The Sun.
London, England, 1802-06-24 00:00:00

£4ll' REPORT.

C9I,7RT KiNG's BC Cl{. j INs

UMON!,():,i rt% rt,,‘rE.l).

THIs was an iVtion 4gainst the M;fendant foy
practising as an Attorney, Without having enteted
his Certificate. .• •

Mr. ER' KINE vco for atiew Trial, on the
grout 4 that the evi(lenee did not support the. decla„
ration. 'He stated that the Defendant .was: a very re.:
spedable praditioner, and had in fad taken kkut his
Certificate,but from,press ofbusineis had neglected to
file it. The declaration consisted of several counts,.
in all of which the Plaintiff failed, excel,' in the se-.
coed, and he was now about to ccinteial,- that in.
proof of that he had failed'also. Than declarationl
charged upon the Defendant, that on the zest of.
November he did prosecute in a stilt then depending,,
wherein W. Smithy was Plaintiff, by then and there
filing a.declaration in the said suit with the Clerk
of the 'Declarations. To prove this they-,produced
notice of declaratilfn in the hand-writing! of the
Defendant, and also .the declaration, which had
upon it a memorandum, that it was filed.. But as,
this-rnemotandiun'as in pradiee:_written, before it
was filed in fad, he contended that.it -was no proof
Of its being so filed. The Court being -of a different.
opinion as to this point, the Learned Counsel then
said, that he had another Motion in Arrest of;
Judgment, which was, that a coniMonlnformer had
no right of adion, and on this 'ground the Court
granted a Rule Nisi.

WRIGHT V. LLOYD.

Mr. Grans moved' in this cause for a rule to
skew cause why the warrant giyen in it for enter-
ing up-a judgment: to secure an annuity, should not
he given up to be cancelled. He stated that Mr.
Wright, in the yeak 1791, granted an annuity
of :701.-per annum to the Defendant. •In the' year
1793, he granred•to .him another annuity of 4.01.
per annum. In the-year 1798', he was elected He-
brew Professor ..of•orie of our Universities, and
then he .entered into an agreement with Mr.
Lloyd, that he would assign to him the profits
of his P,rot;?ssorship, upon .con ideration that the
latter should give-up the annuity. deeds. In conse-
qugnce of this agreement, Mr. L. had delivered up
the annuity, deed, relative ro the first annuity of
701. per anti. but. had withheld the latter deeds re-
veaitig the-annuity oi 401. In addition to this
agre,ernent„ ,had the memorial of the annuity
bond for 401. per ann. in which it Oas described as
beatittgAlate in, the year t 792, whereas it wai in
fad dated. in_ 1793,- Tbis in fad, antler the An_
noity. Aft, was sufficient to entitle him to his present
Motion._
. The Court said he Came -too late. He bad un-
questionably a right to, the Deeds on the grounds 11
stated, but to enforce the agreement, the proper
application would be to a Court of Equity.

EDMONSON DAVISON.

'This also was a Penal AElionagainsean Attorney,
for not having entered his Certificate. It was brought
to recover -fitrccn penalties ; but the Learned Coun-
sel stated:, that Lord KrNYon, before whom the cause
wits tried, was of opinion, .that only one penalty
could be recovered for acting in one suit, and not a
penalty for each stage: of-the suit. • Inconsequence
the, Plaintiff only recovered on one count. When the
Bill was referredtO the 'Master for takatinn, it W 33
insisted by one party that no costs ought.to be allowed
in the fourteen counts, where no verdiet tv-as taken
'but on the other' side it was contended, that full
costs ought to be taxed—the Master taxed the full
'costs, leaving the patties to apply to ;he Court to
'settle it. It Was now moved that the naster shotild
at .
review his taxation. •The^Learned Counsel admitted
• the applicatitm 'was' made rather late, but he said
the-Plaintiff had threatened then with other suits
•in -case they re-taxed the Bill,. which induced 'them
to -lay- by until the limited tithe for bringing the
.
aftion had elapsed:Rule refused.'

IRE

V. 3. AND JHO. GOSLINS,

. This was an Adion to recover Penalties against the
Defenddnts, as,Proaors, for a -similar omission. It
was moved in arrest of judgment, that the penalty
was- taken :against each,. whereas it was but one
offence, The court, however; were of 4 different
-opinion,

4.E151,/ANT WHEEL*ItIGUT.

In this Cause, which was the firQ Cause tried
before Lord ELLENBOROUGH, on Friday, April 30,
at Guildhall, a new =trial was ordered, on the ground
that it tvas a verdia against evidence.