The Sun.
London, England, 1824-11-09 00:00:00

wEniouTH PACKETS to Gnernsey, Jersey, Cher.
Bourg, St. Nla!oe's. :ke.. every Wednesday and Saturday af-
ternoon, at Two, from iVeynnitath.
WOLVEItIi.INII2I'ON only Day Coach to Dudley, West
°Bromwich' and NI eriden. through Coventry—Morning, at a
quarter before 7, and every afternoon. •
" Express," to Scarborough, Whitby, Shields, Sun-.
derland, Newzastle, and Edinburgh, a New light Foin
inside Post ;:oach, with a Guard throngliont ; sets out
every %tomb:tic by way of Newark, Retford. Doncaster, Fey-
ryhridgc, Tadcaster, Darlington, Novtioallerton, )ttritaat,
-Mot petit, and Berwick, and arrivelinit, York next Moro.
ing, at reduced Fares. Driven through with Four Coach-
.into only. Passengers finding themselves fatigued out the
journey, may rest what titue they please, and then proceed
without any additional Fare.

M Reduced Fares tQ Ratusgate, Margate, and Canter-
bury.

S. A. MOUNTAIN and Co. respectfully acquaint their
Friends and the Public, that they will nit hencenuntable lot
y Parcels. Passenger's LotggaK, Writings, Plate, &e. of
n►nru than 'Vire Pounds Value, if lost, stuks, or damaged,
►inks% entered as such, an,l the !nsnrarice paid acc,►rd-
ingly, rit the tint 3cen's Head ton, Skinner-street, Stiow.bill,
London.

LAIV INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 8.

EXIMItTE LATHAM, IN lik: LATLIAM AND PARRY, BANK-

111JPTS.

The LORD Cuamc ELLOIL determined that there 'must be
another examination of the petitioner, before his Lordship could
venture upon a decision.

HON'S" v. BONY.
In this case of appeal, a bill had been filed for waste in cutt-
ing and selling timber, by the owner of the first estate of inheri-
tance against tenant for life,_ whose children also are to take an
intermediate life-estate in the freehold.

The bill' rayed art account, a render of profits, and the value
of the timber cut during 30 years past.
The answer pleaded the Statute of Limitations, and referred
the petitioner to 1114 legal remedy.
'rue amended bill sought, in the alternative, the profits or
produce of the waste during the list six years, which confessed-
ly wOuld not come 'within the statute : the barring of the inheri
tor's claim by the statute was opposed by the distinctions, al-
lowed in the cases.

bill should follow, in its analogies, the remedy given in action
The matter fell, for the present, into a question,
of tort or that given by action of cmumpsit ; and thwhether thee
complaint
of the plaintiff in appeal was, that the defendant had sought
more by his bill than any remedy he could by any possibility
. have obtained in either of these actions.
Mr. H eau) and Mr. SWANSTON were for the appeal : Mr.
HART and Mr. KOE supported the original bill.
The Loin) CH AN cE et OR,
in postponing the judgement,
observed, that there was no doubt that timber cut by tenant for
life, impeachable for waste, would devolve on the reversioner
in tee (Mr. Swanston had informed the Court that the tenant
in fee only could bring the action, which was not in the power
Of any one of the intermediate takers) by reason of its seve-
ranee from the freehold. It was also true, as it had been as-
to calling f Imposes of injunction.—
But the jurisdiction being once possessed of the qutation, was
that the inclination of the Court was very reluctant as
isreeryltintly Jed to prescribe a remedy, without
_putting the
plaintiffto the additional trouble of seeking it in Court; and
in so doing, the Court would of course take notice of what was
the practice in common law, in regard to the Statute of Limi-
tations, when pleaded in bar of a ormant claim ; and as they
'all very well knew, that practice admitted very slight circum-
stances m removing the bar an pleaded. He was not prepared
to say but that assompsit at law, or a bill analogous to antimP-
sit in equity might be had in a case at' this kind ; but then
the bill should cautiously follow the analogies of the action,
whether tartar antnapsit, in 'the remedy which it prayed :
otherwise it would not be a true representation, and the Court
might refuse the remedy which could most suitably have been
asked of.it, if prayed for under an improper form.

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. B.
rtJorrottp V. STOREY.
. This was a bill filed by the creditors of the Marquis of Head-
fort and Lord Bective against a person of. the name of Storey,
to recover the sum of 40001. It appeared that the Noble Mar-
quis and its son the Earl of Bective had, at the instance of
their creditors, appointed certain trustees for the management
'of their estates in Ireland, with a view to the liquidation of their
debts. The defendant Storey, one of the creditors, had induced
:the Earl of Elective to pay him the sum of 4.001. for the pm-
/pose of compromising a suit at law then pending ; and the re.
maining creditors now filed the present bill, in order to compel
Storey to refund the money, of which they. alledge they have
been fraudulintly deprived. In the *ogress of the statement,
it appeared that Storey had not been served with the usual no-
tice ; in consequence of which the cause was ordered 10 stand
over until the &stay of the next Term.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov.B.
HEY. MR. LLOYD v. DAVItS.

Mr. Sergeant PEAKE moved the Court to set aside the non.
suit which, in this case, Mr. Justice Littledale had directed at
the Salop Assizes. The question was, whether the plaintiffi
could recover from the defendant the amount of a bill of ex.
change, drawn by Miss Vaughan and accepted by the defend.
ant, which the plaintiffs now held, and claimed as a security to
them for bail given by. them fora debt against Miss Vaughan,
who died some time since. The Learned Judge had held that
the plaintiffs could not recover upon this bill of 20111.
The, Lout) CHILL' Jurricr was of opinion that the plain.
tiffs could not recover, because they had not proved that
due.—Rule
had got possession of the bill before it fell due.Bule refused.

PHICR Z.-
Air. GURNEY moved to set aside the verdict for the defend-
ant, and to have a new trial granted. The case had been tried
at Guildhall before the Lord Chief Justice. The plaintiff was
a baker at Southend, and the defendant had been his attorney in
an action for rent, in which he had been the defendant. His
defence was a plea of minority, of which there was not evidence
prepared on the day of trial. For negligence in providing the
the attorney for the plaintiff
in the action against the present plaintiff, was the attorney.
The LOUD CIIIEF JUSTICE said he remembered the cir-
ITelßSallgenw, it i nn es
wilehsi ch Mr. Pearce, an action was brought against the attorney,
PA.
cunistances. It appeared doubtful whether, if the witnesses
had been ready, the result 'would have been different. It was
There was again some question whether the
also doubted whether this latter action was not the attorney's,
and nut Price's.
absence of Price's father to prove the minority was not the fa-
ther's own fault.
At the trial it had been stated that Southend could neither
support two bakers nor two attornies.
Pte-lionn CIIIEE JUST ICE had no doubt that it was the
action of the attorney.—Rule refused.___