The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-16 00:00:00

THIS DAY'S NEWS.

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

EXPARTE VAN SANDAU.—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment in this case
to-day, which was argued before the Court upon appeal
from the Court of Review. His Lordship said the facts
of the case might be stated in a few words. A petition
and motion was depending in the Court of Review in
the bankruptcy of a person named Martin. Mr. Van
Sandau was the solicitor on one side, and Messrs. Turner
and Hensman on the other.' The Court of Review
' made an order upon the petition, and Mr. Van Sandau
being dissatisfied with that order, wrote and circulated a
libel on the Court of Review. In this state of the
matter Messrs. Turner and Hensman presented a peti-
tion to the Court of Review, praying that that Court
would order Mr. Van Sandau to be committed for con-
tempt. The Court upon that petition made an order,
directing that for his contempt he should be committed
to the custody of the marshal of the Queen's Prison.
He was committed, but apologising afterwards he was
discharged. For the part which Messrs. Turner and
Hensman had taken in the transaction, Mr. Van
Sandau commenced an action in the Court of Queen's
Bench against them. They filed a replication, and
pleaded in justification the order. To this plea Mr.
Van Sandau demurred, and that case was now standing
for argument in the Court of Queen's Bench. An ap-
plication was then made to the Court of Review for an
injunction, restraining Mr. Van Sandau from proceeding
further at law. The Court made a qualified order—the
Court restrained Mr. