The Sun.
London, England, 1832-06-28 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

The LORD CHANCemom resumed his sittings in Lincoln's
Inn-hall, being the fist seal after Term.

MOTIONS.

The Court heard motions. -Sir EDWARD SUGD'EN, on
finding great difficulty in proceeding to move, in conse.
quence of the absence of other Counsel, took the opportu-
nity of stating, that as he might just as well he at home,
he should go back to the Vice-Chancellor's Court to hold
briefs in motions. He hnd given up holding motion briefs
there for the convenience of the Court and the Bar—he
was the only one whs had done so ; this was the way he
had been rewarded—he could submit to it no longer.

ROLL'S COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

JUDGMENT.-WILLIMOTT V. OGILVY.

His Honour the MasTER, of the ROLLS gave judgment
this morning in this case. In the year 1816 an Act of
Parliament passed for establishing a fund for the benefit of
the widows, children, and nominees of officers and other
persons in the department of the Customs ; that fund was
to be formed by a poundage on the salaries of the persons
who adopted the system, and by subscriptions in the naturf.
of premiums of insurance. The defendant, Mr. Ogilvy.
was appointed secretary to that fund, and it occurred to
him that the fund would derive considerable advantage if
they were to become the purchasers of a patent office, held
for the benefit of the family of Mr. Frankland Lewis,
called the Clerk of the Bills of Entries in the
Customs, which gave to the party holding it a
a right to inspect all the documents relating to the Cous-
toms, and thereof to publish information extremely use-
ful to the mercantile world. Mr. Ogilvy considered that
the extension of that information might be very much
increased, and the office made much more profitable.
A negotiation was set on foot with the Patentee by the
Directors of the fund under the direction of Mr. Oglivy
and Mr. Hume, which terminated in liberty being given
to the directors of the fund to publish the bill of entry not
only during the existence of the present patent but suc-
ceeding ones ; 20001. being to he paid to the patentee.
This arrangement being made, and Mr. Ogilvy undertak-
ing the printing, it was agreed that he should have half the
profits. Some time afterwards it occuring to Mr. Oelivy
that the hills of entry could be printed with much
more accuracy and expedition in a private than in a pub-
lic office, Mr. Ogilvy gave notice to the then printers of the
hills of entry, Messrs. Robra and Venables, to discon•
tinue the printing at the end of three months. The di
rectors of the fund were acquainted with this re-
striction on the part of Mr. Ogilvy, and agreed that
he should have the same profit in respect of the
printing, as Messrs. Robra and Venables bad had, such
charges had been made by Mr. Ogilvy, and allowed by the
Directors in his accounts. In June, 1818, a formal in-
strument was executed between the parties to carry the
agreement into effect. The question was, whether Mr.
Ogilvy was to he called on to account for the profits he had
derived in his office of printer. His Honour thought that
Mr. Ogilvy was clearly entitled to all the profits he had
derived from any printing connected with the joint concern.
The bill sought to set aside several deeds and minutes.
The Court must declare that Mr. Ogilvy should ac-
count from Ist February, 1822, for the profit derived to
the concern from the publication of the bills of entry.
With respect to costs, the Court would not give them on
either side.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

CHARLES DAVIS, EXECUTOR OF CHARLES DAVIR, V. THE

EXECUTORS OF TDE DUKE or YORK.
This was an action brought to recover 5,3501. upon a
bond given by the late Duke of York to the deceased
Charles Davis, on the 21st January, 1801, to which the
defendants pleaded, first, The want of proof that the bond
was that of the late Duke ; secondly, That if it was the
bond, it was given for money won by gambling; thirdly,
That the amount was partly due upon gambling transac
tions, and that the document was given for money won by
betting.

The Jury, after hearing evidence, returned a verdict for
be plaintiff.

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

THE KING V. EDWARD JOHN HOWARD.
Mr. CAMPBELL (with whom Was Mr. PLATT) stated
the case for the prosecution. It was an indictment
against the defendant, who was an attorney of this Court,
for wilful and corrupt perjury. The prosecutor, Captain
Garth, was a most unfortunate young man, whose mis-
fortunes had arisen chiefly from the bad advice he had re-
ceived, and from falling into those hands from which he
had been too late wrested; with one exception, however,
he had never been guilty of more than indiscretion, and
that exception he had regretted, and would continue to re-
gret to the last hour of his life. The circumstances of the
present case were these :—Mr. Howard became Captain
Garth's attornsy in 1826, and was so until October 1830,
when Captain Garth changed his attorney. It was al-
waysllie affairs, and was wholly careless of pecuniary accounts.
supposed, and justly so, that this young man neglected
changed his attorney, however, he was desirous
of ha
a settlement with Mr. Howard, for which pur-
pose he wished to have Mr. Howard's bills of costs and
creditliaing
vng
for the large sums he had paid Mr. Howard. How-
ever, Mr. Howard for a long time neglected to send in his
bills of costs, but at last, to avoid the peril of an attach-
ment, he delivered Captain Garth his bills, making the
balance due to himself about 4,0001. ; a Judge's order was
obtained for taxing those bills, and ascertaining the true
statement of the account; in the course of taxation it
appeared that Mr. Howard had received 800/., for which
he had not credited Captain Garth, and the result of taxa-
tion was, that instead of Captain Garth owing Mr.
Howard a balance, Mr. Howard had been over-
paid 510/. 17s. 7d., besides which, Mr. Howard had to
pay the costs of taxation, amounting to 171/. 10s.
In the course of taxation, Mr. Howard claimed credit for
1,906/. 14s. 7P. on a warrant of attorney, dated Jan. 30,
1827. The circumstances attending this warrant of at-
torney were these : in January, 1529, Mr. Howard went
down to General Garth's seat in Dorsetshire, where Capt.
Garth was, and presenting a warrant of attorney, re-
quested him to sign it, in order to save his (Captain G.'s)
property, particularly his house at Melton Mowbray,
which would otherwise be seized by a creditor, who had
got an execution against him ; believing it to be a friendly
proceeding, and the only way of saving his property, Capt.
Garth signed the warrant of attorney, but on the 31st of
January, Mr. Howard himself issued an execution under
that instrument upon Captain Garth's property. In
consequence of this proceeding, General Garth paid the
sheriff 1,600/, of which the sheriff paid Mr. Howard
1,3001. Now it would be proved that there had been no
bills of costs delivered and no settlement made or balance
struck prior to the date of this warrant of attorney, although
it was sworn in one of the defendant's affidavits against
the rule obtained by Captain Garth that some settlement
had taken place. The assignments of perjury were upon
what the defendant had sworn in his two affidavits. The
first was that it was not true as sworn by the defendant,
that be bad delivered any bills of costs before the date of
the Warrant of attorney ; secondly, that the defendant,
in swearing that on the 19th of February, 1827,
he bad received, on Captain Garth's account, only
1781., had sworn falsely, for it would be proved that
he received from Cox and Greenwood 278/., which was
for the express purpose of paying Counsel's fees, defend-
ing the suit of Sir Jacob Astley v. Garth ; thirdly, that
the defendant, on the 28th of December, received, on
account of Capt. Garth, from Messrs. Jenner, of Doctors'
Commons (by order of Lady Astley), 400/., the receipt of
which the defendant denied. Those were the short facts
of the case, the whole of which the Learned Counsel said
he would most fully prove. He then proceeded to call the
following witnesses :
Previous to the reading of the affidavits, all the wit-
nesses on both sides (except Sir Herbert Taylor, who sat
on the Bench) were ordered out of Court.
The affidavits and rule of Court were then read.
Mr. Whitelock, solicitor for the prosecution, who
produced the affidavits, and identified the signatures, was
cross-examined by Sir JAMES SCARLETT. Was first in-
troduced to Captain Garth iu 1830 ; had been berme that
concerned in an action at the instance of Mr. Stephens,
against Captain Garth for a debt of 270/. ; but that
money was never paid. Witness did not sue out execu-
tion in consequence of Mr. Howard's representation to
him. After the affidavits had been sworn, on which the
charge of perjury was founded, witness offered Mr. Howard
1,0001, on the part of Captain Garth, if he (Mr. Howard)
would give him up all documents and papers belonging
to the captain, but no bills of costs had then been delivered.
Among those documents was a box of papers which Mr.
Howard had been served with a notice from certain suitors
in Chancery, not to part with. That box of papers was
the subject of disputation between Captain G. and Mr.
Howard, and occasioned the change from Mr. Howard to
witness. Witness did not know of his own knowledge
that Captain Garth had taken any means to procure those
papers from Mr. Howard's hands.
Sir JAMES SOARLETT--Mere they original papers cr
copies ?

Mr. CAMPBELL submitted that those questions were ir-
relevant to this inquiry. He was very anxious that no
names of persons, of any rank in life, should be brought
forward.

Sir JAIIB9 ScAsaArr did not know what the Learned