The Sun.
London, England, 1826-11-17 00:00:00

THE PUBLIC.

Ills Loansme desired to take this opportunity of stating pub-
licly, for the purpose of the public's knowing it, that be had seen
the practice of this Court abused, in consequence of what some
publications called Chancrry prisoners, and what other authors
called Chancedlor'sprisoners. With reference► to this, the Public
ought really to understand, that persons imprisoned for contempt,
were not imprisoned for having been guilty of some disrespect to,
or contempt of the Court, but were so, under a process of
the Court, for assuring to individuals to whom money was owing,
the payment of that sum. The public might as well call a per-
son committed to prison, for the nonpayment of a sum of money
a Court of Law had declared to be due to another, the Lord Chief
Justice's prisoner, as to say the Chancellor's prisonei! His Lord-
ship wished further to add, that some publications considered
such persons not entitled to have the benefit of the Insolvent
Debtors' Act; but this was a most erroneous notion, for he him-
self was the individual who had taken every care to give such
prisoners a remedy under that Act.

VICE-CHANCELLORS COURT.--(Tints DAY.)
PRACTICE OF THE COURT.

JAMES v. SHADGROW.

In this case an order had been made on the 6th of May 1825,
that the plaintiff's bill be dismissed with costs for want of prose.
cation; every necessary step was taken to make thisnrder effectual,
but on the 18th of December, 1826, the plaintiff applied to the'
Court to have the order set aside for irregularity, and on the 20th
of the same month an order to that effect was made by his Honour.
A copy of the latter order'had not been served on the clerk, or on
the solicitor of the defendant, nor had any thing been done by the
plaintiff to follow it up. In, consequence of this neglect on the
part of the plaintiff, a notice was in February last served on his
solicitor, that unless he proceeded with the cause the defendant
would act under the former.

Mr. Sit/a/WELL now moved that the defendant be allowed to
act under the former order of dismissal in the same manner as
though the plaintiff had never obtained the latter order.

The Vici-CitArwri,ton—You should rather move that this
latter order be in the first instance discharged.
Mr- SitAnwm. replied that the order in question had never
been drawn up, and therefore that he could not apply to have it
discharged. His client merely wished to be allowed to proceed in
the same manner as if the latter order had never been made.—
The application was granted.

COURT OF KINGS BENCH.—(TinsDior.)
BUCKINGHAM V. BANKES.

Mr. PARK moved for a rule to chew cause why the Master
should not proceed to tax the expenses which the defendant in-
curred by keeping two foreigners in this country (in order to give
testimony in this case), from the 22d of February, 1825, until
the period when the trial took place. The trial having. been put
off from that time, at the instance of tlic plaintiff, on such comb-
graoted.
The Court was occupied during the rest. of the morning in hear-
ing arguments in spacial Cal/0114 whieb were attended with no public
merest.

COURT OF COMMON ME A S.—(rsiJs DA Y. )
wtwAnts POPE.

This was an action of damages, at the instance of the plaintiff;
Mrs. Lucy Williams, against the defendant, for a nuisance, occa-
sioned by sonic smelting works, erected by him close to her house,
whereby it was for a long time rendered useless. It came to be
tried at the Gloucester Assizes, before Mr. Justice Burrough, who
thought it was a matter peculiarly adapted for • arbitration, and
therefore strongly recommended the parties to refer to some qua-
lified person, to ascertain the value of the plaintiff's property before
the nuisance was erected, which was accordingly done. The
person fixed upon was Mr. Sturge, a surveyor, who examined the
property, and issued an award, valuing the property at 750/.,
which the defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiff, on her convey-
ing it over to him. But it afterwards turned out, that she could
not convey a good title, because the Lord of the Manor had
reserved the minerals to himself. There was a coal mine on the
property, which would have been very convenient fbr the de-
fendant, and as he could not get it, he declined purchasing the
property, in consequence of which the cause came again 'into
Court.

Sergeant VAUGHAN this day opposed a role obtained by the
plaintiff, to, show cause why the matter should not be remitted
buck to Mr. Sturge, to ascertain the actual damage.---Rule
discharged.

COURT OF EXCHRQUER—(Tuts DAY.)
(Before the Lord Chief Baron ALIMANDICR, and Barons GRAHAM,
GA/tItOW, and Iien.LOCK.)
HOWELL V. THE MARL OP POWIS AND moms.

Mr. Txtdrz.l stated this bill to be at the instance of a freehold
tenant of the Lordship of, or as it is generally called, the Forest of
aun, in the county of ' Salop, to restrain Edward Earl of Powis
from enclosing certain waste lands, which have been open from
time immemorial to the rights of commonage awl pasture Of the
said tenants. The Learned Counsel opposed the bill, which was
to the following effect :—That the said tenants had always till
lately enjoyed the above rights. The defendant, however, had
lately enclosed certain of those lands, and excluded the cattle
of the plaintiff from the pasturage. He hid let the said en-
closures to other tenants, thereby depriving the plaintiff
and others of their natural rights. The plaintiff in supporting
those rights had broken down the fences set up by the. Earl of
Powis. The tenants of the lately enclosed lands had brought
several actions of trespass against the persons who iced broken the
fence, awl the original tenants had reason to believe that the plain-
tiffs in those :actions were indemnified by the said Earl of Powis,
as the actions were carried on by his solicitor. The rights of
the plaintiffs had been fully established by a Statute under the
reign of Elizabeth, and they prayed for an order front this Court
for the said Earl to produce certain deeds, and papers, which
would prove that right, and which ice, in collusion With the other
defendants had iu his possession, and refused to produce to the
plaintiffs. The Learned Counsel then opposed the bill for its ir-
regularity.
Mr. SIMUNSON and Mr. Kaotsur supported it, and the Court
observed that they should consider before they gave judgment.

COURT OF D!.:!..FOATES.--(Tins DAY.)

This Court was opened before a full assembly of thoColulele-
---_,_
gates this morning, for entering assignations and other formal
business. There was no cause set down for hearing.

BRISCOW V. lIIIISCOV.

Dr, Ls; inquired in what date the case of Briscoe v. Briseue
(which was 'a suit originally instituted, by Sir Wastel Briscoe
against Lady Briscoe, for a divorce, by reason of adultery) now
stood.
The Rvaispts a, replied, that a warrant wassentp oilialythoer
day of the present term.
Dr. Lvv—By whose order was the warrant sent up ? Was it
by order of any of the Judges ?
first
IlvomitAti—No, my Lord, that WU not necessary,
..O,Dr, jaa.---The case was not mentioned on the brat .
term in open Court.

Dcinsoti—No, nor was it necessary.
Dr.
LEI7—I hope there was an order made out of Court to
send up the warrant.
The REGIRTRAII—There was not, my Lord.
Dr. las-1 take this opportunity of protesting against the
necessary expense and delay which has taken place
in this woe.
and of intimating that I shall bring the subject under the conside-
ration of the High Court of Delegate*, whenever they are wining
to enter upon it.—. The Court then adjourned,