
aain was finally concluded, did not warrant him, and Indeed,
had received express directions from his master never to war.
rant any horse which he sold. On a trial of the horse in Lon-
don, it was found that he would not go quietly in harness, and
an action was brought as on a warranty. The Learned Coun-
sel now contanded, rst, that Sir Siineon Stuart never was the
agent of Lord Newry, so as to bind hiin by his communica-
tions ; and secondly, that the statement was not that the horse
was quiet in harness at the time of the.sale, but that he had
gone quietly in harness on former occasions, which was um-
: doubtetily true. At all events, this was a mere representation,
and,not a warranty, and therefore could not entitle the plaintiff
to a verdict, unless shown to be fraudulent as well as false.—
The COURT granted a rule to show cause.
WAYTE v. LADY CARR. .

Mr. GURNEY moved fora rule to show cause why the ver-
dict for the defendant in this case should not be set aside, and
a new trial granted. It was an action against Lady Carr, who
was the widow of the late Mr. Perceval, to recover satisfac-
tion for the injury done to his person and his chaise by the ne-
gligent driving of her Ladyship's coachman. The accident
took place in the Circus formed by Regent-street and Pic-
cadilly. Lady Can's carriage was proceeding from Pic-
cadilly to Coventry-street, and pu4s►ng a hackney-coach
which was moving more slowly iii the same direction, on
the near side, when Mr. Wayte came up in his gig, from Re-
gent-street, and driving before the hackney-coach, came in
contact with the carriage; and was °versa. At the trial con-
tradictory evidence was given respecting the pace and manner
at which the coachman was driving, but the jury believed the
witnesses for the defendant, who were her son, her coachman,

and her footman, to be more accurate in their observations than
those for the plaintiff. The Learned Counsel how contended
that the verdict ought to have been for the plaintiff, because
it was a rule of the road, that a carriage passing another in the
same direction, should drive on the off side ; and, had this rule
been adhered to in the present case, Mr. 'Virayte would have
seen Lady Carr's carriage, and the mischief would not have

arisen.
The COURT said that it might be true, generally speaking,
that carriages passing others proceeding in the same direction
should take the right hand side ; but this could not be true uni-
versally, nor in reference to carriages driving at right angles.
Here the plaintiff had done wrong in driving in front of the
hackney coach ; he should have gone behind it, and then he
could not have sustained any injury. If a man would drive in
front of a horse, he must take the consequences of his rashness.
'Tie whole case had been fairly left to"the Jury, and no ground
was shown for subiecting their verdict to revision.—The rule
was accordingly refused.
TUX KIXG V. POYNDER.
Mr. Cosispx SERJEANT moved for a rule to phew cause
why the verdict of guilty in this case should not be set aside,
and a new trial had. It was an indictment against a gentleman
who resides at Clapham, but who occupies a counting-house in
his house of business in Blackfriars, for refusing to serve the
office of overseer of the poor in the parish where his counting-
house is situate. The question was whether he was a house-
'wider within the meaning of the 43d Geo. 111. The Learned
Counsel contended, that he could not be 110 regarded, and urged
that, although the Courthad last term deterunned, under ano-
ther act, that a person similarly situated was entitled to vote
for a local officer at Bristol, yet there was a distinction between
privileges and duties.
All the Judges, however, were of opinion that the conviction
was right. The question had been fully before them in the
case to which allusion had been made, and they saw no just
ground for the distinction suipsted, because they thought that
privileges and burdens ought to be co-extensive. If Mr.
Poynder was not the occupier of the house, there was no occu.
pier liable to perforM the duty; and the consequence of hold.
in him exempted would be to excuse many from parochial
offices who were most competent to serve them, and to cast a
disproportionate burden on others. They therefore refused
the rule.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JAN. 23.
This being the first day of Hilary Term, the Court only sat
for little more than an hour, during which it was occupied with
'the justification of bail, acid some motions of course.

COURT OF DELEGATES, JAN. 23.
Yesterday Dr. SWAIIEY sat for the Diocese of Rochester. In
the case of BEST v. BEST
which is a suit instituted by Mrs. Elizabeth Best, the wife of
J. Best, Esq. fora, divorce a menus et thorn, and for a main.
tenance, came on for hearing. In bar to the suit of the wife, it
was alleged on the husband's behalf that she had been guilty
of adultery. _ _

-
Pr. LusuniciTox and Dr. DOnSON were heard upon the
case for the husband, some particulars of which have been al.
ready before the public. Dr. Phillimore was about to reply,
when the Learned. Judge said, there was not sufficient legal
evidence before the Court of the marriage, on which the suit
must be grounded. Although the Court was morally satisfied
of the fact, yet, if sufficient legal evidence were not given of
it, the suit must be dismissed. • _ _ _

Dr. Pitim.nuonE, on the part of Mrs. Best, said that he
was prepared to 'bring proof of the marriage by the next sit-
ting of the,Court, and that in the mean time the cause might
go on.
The Learned Judge intimated that he would rescind the de-
cision of the cause in order to allow time for the proof of the
fact of marriage, and until then he would hear no further argu-
ment in the case, but desired to hear the evidence read. ,
This was done at groat The evidence for Mrs. Rest
went to 'spew various acts of cruelty and violence on the part
of the husband; and that for Mr. Best, that his wife had com-
mitted adultery with a fanner residing in her neighbourhood,
and had given her husband the grossest provocation by the
rudeness, impropriety, and indecency, of her conduct.
The argument of the Advocates of the parties will be heard,
and the decision be pronounced on this 'case on a future day.

SUDDtM DEATllL—"Yesterday Mr. Stonestreet
pawnbroker in Oxfbrd-street, after partaking of a hearty break.
fast, whilst transacting business in his shop, fell down, and ex.
pired instantly.—Mr. Brook's, linen-draper, in Duke-street,
Manchester-square, alio, whilst engaged in his business, was
seized in a fit, and died upon the spot.—On Sunday Mr. Pitt,
a young gentleman, living in Jermyn-Street, St. James's, who
was in perfect health, went into his bed-room on some business,
when he was suddenly seized with giddiness, and dropped
down dead on the floor.—Mrs. New, a lady, residing in
Charles-street, Weatininster' '
a few.days ago, was found dead
in her bed-room. She had been in -perfect health only a few
minutes betbre.—Wetinesday, lira. Cavanagh, of Husband.
street, St. James's, died suddenly, whilst sitting in her chair
by the fire.

rinE.—The guard of one of the York coaches
brought and account yesterday afternoon of an alarming fire
raging at Wtx)dley Lodge, the seat of Itir. POTTINCIZR,
aballt • aia miles from lliggleswade, yesterday morning. it
raged with great fury, and had been for some time. We
could not get lamination bow the fire broke out, nor the ex..
tent of damages; but the interior of the house was destroyed,
and the flames had reached the stabling.