The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-08 00:00:00

PRIVY COUNCIL-(THIS DAY.)
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sat to-
day, in the Council Chamber, Whitehall. The Lords pre-
sent were Lord Brougham, the Master of the Rolls, Mr.
B iron Parke, Sir Herbert Jenner Fust (Judge of the
Prerogative Court), the Judge of the Admiralty Court,
and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Cornwall.

GORDON V. HORSFALL.

Mr. L. WlGRA;i7eplied to day on this appeal; and':
Their Lonnsmrs postponed their judgment.
HER MAJESTY'S PROCTOR V. THE SOLICITOR OF THE

DUCHY OF LANCASTER.

Upon this case being called on,
Lord BaouctrAm, perceiving Lord Campbell (the pre-
sent Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster) sitting
without the bar, among the Queen's Counsel, observed
to his Lordship that there could be no doubt that he had
a right as a Privy Oiuncillor, though the principal party
in the cause to sit within the bar. He recollected that
such a course was pursued by Mr. Sheridan, in a case in
which he (Lord Brougham) and Mr. Warren were
counsel against him, and he could not forget also, that
upon that occasion Mr. Sheridan not only argued his
own cause, but did that which he was sure Lord Camp-
ball would not do, abused the counsel that were against
him.
Lord CAMPBELL felt indebted to their Lordships for
their pipffered courtesy towards him as a privy coun-
cillor, but following the example set him by Lord Holt
he would waive his right to sit within the bar, and
prefer, as Lord Holt did, to remain by the side of his
counsel, to offer asy suggestions that might be ne-

ces3ary.
Lord BROUGHAM believed that upon the occasion
alltv'ed to by the Noble Lord, Lord Ilolt sat with his
bat on, and instructed his Counsel.
Lord CAMPBELL f It no desire to exert such a privi-
lege, bat in doing so he was anxious that his not wear-
ing his hat, or sitting within the bar, should not be
considered as a waiver on his part of any right his suc-
cessors in office might claim.
Loral BROUGHAM observed that there could be no
doubt of the right of the Noble Lord, if he chose, to sit
within the bar.
Lord Campbell retained his seat outside the bar,
and after a short discussion the case proceeded. The
matter came before their Lordships upon an appeal from
the decision of the Chancery of York, and the question
in the case was, whether her Majesty, or the Chancellor
of the Duchy of Lancaster, was entitled to letters of
administration to the effects of an old lady named Ann
Rothwell Wignall, who died without any apparent next
of kits. The Chancery of York decided in favour of the
claim of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and
from that decision the present appeal was brought by
her Majesty's Proctor, on her Majesty's behalf, to their
Lordships.
The Queen's Proctor, the Solicitor• General, and Mr.
Chetton, were counsel for the appellant ; and Mr. James
Parker, Dr. Jenner, and Mr. Ellis, appeared in support
of the judgment of the Court below.
The case, it is expected, will occupy two or three
days.

CHANCERY-(THIS DAY.)

SPOTTISWODE V. CLARHE.7- PICTORIAL ALMANAC.

Mr. STUART, at the sitting of the Court to-day,
applied in this case, in which his Honour the Vice-
Chancellor of England refused yesterday to dissolve an
injunction he had granted ex parte, restraining the
defendant from publishing a work, entitled Old Moore's
Pictorial Almanac, in imitation of The Pictorial Almanac,
published by the plaintiff, for leave to give notice of
motion for Thursday to discharge his Honour's order.
His LORDSHIP granted the application.
STOCKER V. DAWSON.

The remaider of the day was occupied with the further
arguments in this part-heard appeal.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY).
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND).
SHALE v. BECKFORD.

The further arguments in this part-heard case occu-
pied his Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England the
whole morning.

(Before Sir J. K. BRUCE.)
FINCH V. SECKER AND ANOTHER.

This was the petition of two infant plaintiffs, praying
for a reference to the Master to make certain inquiries,
with the view of compelling the defendants to execute
the trusts of a will. It appeared that Mary Shield, the
testatrix, by her will, of March, 1841, after directing
the payment of her debts, &c., devised the residue of
her property, consisting of an estate of 3501. a year and
large personal effects, to Mary Finch, for her use during
her life-time, on condition of her remaining single, and
after her demise, to go to the plaintiffs, her niece and
nephew; but in the event of her marrying, she was to
have an annuity of 301. a year, and the residue was then
to go to the plaintiffs and their heirs. The testatrix. by
a codicil to her will, appointed John Seeker and James
Mason her executors, and for the trouble they would
be subjected to, she bequeathed them a sum of 1001.
each. She subsequently revoked the appointment of
Mason, and substituted a Mr. Bryant, one of the defend-
ants, and he contended that he was entitled to
the legacy of 1001. under the testament of the
testatrix. This claim was opposed. Mrs. Finch
had married and consequently forfeited her right
to the residue of the property of the testatrix,
which now became vested in the infant plaintiffs. It
appeared that certain funeral expences had been incurred
for the interment of the testatrix, which had been de-
frayed by two of the legatees, but which it was eon.
tended were too exorbitant and were resisted by the exe-
cutors on that ground.
Messrs. Cooper and Hall appeared for the plaintiffs,
and Mr. Bacon for the defendants.
His lloNona granted an order for the master to en-
quire into the circumstances of funeral expences, and to
state special circumstances.