The Sun.
London, England, 1823-05-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, MAY 1.
IN THE MATTER OF LORD PORTSMOUTH.

The ATTORNEY.GENERAL said there was a petition in
his Lordship's paper in this matter, which was merely to con-
firm the Master's Report as to the settlement proposed for Lord
Portsmouth.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had read that petition,
and mast desire to see Mr. Courtenay (the Master) again upon
the subject.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, there was no opposition
offered to this petition ; it only prayed that the report might be
confirmed.
Mr. HEALD stated that there was also a petition presented
by Lady Portsmouth. He did not know whether his Lorti-
ship had seen it or not.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had seen it; but wish-
ed to know what he could do with it ? He could make no
order upon it. He perceived the deeds. which had been exe-
cuted by Lord Portsmouth were mentioned in that peti-
tion. He (the Lord Chancellor) could not carry those deeds
into execution. _ _

hEALD said he could not, certainly.
The LORD CHANCELLOR could not make any order for the
advance of the money until there was laid before him what
maintenance was to be allowed for Lord Portsmouth, regard
being had to his circumstances and family.
Mr. HEALD understood that Lady Portsmouth was without
the means of subsistence. _

The LORD CHANCELLOR.—If the parties thought proper to
act without such order, he (the Lord Chancellor) did not say
that would not be proper on their part ; but he could make no
order. _

Mr. HEALD thought that his Lordship had the controul and
disposition of the lunatic's estate.
The LORD CHANCELLOR certainly had the controul and dis-
position of the lunatic's estate, but he must net so dispose of it
as to disturb the settlement which had been made; they must
act out of Court ; because the report had been made, or ought
to have been made, to state what was proper to be lowed for
the maintenance and establishment of Lord. Portsmouth, hav-
ing regard to all the circumstances of his situation.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought it right to state to the
Court, that Lady Portsmouth had not been left without money;
for some money had been advanced to her.
Mr. HEALD had understood that there had not, but itap-
peared that he had been mistaken ; for he was now told that
advances had been made to her? of which he was not aware until
this moment. He had been informed that she was without any
means of subsistence at all. _

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was to understand, then, from
his Lordship that the petition was to stand over.
The LORD CHANCELLOR would state very fairly what his
doubt was. He was not satisfied that there was enough of per-
sonal constant attendance provided, by this report, for Lord
Portsmouth.
Mr. SHAD*ELL said, that Mr. Coombe had the care of Lord
Portsmouth at present, and would continue it until his Lord-
ship made an order.
The LORD CHANCELLOR would see Master Courtney upon

the
not rkenpoowr t
thmats
af a rp
aarst
yi t wwehnot,waist
rme
pi
rgesh te
nbt ee d r
tog It
bt e ;
albutw a;hs er.edsiid.
dent in London would be the most proper person to be commit-
tee; he did not mean that he should reside in any other place ;
but, such being the place of his residence, he did not think the
personal attendance on Lord Portsmouth was sufficiently pro-
vided for by the appointing of one committee so circumstanced,
although he was a very respectable clergyman.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed that any suggestion
of his Lordship would be attended to.
The LOUD CHANCEL/. on said, it was not necessary for
hint to state the reasons why he thought so. He would see
Master Courtenay upon the subject before he came into Court
on Saturday.

• VAN CARR.
This was the petition of the plaintiff, Mrs. Van, praying that
the defendant, an eminent solicitor, should be committed to the
custody of the warden of the Fleet prison for a contempt of
Court, in having commenced un action against the plaintiff, for
the recovery of the amount of a bill of costs, in violation of a►►
order of the Court directing it to be taxed.
On the part of the defendant it was urged that the order was
considered as referring only to bills of cost which had not been
taxed before, and that it therefore did not include that bill for
which the proceedings complained of were instituted, as it had
been taxed already.
The LORD CLIANCELtOR deferred pronouncing his decision
until Saturday ; hut intimated that a petition praying for the
defendant's commitment in the first instance was a measure
more rigorous than the circumstances of the case required.