The Sun.
London, England, 1821-12-04 00:00:00

. :.:"!,. ,
. .-
i. 44,.
Ir.,
, 0

ILO 4 right at law to take possession of -the partne.rship pro-
perty, the Court of Chancery. could not interfere to prevent it,
except upon some equitable ground. The plaintiff said,. that
the bills in :the possession of the defendant were fraudulently
obtained. Then let him prove-that. The injunction must be
dissolved, but the -plaintiff. might "move that it be renewed, if
he would state
,upon oath ,the merits of the case, and that he
• was willing to meet the action at law.
- Mr. IlAwr said, his client would arrive in London by the
coach, at ten o'clock. this evening, and would make the neces-
sary ffidavit.
The Loup CHANCELLOR directed the injunction to be
dissolved, to be draWn up to-morrow, if the statements in the
plaintiff's bill. should be supported by affidavit. In the meau
lame the defendants were not to proceed under the outlawry.
ALD • said, that he,tinderstood it was contrary to the
practice of the Court to permit an affidavit in support of an in.
junction to be put in after an'answer was filed. - mentioned
this now, in order that it might not be said that he took the
Court by surprise if he objectedto the plaintiff's affidavit to-
morrow.

The LORD CITANCELLOR said, Mr. Heald would do right
to take the objection, if he considered it a good one.

COURT OF 'LUNN'S BENCH, DEC. 3.
Middlesex Sittings after 31ichaelina.s Term, before the LoRV
CHIEF Justice and Common Juries.
DAVis %%if: XDLE Y.

_ . .
This was an action of deceit, the declaration alleging/int/int one
Ford, had applied to the plaintiff for credit in the way of his
business, as a cheesemon,ver, and that desiring,a reference., he
referred him to the defendant, who being asked by the plaintiff
whether Ford was. worthy of trust, and paid his bills regularly,
and whether he owed him any thing? the defendant tepee-.
sented him to be a person worthy of trust—that ,he paid his
.bills regularly, and that he owed him nothing but for two tubs
of .butter ; :whereupon the .plaintiff, confiding in this, gave
Ford credit for goods to a considerable amount, but he turned
out to be a person unworthy of credit, did not pay his bills
regularly, and, in fact, owed the defendant upwards Of 2001.
at the time the reference was given.
Mr. SCARLETT and Mr.COMYX were for the plaintiff, and
Mr. MARRYAT and Mr. ABRAHAM were for the defendant. ,

The defence set up was, that the plaintiff could not be de-
ceived by the defendant's representation, for he had given Ford
credit for several sums before the reference was given to the de
fendant, and that he had inquired of another person into Ford's
solvency before he spoke to the defendant.
The CHIEF JUSTICE charged. the Jury, that they must be
satisfied that the defendant had made the representation as to
Ford's circumstancts, fraudulently and deceitfully. „If they
should be of opinion that thOse were hii motives, they must
find for the plaintiff', but their damages could not exceed 1501.
the sum for which Ford was indebted to the plaintiff'; but they
might give any lesser sum that the circumstances of the case
would warrant.

The Jury found their verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
£124.

COCKSHOTT V. BLYTHE.

This was an action for money had and received. The plain-
-tiff was managing owner of a vessel called the Adamant. The
plaintiff had engaged for the conveyance of two families, con-
sisting of eight persons, to Van Diemen's Land, for the sum of
4001. Two hundred pounds were paid in the first instance, and
for the remaining sum the plaintiff was contented to receive a
bill of exchange drawn upon a solvent House in London. This
bill was left in the hands of the defendant, and the produce was
to be paid to-thi-plaintiff, on the defendant's receiving
genee that the passengers had reached their intendeedestina-
lion. They were landed, but tome of them, disappointed in the
expectations which they had formed, returned to England, and
to these-persons the defendant paid the 2001. bill upon an in-
demnity against the claims of the plaintiff .
The CHIEF JUSTICE before the conclusion of the plaintiff's
case, thought that the second owner of the vessel ought to have
been joined in the action; and as this had been omitted, the
plaintiff' was non-suited.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. $.
The Ciii,EF J us'r icr sat this morning at Westminster, to
hear Nisi P.:lose:4o, none of which were of any public interest.
• i,
PREROGATIVE COURT, DEC. 3.
TIIE WILL OF LOUD KIRKWALL, DECEASED.
A testamentary paper, purporting to be the last will of the
late Lord Viscount Kirkwall, was propounded by Lady Dow-
ager Kirkwall, as next of kin of the deceased, and executrix
therein named. The Court decided that the will in question was
regularly drawn in the usual form, and signed by the testator
himself; the same being in his own hand-writing, executed in
presence of his Lordship's Solicitor and three attesting wit-
nesses; likewise a codicil, in like manner drawn and duly exe-
cuted. The Court therefore pronounced for the validity of the
will and codicils, which had been opposeekby Lady Kirkwall,
widow of the deceased ; between whom and his late Lordship,
it will be recollected, a suit of divorce had been long pending
in the Consistory Court.
A Proctor, on behalf of Mrs. Henri, who it appears is now
resident in France, (and between whom and her husband it is
understood a suit of divorce on the ground of adultery. is now
pending in, the • French Courts,) applied to appear. by proxy,
and to administer to the will of a relation in this country, de-
ceased, by which she claims, as a legatee, property to the anion: t
of tioool.
Dr. SWABEY subimitted, that the party in-this case could not
sue out letters of Administration, being under coverture,
less it could be made appear, either by the death of the husband,
that she had become a femme sole, that her husband had been
banished, or that he had given her a general power of attorney
to act for him during his absence abroad. This doctrine had
been held formerly in the Prerogative Court, in the case of
Elizabeth Wilmot, a femme couverte, applying for letters of
administration during the lifetime of her husband, as in this
case ; and the Court decided, that unless under the before men-
tioned requisites, she could not be permitted to sue letters of ad-
ministration, by proxy or otherwise.
Sir J. Nicilof. decided, that there was a meterial distinction
between that and this case. The party in this case sued not
upon what belonged to the husband, but to her the wife; who was
to be benefited ; and as such, entitled to administration. In
this case, she ffered to be responsible, by giving security for
the due performance of the trusts. Under these circumstances
the Court permitted Mrs. Henri to sue letters of administration
to the will annexed, giving the usual security,