The Sun.
London, England, 1833-12-03 00:00:00

not. He, lees than all persons would have been wantiol
in caution upon such a subject-. C iuld it be any persons?
motive in the present Lord Chancellor against Mr. Die
Gentlemen, it strikes one with horror to contemplate
a thin 4. Personal motive in a Lord Chancellor! "°"t
of no such thing. lamat a loss, Gentlemen, to ace"'„
wh it could be the cau-e, but whatever the cause maY bet
sure I am that it has been attended with the ruin of the
unfortunate petitioner, and it is in order to recomrre
him, in some measure for that ruin, that he now EIPPIr.
to you. He has supplicated the Lord Chancellor
might have demanded his rights. These supplicati4'
have been disregarded by his Lordship ; and his onli
resource now is to supplicate you. Gentlemen, 104
earnestly beg of you to weigh well hie case, and I am sntre
)ou will follow him to hi 6 prison—yon will there see tunl
tear of the father going down his cheek, when be thin°
of those children from whom he has been separated;
and you will sympathise with him in his imprisonment'
and in his feelings, originating from hope deferred. Ir°,tl
veil consider that, in consequence of the duration of hie
imprisonment, although in the possession of property more
than sufficient to pay his debts, at 30s. in the pound, be
has been obliged to submit to the degradation of panto;
through :he Insolvent Debtors' Court. All these thing
Will be taken into your consideration, and will weed
with you in the amount of damages yon May acveri
to him. Gentlemen, I have now nearly closed what
have to state. There are two questions of high importance
in the case as far as the law is concerned. The fin°
question will be whether my Lord Chancellor, sitting to
bankruptcy, and exercising the power given him by the
Bankrupt Act, has the power of committing for a con-
tempt ; and secondly, even if he has such power, whether
he has any jurisdiction to commit until the contempt's
committed ; and then, gentlemen, it will be for you t°
consider what shall be the amount of compensation. iite,
it is very probable, gentlemen, that the Learned
Solicitor-General, who appears for my Lord Brouglia°
will not give me an opportunity of again addressing
you, I am rather desirous, if I can, of discoveriot
how this case is to be met. It surely, gentlemen, will net
be met by any technicalities of the law—want of notice—'
Limitations of Actions—or anything of that kind. Surely
my Lord Chancellor would not suffer his Counsel to set
up such a defence ; and, if even he was, I am sure the
Learned Counsel would not suffer himself to be made the
instrument for such a purpose. How then, gentlemen, to
it to be met ? If this were a common case, gentiollettO
where two persons were exercising malignant feelings
towards each other, the defendant would probably atteulPS
to detract from the character of the plaintiff. I cattunet
anticipate such a aefence from nay Lord Brotighaten
such a course should be adopted on behalf of such a de•
fendaut, you will know how to meet such a defence hi
expressing your indignation in respect of it.
William Allen was then called and examined by gr.
KELLY—Was one of the deputy tipataffs of the Lord
Chancellor. On the 19th of April, 1831, he arrested
Mr. Dices, under the order and warrant, of which the
one produced was a copy. Mr. Dicas complained at the
time he made the arrest that he was attending a cause in
the Court of Common Pleas. Took Mr. Dices before the
Vice-Chancellor, who objected to interfering, as the
warrant had been obtained from the Lord Cbancelloe•
Remained with Mr. Dices in the Court of Common
Pleas till that Court rose, and afterwards went with him,
accompanied by Mr. Sergeant Bornpas, to the Lord
Chancellor's private room in the House of Lords, whoa
Mr. Dices was ordered to be discharged upon ble
undertaking to appear the next day with an affidavit, hi
the Court of the Lord Chancellor, at Westminster. Mr•
Dicas appeared the next day, and several successive dart
but the Lord Chancellor did not give judgment for some
time.

