The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-25 00:00:00

SIMPSON V. JONES.

Mr. PEPYS moved that an order made by his Honour
the Vice-Chancellor on the Ist of August last might be
discharged. The question here was, which depended upon
contradictory affidavits as well es some correspondence,
whether Mr. Keeling had or had not given authority to
his co-plaintiff to instruct the solicitor for the plaintiff to
institute the suit in the joint names of Simpson and Keel-
ing. Mr. Bonner, the solicitor, contended that Mr.
Simpson had authorised him in his own and in Mr. Keel-
ing's 'name to institute the proceedings. The original
application to the Court was on the part of Mr. Keeling
to have his name removed from the record, and that Mr.
Bonner might he ordered to pay the costs. The Vice-
Chancellor was of opinion that Mr. Keeling had not given
authority for the use of his name, declared that Mr.
Keeling was not liable to the costs, directed his name to
he removed from the record, and that the attorney should
pay the costs.

Mr. Iron wag with Mr. Pepys.
Mr. CHING was on the other side. He did not con-
sider it, as it had been argued, a balance of testimony ; for
in his opinion the evidence was decidedly in favour of his
client.

11Ir. PEPYS replied—His client had ❑o written autho-
rity frem Mr. Keeling to act for him, nor was that
necessary. He was as confident as Mr. Ching could be
that the weight of swearing was on his side, although to
him it certainly did appear to be a question upon the
evidence. To say the least of this, it was a very dishonest
attempt, on the part of Mr. Keeling, to throw the whole
of the burden of the proceeding that had taken place on
his brother-in-law, Mr. Simpson.
The LORD CHANCELLOR would read the affidavits ; but
if he said nothing further, the parties were to understand
that be discharged the order of the Court below, with tl,e
costs of the proceedings there, but not with the costs of
the motion here. He came to this inclination of opinion,
from being satisfied upon the correspondence and affidavits
that Mr. Keeling at all events knew of the institution of
the suit, and of its going on in his name jointly with that
of Simpson's, and that at least he had tacitly assented to
the propriety of the same.

MISS WICKHAM V. ?BILLIES AND OTHERS.-THE OYSTER
CASE.

Sir E. SUODEN moved fur another injunction against
some other of the unfortunate defendants in this case,
whose names were not mentioned at the bar. They had,
as before, gone upon the grounds which Illiss Wickham
contended were hers, and dredged for oysters. The case
was in all respects similar to the one that had been argued
sometime ago between the same plaintiff and some of the
defendants. Nobody appeared to oppose it, and he was
clearly entitled to his injunction.
Mr. CHINO believed nobody appeared for the defen-
dants, in consequence of their bring too poor to appear to
the suit, or to obtain office copies.
Sir E. SUGDEN said that could not be so, because one
of the defendants had appeared, and also had office copies.
One of the dredgermen presented himself within the bar,
and begged to inform his Lordship, that his suit affected
an entirely different water to that to which the former
injunction extended. The water now in question was
separated by an island from the other, and was altogether
different. Besides the defendants bad not had sufficient
time to eet ready to defend themselves in this suit.
Sir E. SUGDEN objected to this defendant being al-
lowed to go into the merits without regularly appearing,
and having his evidence before the Court.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was of opinion that the in-
junction must issue. A week's time had already been
given to the defendants to get ready, and sufficient ground
bad not now been shown for a further extension of that
time.

Sir E. SUODEN observed that some strong means must
be resorted to by the Court, because Miss W.'s property
was being entirely destroyed by the expense of these suits.
The LORD CHANCELLOR wished these poor men could
be persuaded by some person to conform to the laws, be-
cause their struggle now would have to be regarded as one
solely with the Court.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

His HONOUR this morning t0,,1c petition!.
THELLUSON V. WOODFORD.

Mr. PEMBERTON appeared for the petitioner in this
case ; and the application was made under the terms of
the Act of Parliament which was passed last session. The
Act directed thar the trustees under the will of the late
Mr. Thelluson should make a demise of the whole pro
perty comprised in the will, or purchased after the date of
that instrument, together with the mansion and furniture at
Bioadsworth, to the present petitioner, Lord Randlesham,
for the term of 50 years, if he should so long live, at the
average annual rent of 11,500!. payable half yearly, with
ce- t tin covenants foe r,,,airs, security fur rent, and with a
ower of re-entry if the rent was not forthcoming in 105
. aye after the date of the respectively appointed periods of
half-yearly payment. The object of the present application
was to have it referred to the Master to approve of the
terms of a proper lease to be executed in pursuance of the
provisions of the Act in question, with liberty to state
circum-tances specially, as some questions olght after-
wards arise for the opinion and direction of the Court.
Mr. TINNEY appeared for the trustees, but did not op.
pose the application.
His HONOUR made the order according to the prayer of
the petition.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY.

This being the last day of terra, his Honour the VICE.
CUANCELLOR was occupied lip to the period of our re-
porter leaving with motions behind the bar of no general
interest.