The Sun.
London, England, 1824-02-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, FEB. 6.'
SIR G. P. TURNER.
Mr. SUGDEN, for the Solicitor employed in this case, said
that he had been appointed by the wish of the family of Sir
Gregory ; that he was employed, and was for some time in the
confidence of his mother; he. wished to do away with the im-
pression on the public mind, that he had been now for the
first time connected with the family.

GARRICK V. CAMDEN.
Mr. HART applied, that Mr. Bailey be allowed to transfer
money into Court. Mr. Bailey's Counsel was willing that it
should be done.

Mr. LEYDEN prayed the Court that the money be given to
Mrs. Payne's creditors—it did not belong to Mrs. Payne.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the parties may be able
to arrange among themselves the future disposal of the money ;
but if they were determined to have a suit, it would go to per-
sons who were not entitled.

There was a lengthened discussion about priority of mo-
tions, in which the great arrear of busios as was alluded to,
is
and the dissatisfaction of the suitosat theltequent postpone-
ments.

FARQUHARSON and BALFOUR followed, which was not
decided.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Frs. 6.
MANDAMUS.

Mr. MEnEWETHER. moved fora rule to sliew cause why a
writ of mandamus should not issue to the Mayor and Alder-
men of the borough of Portsmouth, for the purpose of con-
sidering the conduct of six Aldermen, who were non-re-
sident ; and if it should be found that they were guilty of
non-residence, then to proceed to a fresh election. The Cor-
poration had been created in the reign of Charles I. and con-
sisted of a Mayor, twelve Aldermen, and an unlimited number
of burgesses—eleven only were now alive. Seven of these were
out of the same family, and six non-resident ; some of their
residences were 70 miles from the borough. Frequent incon-
veniences had arisen from this circumstance. Naval officers,
desirous of transacting important business before their depar.
ture from the country, were disabled from so doing, on account
of the absence of Aldermen. On one occasion, there not being
a sufficient number of Aldermen to hold a court, they were
obliged to adjourn to the house of an Alderman, who died the
next day. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Court
would think itself authorised to grant a rule to chew cause.
The LORD CniEr-J USTICE said, he knew of no precedent
by which the Court could grant a writ of mandamus, the effect
of which would be to remove some of the members of a cor-
poration from the situation they held in that corporation. The
rule could not therefore he granted.—Rule refused.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION.—REAL JOHN BULL.
THE RING v. THE PRINTER AND PROPRIETOR OF THE

REAL JOHW NULL.
criminal information
upon the defendants to shew cause, why a
On a former day, Mr. ScAnLETT obtained a Rule calling
should not be filed against them, for a libel published in the
Real John Bull Newspaper of and concerning the Lord Bishop
of Exeter.
The COMMON SERJEANT, this day, in shewing cause against
the Rule said the libel had appeared in November last, and
the Bishop ought to have applied for the Rule in Michaelmas
Term. The affidavits of the defendant stated, that one of them
was the proprietor and the other the printer of the Newspaper—.
that theywere untrue.
were ready to contradict such parts of the libel as
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—Who is to judge what parts
are true, or what arc not true ?
Mr. ColotatoN SERJEANT.—The defendants were willing to
insert such contradiction as the Bishop would give them.
With
leisrpoc a
Browne,
to the libel itself, it was written by a person
named
, who stated that it was dictated to_ hint by the
Clergyman ermine whom the proceedings were instituted in the
itrew
EcelesiasticarCourts. The defendants gave up the manuscript
to the Bishop's Solicitor, and were willing to join him in his
exertions to discover the elergYrnan, 07 Browne, who bad since
absconded* The defendants would not attempt to justify the
libel, and they therefore threw themselves upon the merciful
consideration of the Right Rev. Prelate, who had now, upon
oath, cleared himself of a charge which had been pretty gene-
rally inculcated.
Mr. AnitAxAsts followed on the same side.
Mr. Sca at, LTT said, the libel was one of a most indecent
character,
and lie must therefore
made absolute. urge that the Rule should be
The LORD CHIEF Juni,
lute. Z—Let the Rule be made abso-

COURT OF COl‘llllON PLEAS, FEB. 6.
FRYER t. DITEE 01' DUCXINGRASI.
Serjeant PEAEE having obtained a rule calling on the
plaintiff to show cause why ha
of the avowries, should not make an amendment
Mr. Serjeant LAVES showed cause against the rule, and
contended at great length upon several grounds, but upon one
in particular, which was that of delay.; the declaration had
been delivered the 11th of February, 1823, the rule to avow the
the summons taken out the
*2sth of Fehruary,
22d of February,
and repeatedly renewed until the 9th of dune following (nine
days before the expiration of the term) at which time the
avowries were put In ; on the 113th of June the defendant
pleaded in part, anti on the 11th of July notice of trial wax
given by defendant, hut this notice was countermanded on the
18th of the same month, and consequently the trial did not
take place, and nothing further was proceeded in until this
present term.
The CounT here interposed, and observed it was of opinion
anxious for it to take place.
plaintiff might have given notice of trial,
ith that
ei
riii.liasrdeeirbigleeeevanrill', t IthAewEs said he had not done so ; and after
some further observations front the Learned Gentleman,
The Co car made the rule absolute.