The Sun.
London, England, 1832-12-13 00:00:00

HUGHES V. WYNN.

It will be recollected that in this case a petition
was presented, praying his Lordship to order cer-
rain exceptions set down for hearing before the Vice
Chancellor to be struck off, in order that the de- '
fendant might be compelled to set them down for
hearing before the Master of the Rolls, in whose
paper there were other exceptions of the same kind,
and arising out of the same facts.
The LORD CHANCELLOR postponed his decision,
for the purpose of consulting their Honours on the
question of jurisdiction, and now observed that ques-
tion was of too much importance to be decided
without more elaborate argument before the three
Judges in Equity sitting together. Under these
circumstances, therefore, and having consulted their
Honours on the subject, he should request the
Master of the Rolls to hear the exceptions set down
in the Vice-Chancellor's pager for him, and he

should further request his Honour to hear them ac-
cordingly on Monday next.
Mr. KNIGHT, feeling some doubts whether Coun-
sel could be fairly instructed by that time, notice
was ordered to be given to-morrow of the day when
they would be ready.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DEC. 12.

FIELD, V. BEZANT, GENT.

This was an action brought to recover a sum of
3331., alleged to be due on six bills and promissory
notes, drawn by the plaintiff and accepted by the
defendant, and dated in 1818.
Mr. PLATT, for the plaintiff, stated that, against
this demand, the defendant intended to set off a bill
of costs, which the defendant claimed for business
done by him, as solicitor in the Court of Chancery
for the plaintiff. That bill of costs, as presented by
the defendant, amounted to 7071., and that was
reduced on taxation in the Court of Chancery to
3031., and, giving credit for that sum, the plaintiff
would still have to receive 301.
Mr. LAW, for the defendant, observed that the
amount of the sum charged in the bill of costs,
although it extended over transactions for many
years, had only been reduced on the business
done, to 5701. Out of that sum the defendant
admitted the payment of money on account, which
reduced the claim to 4221., which was the amount
of the taxed bill; so that this was much more
than sufficient to cover the whole of the sum
claimed by the plaintiff. But then, as the bill of
costs, as given in by the defendant, had been re-
duced by taxation by more than one-sixth, the costs
of the taxation, by a rule of the Court of Chan-
cery, were fixed on the defendant ; and those costs
of taxation amounted to the exorbitant sum of about
118/. or thereabouts, which reduced the bill to the
3031. at which it was taken by the plaintiff. But,
besides this, he had to set off a sum of 1951. due
from the plaintiff to the defendant, on a settled ac-
count, authenticated by the plaintiff himself, and he
had also to set off a sum charged for extra, or
usurious interest on these bill and notes, up to 1826.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for
291. and a fraction.
Mr. LAW craved leave to move the Court on the
point whether the bill of costs ought to be taken at
422/. or at 303/., and to enter a verdict for the de-
fendant in case the Court should be of opinion that
the amount of the bill ought to be taken at 422/. ;
and leave was given.