The Sun.
London, England, 1832-11-09 00:00:00

ROLLS COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

PURCELL V. MACNAMARA.
This case came before the Court upon the petition of
be representatives of the late Mr. Whitton, the Solicitor
of King's Road, praying that an order obtained by Mrs.
Margaret Purcell might be set aside on the ground of hav-
ing been improperly obtained from the Court, by that lady
and her solicitor Mr. Cooke.
His Honour the Mama of the RoLLs, after the
case had been argued, said that Mr. Whitton, as
the mortgagee and creditor of Mrs. Francis Purcell,
being in possession of certain estates in the West Indies,
by his consignee and receiver under the order of the Court
made in 1826. Mrs. Margaret Purcell, as the represen-
tative of Mrs. Frances Purcell, in the month of February,
1832, applied to the Court by petition as on consent,
taking no notice whatever of the order of 1826, by which
Mr. Whitton was in possession, and obtained any order
that she should be put in possession of the estate in ques-
tion. In the opinion of his Honour, if the parties
who proceeded to obtain that order, were aware
of the previous order of the Court, it would be
fit that they should be visited with the utmost severity.
In the affifavits which had been filed, those parties at-
tempted to excuse themselves for several reasons. In
the first place they had stated that the order
of 1826 was an order irregularly obtained by Mr.
Whitton, and they were entitled to treat it as a nul-
lity. An application was made by them to the Lord
Chancellor to discharge that order, which his Lordship bad
thought proper to discharge with costa. In his opinion,
if the facts were as the respondents had stated, there
would have been no justification in the course pursued by
the parties to obtain the order which it was the object of
the present petition to discharge. Another reason was
that Mr. Whitton had not a demand to the extent of the
security which he had obtained from Mrs. Frances Pur-
cell. There had been no evidence whatever brought
before the Court upon that subject ; but if even
the allegation was true, it formed no excuse what-
ever for the conduct of the respondents, as their
proper course would have been to have adopted steps to
have the amount revised and corrected. Another
reason was, that the parties were not aware of the ex-
istence of the order. Mr. Cocker had sworn positively to
that fact, and the Court was therefore bound to believe
it. It was further said, that Mrs. Margaret Purcell had
also no knowledge of the order. In the opinion of
his Honour that would not excuse her from the pay-
ment of costs, for Mr. Whitton's estate could never be
burdened with the costs of a proceeding, which had been
brought forward fur the purpose of correcting that which
had beon done by Mrs. Purcell. There was greater reason to
question the accuracy of Mrs. Purcell's statement, and the
letter on which the Lord Chancellor made up his mind,
that she was aware of the order, strengthened his Honour
in that opinion. On the part of Mr. Cocker, it was said
that he ought to have his costs. His Honour did
not see how he could give him his costs, when there was
so much reason for the institution of the present proceedings,
and making him a party. It was true he had by his oath
relieved himself from the charges which had been brought
against him, but the Court could not give him his costs.
His Honour therefore felt himself called upon to grant the
prayer of the present petition, discharging the order com-
plained of, observing that those who were agents in im-
iroper proceedings, were as liable to the vindictive pro-
cess of the Court, nor could principals, though their agents
had acted improperly, escape.
KING'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)

DOE, DEM. HUNGATE V. CLAPHAM AND GASCOIGNZ.
Mr. Serjeant JONES moved for a rule to show cause
why there should not be a new trial in this case, on the
ground that the Jury found a verdict for the defendants,
contrary to the evidence. There had already been three
trials between the same parties, and respecting the same
property. The lessor of the plaintiff claimed three divi-
sions of property, viz., property whieh originally be-
longed to the family of the Hungates, and detailed by
two deeds of 1662 and 1682 ; secondly, property which
he claimed as heir-at-law of the late Sir T. Gascoigne,
and which formerly belonged to the Hungate family,
and thirdly, property which had been devised by the will
of Robert Huogate. On the first trial the Jury found a
verdict for the plaintiff, thereby establishing that b• was

, ,
~nant in till. .% tit; was cartiad down, and
afterwards a anti!, which was trio t at the List Yo k
Assizes. acid a verdict found for the defendant, theieby
negativing the fact of the plaintiff, being heir at
law to Sir Thomas Gascoigne. The main questions
on the last trial were as to the plaintiff being the
heir at law, and also to the legality of a will dated 1809.
As to the former point, it appeared on the trial to be este.
/dished, and no attempt was made to disprove it, so that
the only question that was particularly left to the Jury
was, respecting the will of 1809. The Jury therefore in
finding the plaintiff not to be the heir at law, had occa-
sioned great surprise not only to him (Mr. Sergeant Jones),
but also to the Learned Baron (Rolland) who tried the
cause.

The COURT intimated their intention of speaking to
Mr, Baron Bolland before they gave an opinion.
Mr. WHITE moved for an attachment against a person,
whom he did not name, for a contempt, in not obeying a
subpcena issued from this Court. It had been found that
it was exceedingly difficult to enforce subpoenas issued by the
Courts of Quarter Sessions, and in the present instance
it had been deemed necessary to obtain a subpcena from the
Court, to compel the attendance of a person at the Middle-
sex Sessions. The subpcena was "served, and a shilling
given with it, hut the party refused to c bey it.
The CouRT granted a rule to show cause.