The Sun.
London, England, 1835-11-21 00:00:00

CHANCERY

THIS DAY.

The Lords CommissionerS(the MASTER. Of the ROLLS
and Mr. Justice BOSANQUET) sat in this Court to-da) to
hear appeals.
SITTINGS OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS IN THIS

COURT.
Sir WM. HORNE, on their Lordships taking their seats,
wished, before the regular business was proceeded with,
to draw the attention o their Lordships to the state of the
Court. In consequence of the Nisi Pries sitting of the
Court of Common Pleas taking place in that Court, the
Chancery Bar were entirely without any accommodation.
Independent of this (whether it was the energy of the Nisi
Prius he would not pretend to say) the whole of the inner
bar had been broken to pieces, the screws taken out, and .
the whole was fully down. He trusted that their Lord-
ships would not allow such a state of things to exist.
The MASTER of the ROLLS ordered the Usher of the
Court to have the bar repaired by Monday.
Mr. WAKEFIELD thought the sitting at Nisi Pries of thea
Court of Common Pleas in that Court ought to be put
stop to. Since the fire, when the Lords and Commons ,
were not sitting, that was the only place the Bar had for
consultations.
Sir Wie. HORNE said that at the present moment the
only room the Bar had, for consultations was occupied by
the Petty and Grand Jury, and being deprived of the use
of the Court, the Bar were driven about from pillar to post,
and were obliged to have their consultations in any hole or
corner they could find.
The MASTER of the RoLLs observed that the speedy
administration of justice was the great object of himself and
his brother Lord Commissioner, when they consented to tho
Nisi Pries sitting of the Court of Common Pleas taking
place in that Court.
Lord Commissioner BOSANQUET said, that according t°
the late Act of Parliament, the Court of Common Mao
was obliged to sit at Nisi Prins and in Banco at the saw°
time during term. Now, the Court of King's Bench
bed
two Courts, the Court of Exchequer had the same numr,
but the Court of Common Pleas had only one. Some time
since they had the use of the Sessions-house, but of that they
had.been deprived, and in consequence of the alterations
that were going .on, they were prevented from using the
Duchy Court, the advantage of the use of which they had
previously had. Without, therefore, they could have the
use of the Court of Chancery, many suitors would necessa-
rily have their cases postponed.
Sir W. HORNE said, that although it might be a great in-
convenience to the Court of Common Pleas, it was a matter of
serious inconvenience to the Chancery Bar. There was at the
present moment no possibility of having consultations, ex-
cept in the passages from Court to Court. Nay, they could
not even have consultations there, for it was only yester-
day that he (Sir William Home) was in consultation with
a client in the passage on the most important subject, when
out came the Usher from the Nisi Pries Court of Cornuo°
Pleas, and ordered him to be silent.
The MASTER of the ROLLS said that he was perfeetlY
aware of the inconvenience resulting to the Bar from the
appropriation of the Court to the use of the Court of Cool-
smon Pleas, but he thought the first consideration was the
due and speedy administration of justice ; if, therefore,
there was "any Court disengaged, it ought to be devoted t°
the use of any Court that required it.
Their Lordships then proceeded with appeals. •

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY..

His Honour the VICE-CHANCELLOR was occupied the
whole day with the part-heard case of " Powis v. I‘los'
field."

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

EX PARTE EDGAR, CLERK, IN RE POWNALL.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was instructed in this case
move that the rule be made absolute. It was an aPPbcaci
tion to strike an attorney off the Rolls of the Court, ans
the rule had been enlarged .to the present term, as it 10
stated by his learned friend, Mr. Kelly, that some negotial
tion was going on between the parties. Since then be loct
understood that Sir Frederick Pollock had received 00

instructions upon the subject.
Sir F. POLLOCK admitted that the rule had been err
larged to the present term, but it could not now come bei
fore the Court, as the enlarged rule bad not been servea
upon the defendant until the middle of Trinity Term, lint
the party was not consequently apprised that the prese°
penal application would be proceeded with. It was DI
that a negotiation was on foot for the satisfactory settlerne°
of the pecuniary transactions out, of which the present 01°'
tion arose, but the Attorney-General would not of course
persevere in an application to strike a gentleman off
Rolls of that Court, without affording him an opportunity
°
showing cause against it.
°
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I cannot press to have ill
rule made absolute, as Mr. Pownall was under that mistake'
and I have no objection to have it enlarged to next term
with liberty to Mr. Pownall to file affidavits.
Sir F. POLLOCK suggested that it would be better to
submit the matter to some common friend for arrangerne°,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected. His instructiol
were merely to have the rule made absolute, and he bad j 0
consenting to have the rule enlarged, gone to the uttnes
stretch of liberality. of
Sir F. POLLOCK apologized for his shocking want t
submission to the Attorney-General. It was admitted that
the present application was not to get rid of an improP,e;a
person, but that when an attorney becomes bankrupt,
creditor may get a share of his propert.
Mr. Justice PATTEscor—lt is impos
sible for the C°urt,
not to assume that there were other than mere peeuni3T'S
matters alleged on the face of the affidavits on whicch tble
rule had been granted. There must have been some harg
that the defendant had acted contrary to his duty. that
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL-Mr. Pownall may suo“ e,
they are not true, but the charges alleged are of the most sthe
rious nature as affecting his character.- He thought
to
discussion bad proceeded as far. as was necessary—'ll

enlarged to next term.
WILTON V. CHAMBERS. of
This was a rule for an attachment against the Sheriff
the County of Dorset, for a contempt of Court, i not
the ;,°,5,
having made a sufficient return to a writ of fieri
f ac
sued out by the plaintiff. ,a'
56
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now appeared to show
against the rule, and concluded that it must, be dischOgtd
inasmuch as the affidavit upon which it had been cergr6l3'
was wholly insufficient. The affidavit set forth, that 4, ~er
tain person had searched the Record Office of the 111:01
Treasury at Westminster, and " that he was advisecl9:o
believes, that no sufficient return to said writ has 'for
mach?' The writ was not set out, nor was there anY fur ell
statement than the deponent's belief ; and upon 5.11,:$
grounds the plaintiff had applied to the Court of an
Bench to attach the Sheriff, without giving the Court. 0
opportunity of knowing whether the return was sufscle
or not.at
Mr. ALEXANDER, in support of the rule, subrnitte-At , foro
if the copy of the return to the writ was brought beivt
the Court in time for the discussion upon the motion,
would be sufficient. tbc
Mr. Justice PATTESON—There is nothing beforee
ot,
Court but this affidavit, which we do not think sufc'
The rule must be discharged, with costs.
.1