The Sun.
London, England, 1828-12-25 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Dec. 24.
WINTRR V. LORD ANSON.
IE9 LORDSHIP had considered the collateral points
in this case ; upon doing which, nothing had oc-
curred to induce him to alter the decision he had for-
merly pronounced.
Mr. MAGI' stated, that Mr. Duncan Campbell was
now in Court, upon the Habeas gratacd by his Lord-
ship.

Mr. Duncan Campbell stated, that the applica-
tion he had to make for his discharge from the Fleet,
where he had been sent for contempt, was upon
' affidavits which he had not been able to swear yet,
but would do so iu the course of the morning, if the
Court would permit him; which his Lordship as-
senting to, he immediately left the Court, in the
custody of the officer, for that purpose.
STURZ V. DE LA RUE.
Mr. HORNE moved to dissolve the injunction ob-
tained against the defendants some days ago, for in,
fringing a patent, of which the plaintiff was the pro-
prietor, for improving:copper-plate and other printing
by means of a glazed or enamelled surface put upon
cards or paper.
Mr. SUGDEN and Mr. LORAINE were heard on the
same side.

Mr. TINNEY and Mr. ROTCII supported the in-
junction.—lnjunction dissolved.
Mr. SUGDEN applied for the costs of the motion,
which, after some discussion, his Lordship granted.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Dm 24.
MILLIGIN V. BONE.

This was a case hi which a person had by his
will left the whole of his property to his four
daughters, and directed that, in the event of either
of them dying single, the share of the deceased
should be divided among the survivors. One of the
daughters had married, become u widow, and died
without issue. The question on which the Court
was called on to decide, was whether this lady could
have been said to die single, according to the mean•
ing of the testator.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, that according to
his interpretation of the will, this lady did die single,
and directed that her share of the property should
be divided among the surviving daughters of the
testator-

His HONOUR, after disposing of the remainder o:
e cause petitions, rose for the recess.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Dec. 24.
111AltSLAND V. LORD VISCOUNT GLAMIS.

This was an action on a bill of exchange for 909/.,
which became due in September, 1825. No evi-
dence was gone into; but a verdict was taken, by
consent, for 1,1301., the amount of principal and in-
terest.

C4ROOCOCK V. COOPER AND OTHERS.

This was an action for false imprisonment. The

aintiff was a linen-draper at St. Ives, in Hunting-
donshire, and the defendants were three commis-
sioners named in a commission of bankruptcy against
Messrs. Silvey and Saunderson, bombasin-msnu-
facturers at Norwich.- The commissioners had issued
their warrant for the attendance of the plaintiff as a
witness before them, and he was in consequence
arrested and taken down from London to Norwich.
Fro-m' the statement of Sir J. SCARLET; and the
evidence for the plaintiff, it appeared that in the year
1.25 a commission of bankrupt was issued against
Messrs. Silvey and Saunderson, which was after-
wards superseded, the creditors having consented to
accept their debts by instalments, the last of which
was guaranteed by the plaintiff.. They were, how-
ever, unable to meet the first instalment on its be-
coming due, and in consequence a second commis•
sion was issued against them on the 26th of March,
1826. It being necessary to examine the plaintiff as
a witness, touching the bankrupt's estate, the de-
fendants, who were named as commissioners, issued
their summons on the 15th of April, 1826, requiring
the plaintiff to Sppear before them at Norwich, on.
Tuesday, the 18th of April, at ten o'clock in the
morning. The plaintiff being in London, the sum-
mons was seat to the agents of the solicitor to the
commission, and their clerk served it upon the plain-
tiff in Landon, on Monday, the 17th of April, at five
o'clock in the afternoon, tendering bins at the same
time 51. to defray his expenses down to Norwich. The
on receiving the summons, objected to the
shortness of the time given, stated that he was
afflicted with lumbago, and could not therefore travel
by night ; and, also, that he had important business
to attend to in London on the following day. The
clerk who served the summons accompanied him, at
his request, to his attorney, who said he did nut con-
sider the summons legal on account of the shortness
of time allowed for the plaintiff's attendance, and
he also urged that the 51. tendered to the plaintiff
for his expences was inadequate. The plaintiff ex-
pressed his willingness to attend the commissioners
at the end of the week, if they would make another
appointment, and requested the clerk to write to

Norwich to that effect, which he promised to do.
On the evening of Monday, the 20th of April, the
plaintiff was arrested by a sheriff's officer, under a
warrant of the defendants. He was taken the same
night to Norwich, where he arrived about 11 o'clock
on the following morning, and was kept in custody
at a tavern till the commissioners met at eight o'clock
in the evening, when he was examined before them,
and at 11 o'clock was discharged out of custody.
He subsequently brought his action for the imprison-
ment, and it came on for trial at Guildhall last July
twelvemonth, when Lord Tenterden directed a non-
stir,. The Court above haring in Trinity Term last
set aside the nonsuit, the cause now came on for trial
a second time.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in addressing the Jury
for the defendants, called their attention to the lan-
guage of the Act of Parliament under which the
warrant had been issued. By that Act, which was
the last Bankrupt Act, the commissioners were au-
thoried to call before them any person who might
be supposed able to give evidence .touching the
bankrupt's affairs; and if, after being summoned,
the party did not appear before them at the time
appointed, having no lawful impediment made known
to them at the time of meeting, and allowed by
them, they were authorized by warrant under tbcir
hands and seals to direct him to be apprehended,
and brought before them to be examined. It was
under the luithority of that Act of Parliament that
the commissioners had acted in this case.
Evidence was then gone into, and the Jury, after
a few minutes' consideration, found for the defendants.
The Court, at its rising, adjourned to the 7th of
January.