The Sun.
London, England, 1815-05-12 00:00:00

SONS OF THE CLERGY.

Vesttraay the Anniversary of the. Sons of the
Clergy was held at St. Paul's Cathedral. The
fineness of the day occasioned the-Cathedral to be
exceedingly crowded with fashionable company.
His Royal Highness the Duke of YORK, his Grace
the Duke of DEVONSHIRE, the Right Hon. Lord
Viscuuut PALMERSTON, attended as Stewards.—
The LORD MA'YoR and Sheriffs of London appear,
ed in state, attended by Sir IVATKIN LEWES, Sir
JOHN EAMER, Alderman AINSLEY, tke The Ser-
mon was preached by the Rev.G. MATHEW, M.A.
and Chaplain to the Right Hon. the Earl of BRIS-
TOL, who took his text front the First Epistle of
ThesSalonians, chap'. v yerse 13.
" Anil to esteem them very highly in love for their works'
sako.., and be at peace amongst yourselves."
From the Cathedral the principal Officers went
in procession to Merchant Tailors' Hall, where a
a sumptuous entertainnient was provided, at which
were, besides the company above mentioned :
Archbishop of Canterbury; Bishops of 12huster, Worcester,
Bangor, Salisbury, Exeter, St. David's, lie, etord,
Ely, Peterborough ; Lords Rolle and Bolton; Sir G. Beck-
worth, Sir William Curtis, Sir Charles Flower, Sir Claudius
JSlouter ; G. Byng, M.P.; W. Mellish, M.l'.

COLLECTION.

At the Rehearsal
Sermon
Rall

L. 91 9 0
815. 19 fi
499 11 8

Total L. 918 0

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

,COURT OF CHANCERY, MAY 11.
MISNOMER.
IN THE MATTER OF ALEXANDER LAIDLOW,, ALIAS

ALEN. LAIDLAW, A BANKRUPT

This very curious and interesting case came'on
this day, upon an adjourned motion from the last
term, and excited much wit and humour at the
bar betwetm Sir Samuel Rot»illy, supported by
Mr Mmktague for the tootion, and Mr. Leach,
sa!,n agiiust it.
mot;ot, yvas for an order to supersede the
firs' Commissions sued out against the
iu the last month, within a few days of
c', :: ou the ground of prisnomer in the first
in Nvhir:ll the sirname was made Laid-
. :.,stead S,f th?"true sirname Laidlaw,. which
;.,:,potters of the motiou contended, on the
i.oritv Of mauy L.flidavits, was the real addition
of the bank: opt, who liYed and traded long at
Bull, in Yorkshire.

1.._ On the other side it was argued, that this was
a- race ro.n.bv two Solicitors, who had each striven
to have the whole profits of the Commission, the
latter having-taken out without leave of this
Court, in•the-self confidence that the name in the
first Commission was wrong, while on the other
side there were many affidavits produced, o spew
that in Scotland, and the cantignotis parts of the
North of England, the letter A was pronounced
or sounded as 0, which constituted the difference.
The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that it would
be difficult to find a Yorkshire Jury to give a ver-
:, diet upon such evidence of Scotch pronunciation
in England, as, according to the old observation,
the Scotch who came.Suuth of the Tweed seldom or
never • recrossed it to Scotland, adding, that the
observation of one of the'inlverse Solicitors, that
he should have all the costs of the Corrimission or
none, ant Ccesar ant would here fail, since,
in the event of setting aside the first Commission,
•no costs would be given. Mr. Leach contending,
that such a practice should be discouraged by the
Great Seal, as that of the Solicitor suing out the
second Commission, without which the first would
be valid, as the bankrupt passed by, and was ad-
: dressed.by, the sit-imam of Laidlot.v, in Ittters and
bills of exchange, which he passed or negociated,
as by the name Laidlaw.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY, for the second commis-
sion, and against the first, denied that the evi-
dence of receiving -letters or bills of exchange,
and replying to the letters in an incorrect name,
or passing acceptances as they came, proved the
assumption of sushi a name by the person addres-
sed, any more than the many letters addressed to
and answered by himself, under the barbarous
name of Rumley, changed his name to one which he
deemed more ageeeable or dignified; contending
that the party himself can alone originate the
sumption or alteration of a name, which was not
here proved, and of course the bankrupt would
not be criminally liable under the name in the
first commission on any prosecution, any more
than Mr. Law (Lord Ellenhorough) here quoted,
could be responsible for a Mr. Low, who practises
in this Court.
His Lordship desired.to read the affidavits, to
see if he could decide this question without the
expellee of an issue at law to ascertain the reality
of the name in question.--Judgment was post- .