Cross-examined by the SOLICITOR-GitHERAL---Th°
only complaint in the House of Lords was that he ea°
privileged, because he was attending his duty in the Gera'
mon Pl-,as. Did not hear from Mr. Dims that he W.'
attending the Court of Chancery upon a petition.
Francis Robert was clerk with pliintiff. Proved the
acroreosrtt,
oafs
cstbateodoebryy. Allen. Went
x
Knew
day, for a fortnight.
Cross examined—Never heard D can say he was tbea
that be n eat attended n morning
n firnogm to
oay theg
attending upon a petition.
Sir William Horne, the Attorney-General examined by
Mr. FOLLETT—About a year and a half ago held some
briefs for Mr. Dicas, which he believed related to his per-
sonal liberty, but he had no recollection now of the matter:t
An indorsement on the brief was in his hand writing. 1,
was—that all proceedings should be stayed till judgme°`
was pronounced.
everC snCe' xren na'dd done sdoptrhae ctisedlong in
Chancellor had
in and enforced them by commitment. /4:'
..ouin not rectmeus lucstaon was tbat was at-
bated, but be believed that it was whether there should
be a second demand at the expiration of the four day rule,
Re examined—His recollection was very faint, but be
believe,' the question was about some irregularity.
W. H. Bro n, Warden of the Fleet—Believed Mr.
Divas was given into his custody on the 12th of August.
1831, under a warrant signed by the Chancellor. He
remained in custody under that warrant till December 22,
Chancery,
madeance rYo' orders
ar
when tie was discharged by an order from Lord Brougham,
though he still remained prisoner for debt. Counsel ea
both sides agreed upon it that it was on the 22d Sept. Mr.
D can was taken into custody. Mr. Brown could eaY
nothing further than that he gave the older to the tipstag
on the 12th of Aug. When lie was brought to the Flee
he could not tell.
The order of the Chancellor was then put in and read.
Dicas, son of the plaintiff, produced the three
affidavits upon which the original order was made.
Cross•examined—These were all the affidavits, and
there was no one made by Joseph Proctor. His father
had been solicitor in the Court of Chancery for SO
years, and was solicitor to Mr. Nokes's estate, up to the
appointment of the assignees. He did receive money
account of the estate. The affidavits were then put to
and read. They were to the effect, that they (the assig-
nees) bad not received any money or books from Dicas,
as ordered.
The Earl of Eldon was then sworn, the Bar standing
the whole time. He bad been Chancellor for 25 years.
During all that time he verily believed that he had per-
sonally inspected all the affidavits upon which orders for
commitment were made, but be was now a very old man,
and his memory was not so good as it once was. The
proceedings would best show what the course was
which he pursued. He did, however, take all
the pains in his power to keep free from mis-
takes, if any one took place he was sorry for it. He
always understood that the practice was, that there ought
to be a de:nand and a refusal after the four day rule,
before making the order for committal. There might
mistake happen, but he believed the gentleman who acted
as his Secretary of Bankrupts would be better able than
himself to say how very anxious he was upon the subject,
and to keep free from them. If any did occur, he bad
now nothing to do but to ask pardon from God
an 1 his country. He would take that opportuilly
of saying that he did not appear there as a willing ,
ness, but he thought it his duty to comply with the re-
quest and appear between man and man when he was
served with the legal process of a subpaina At his time
of life there might be a mistake of memory, but he ap-
peared in that Court merely as a witness. Considering
his great age, his health, and the distance at which he was

wheo called upon, he would rather have been spared, but
be had done his duty conscientiously.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thc " My Lord Eldon,
I am glad to express my satisfaction, arid that of the whole
bar, at having the honour of seeing your Lordship." In
answer to the Learned Solicitor, Lord Eldon said that
during the whole time of his Chancellorship he had ex-
ercised a jurisdiction in bankruptcy, had made orders, and
committed to the Fleet those who disobeyed them. He
had no doubt but that a solicitor to a commission was
hound to obey the order of the Court, as respected
the paying of money to an assignee, and if he did
not obey he certainly would have committed him
if the proper papers were before him. He had exercised
the jurisdiction both before and after the passing of the
6th George IV.

John 13enson, Esq., was secretary of bankrupts to Lord
Eldon for 12 ye irs. It was necessary that in order to
support a commitment there should be affidavits of a
demand and a refusal, and there should also be the same

after a four day rule. Lord Eldon wus always very
imrticular that such things should be complied with. He
uad perused the affidavits in this case, and before be would
have laid them before the Chancellor fur an order of

commitment, he would have required a four day rule and
an affidavit of personal service.
Cross-examined—Could not take upon himself to say
there never had been an order without a four day rule. All
ue said was that it was the comae to have a four day rule,
and a demand upon the service of it.
W. M. Elkins, an attorney, was employed by Dicas in
the Insolvent Court. He was brought up and di•charged
on the 7th of December. He did not leave the prison,
in eons. quence of the Chancellor's order.
11r. PLATE was about to offer the plaintiff's pettion to
the Insolvent Court in evidence, in order to show the cattle

cu which he attributed his insolvency was that arrest, vibe"
His LORDSHIP decided on the objection of the Solicit if
General, that ouch evidence could not be received.