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

LORD V. KELLET.

This was a motion for striking out the name of
the plaintiff, who had been made a party to a suit
without his consent, and for compelling Mr. Sykes,
the solicitor, who made him a party, to pay all the
costs. The question was argued on Monday, and
stood over for further consideration.
The LORD CHANCELLOR now felt he was bound
to comply with the terms of the motion, and to
compel Mr. Sykes to pay all the costs. His Lord-
ship gave no costs on account of the present mo-
tion, as that might seem to cast an imputation on
Mr. Sykes, which was very far from his intention.
It might, moreover, seem to convey an approbation
of the conduct of Mr. Postlethwaite, the attorney
for the other side, who had not, in his opinion,
given any good reason for the reluctance he dis-
played in affording information to Mr. Sykes, which
it could not have been any great advantage to him
to withhold.

His LORDSHIP, in the course of his examination
of the evidence, took occasion to animadvert in terms
of well-deserved censure on the practice which had
grown up among the Masters Extraordinary of the
Court in allowing persons to swear to affidavits the
statements in which they did not fully comprehend.
It was the duty of the Master to have the affidavits
read over to those who were to sign them, and to
ascertain that they thoroughly understood every
statement they contained. The practice, too, of
describing persons by the name of gentlemen, when
they occupied a very different station in society,
was catculated to mislead the Court, and might be
prejudicial to the administration of justice. In the
affidavits before him, for instance, he found a person
described as a gentleman, although he proved to be
only a stable-boy, or at best a driver of horses.

SHORE V. LEE.

This was a motion to compel the defendant, an
attorney, of Wakefield, to pay 16,0001. and 2,7001.
into Court, the money being the alleged proceed.. of
property which he managed as an executor of Mr.
Thomas Hardy. His Lordship ordered 2,2504 to
be paid in, and took time to consider whether he
should extend the amount. Alter examining the
affidavits he was of opinion that the 4501. which
Mr. Lee claimed for professional services should be
also paid in, making the whole 2,7001.; but he saw
no reason to require any more.
There was another motion for the payment of
1,4001. principal and interest, of bonds for which
Mr. Lee was joint security. His Lordship could
not agree to this motion if he took the whole an-
swer as bearing on the case, instead of deciding from
a part only. He dismissed that motion therefore
with costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 9.

REX V. ST. MARY, NEIVINGTON.

In this case the question was for the opinion of
the Court, whether a wrote, by residing in the house
of the vicar, but residing there in right of his office,
acquired a settlement.
Mr. THEssiGER contended that no settlement was
acquired ; that the curate did not reside as tenant of
the house, but as a separate person, by license of
the Bishop, and that the parsonage-house was not to
be considered in the occupation of the curate, for it
was annexed to the living, and could not be separated
from it. _

Mr. BARNEWALL, in supporting the claim of
settlement, remarked that the Act said, " occupier
or tenant," and that it was clear the curate was an
occupier within the meaning of that provision.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE agreed with the ar-
gument that the curate was an occupier, and thought
besides that his occupation was of that beneficial
kind which gave him an interest, and enabled him
to gain a settlement.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 9.

PACK V. ALEXANDER.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a
gentleman of fortune, to recover a 501. note. The
plaintiff wrote to the defendant, who was his solici-
tor, to send him a 501. note through the Post-office.
The defendant enclosed the note in a letter, and gave
it to his clerk to put in the Post-office, instead of
which he (the clerk) gave it to the bellman. The
note was lost, and the plaintiff brought his action,
upon the ground that the defendant had not fol-
lowed his directions, in not putting the letter into
the General Post-office. The Jury found a verdict
for the plaintiff. On a former day a rule was ob•
tamed to set aside the verdict.

Mr. Sergeant COLERIDGE to-day was heard again&
the rule, and Mr. Sergeant WILDE in support of it
The Court made the rule absolute for a new trial