The Sun.
London, England, 1840-07-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

HOUSE OF LORDS, JULY 2.
Their Lordships sat to-day to hear airals. The Peers
present were the Lord Chancellor, Lard Lyndhurst, Lord
Brougham, Lord Wynfuid, the Earl of Hardwicke, and
Lord Crofton.
THE QUEEN OF PORTUGAL V. SIR R. CAW GLYNN.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment to-day in this
appeal, which was argued before their Lordships nearly
three years ago. The case came before the House upon
appeal cn behalf of the Queen of Portugal from the de-
cision of the Lord Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer,
overruling a demurrer put on by the Queen of Portugal to
the bill tiled by the respondents. The facts of the case
may be thus shortly stated In the year 1829 D.n Miguel,
who was then de ji.cto at the head of the Govet ument of
Portugal, negoerated a loan with two persons in France ;
bonds were given to those persons fix the repa) ment of
the loan, which was to be raised by bills drawn upon per-
sons in Engiand and France. The bilis upon this
country were transmitted to England to the respondent,
who accepted them. Upon Don Miguel being dethroned
and declared a usurper, Donna Maria, the present Queen
of Portugal repudiated the loan, and ultimately a bill of
discovery ‘N 25 filed, to which the Queen of Portugal was
made a party. To this bill the defendants put in a demurrer,
on the grour,d that the bill instead of being one of dis-
covery ought to have been fur relief. Upon this demurrer
coming on for argument the Lord Chief Baron ordered it
to be overruled, and from t.,at decision the present appeal
was brought. The Lord Chancellor on giving judgment
stated that it was to be regretted that so considerable a
length of time had elapsed between the argument and the
judgment; it did not arise from any doubt that he enter-
tained upon the subject, or the judgment to be pronounced,
but from a desire to look into tee cases that had been re-
ferred to. The principal question on the case was whether
a bill of discovery could be supported against persons in-
terested on the subject matter at the action but not parties
to the record; the Lord Chief Baron was of otinion that
it could, and upon that ground he ordered the demurrer
put in to the bill to be overruled. The Lord Chancellor
could not agree with that proposition, and in that opinion
he was supported by the decision of Lord Eldon on the
cases of Fenton v. Hughes and the Marx of London
v. Levi. He was therefore clearly of opinion that the
judem.•rrt of the Lord Chief Baron must be reversed.
Lord LYNDHURST concurred most cordially with the
opinion expressed by the Lo•d Chancellor. He considered
the decision of Lord Eldon in Fenton v. Hughes directly
in point. aid ttat judgment had been affirmed by Powell
and Yates.
Low BaouGHANt also concurred in the op:nion
pressed by the Lord Chancellor.
Lord WYNFORD fit great diffidence in setting un his
opinion in opposition to those of his Noble Friends ; but if
their judgment was adopted by the House—and lie feared
it would—the Queen of Portugal would obtain a sum of
money to which she had no title upon earth, aid one of
the foulest frauds that he could conceive would be com-
mitted. If the present case was to be decided by the
technical rules lard down by the Court of Chancery, as the
Learned Lord on the Woolsack appeared to intimate
that it was, he, fur one, would rather sco the Court of
Chancery blown up, than such injustice committed upon
technical grounds. His opinion clearly was that the judg-
ment of the Lord Chief Baron was correct.
The judgment was then ordered to be reversed.
LOCKHART V. MACDONALD.

The further arg..mcnts on this part-heard case occupied
their Lordships the remainder of the day.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER. JULY 2.

LONG V. lIITCHCOCK.-CEIM, CON.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
damages against the defendant, for criminal conversation
with the plaintiff's wife.
Mr. KELLY stated the case to the Jury. The parties
resided in the neighbourhood of Harrow. Some time
since the plaintiff had the misfortune to have a charge of
felony brought against him, upon which charge he was
committed to Newgate. While necessarily absent from
home the defendant, who was a licensed victualler in the
immediate neighbourhood of the plaintiff's residence, was
observed to pay suspiciously -frequer.t visits to his house.
He would prove that those visits were numerous—so much
so that they excited suspicion in the neighbours, who
watched his proceedings, and that as soon as he went in
the door was locked, and such proceedings took place as
could leave no doubt whatever on the minds of the Jury
that the greatest injury one man could iiafiict upon another
was then committed.
The Learned Gentleman called witnesses, who proved
the frequent visits: of the defcridant to the plaintiff's house;
that upon one or two occasior.s the door was locked when
I he went in, and they bad seen him take liberties with the
plaintiff's wife, which did not appear to be resit*, but