The Sun.
London, England, 1828-04-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
EX-PARTE CURLE IN THE MATTER OF HARVEY, A RANK-

RUPT.

This appeal was partly heard yesterday ; the ar-
guments were resumed at the sitting of the Court
this morning, and were not concluded when we left
it. The original application was to supersede the
commission on the ground of concert, which his
Honour, the Vice-Chancellor, dismissed, and the
present was the appeal against that judgment.

VICE.CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
Nothing of the slightest interest occurred in this
Court up to time of our paper going to press.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

FLYNN V. WALKER.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to
recover the sum of 291. from the defendant, who was
recently Assistant-Manager in the office of the Men-
dicity Society.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE and Mr. C. PHILLIPS ap-
peared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS
for the defendant.
It appeared from the statement of the Counsel
for the plaintiff, that two Irish ladies of the
name of Flynn were in great, distress in London,
and applied to the Mendicity Society for relief.—
The society voted them some money, and several
people of rank also paid monies to the defendant on
account of the plaintiff. The whole of these monies
had not been paid over, and it itas afterwards disco-
vered that lie had received more than had been ac-
counted for to Miss Flynn. The present action was
consequently brought.
To prove this case, Mr. Stevens the present As-
sistant-Manager, was called, and produced a private
book of Mr. Walker's, in which was entered the
Misses Flynn's account. There was so much con-
fusiott, however, in the manner in which the ac-
count was kept, that the Lord Chief Justice said,
that the present was a case in which it would be
most desirable to have Mr: Walker himself examin-
ed; and as that gentleman must, he supposed, feel
desirous to go forth to the public as an honest man,
he might perhaps consent to such an arrangement.
After some consultation between Counsel, this
was agreed to, and the case was referred to a gentle-
man at the bar for arbitration.
- BALL v. WRIGHT.
This was an action brought by Miss Ball, an
agent of Mr. Charles Wright's, against that cele-
brated gentleman for salary, and also for certain
small sums disbursed by her upon his account.
It appeared by the evidence of the father of Miss
Ball that his daughter was engaged as an agent by
Mr. Wright to sell wine for him at a branch house
in Chichester-place, Gray's Inn-lane. Her salary
was to be 255. per week, and the other disburse-
ments were for candles, &c.
Upon his cross-examination, it was almost im-
possible to get from him a direct answer to a single
question, but this appeared to be in some measure
the result of agitation, and an eagerness to reason
npon rather than to answer a question.
The second witness,a Mrs. Sadler,who succeeded
as agent for Chichester-place, when asked as to the
quantity of stock handed over to her by the plain-
tiff, said that she could not recollect.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE—Why, Mr. Wright is ra-
ther unfortunate in his agents.
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—The champaigne, Bro-
thar Wilde.—(A laugh.)
On his cross-examination the witness said that
the plaintiff had told her that her father and not
herself was the agent of Mr. Wright.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE then admitted that he must
give up the case.
The'LoßD CHIEF JUSTICE then said, that this
was the fate of almost every action brought in forma
pauperis. The experience of the Bar must have
shown them the justice of the remark.
The plaintiff was then nonsuited.
Mr. Sergeant TADDY—I believe, my Lord, ac-
cording to law, that I may now move that the lady
be whipped. (Great laughter.) Our courtesy,
however, will prevent our making such a motion.
(Much laughter.)
The LORD CIIIEF JUSTICE—I shall make no such
order, brother Taddy. (A laugh.)
Mr. Sergeant TADDY—We shall not trouble your
Lordship.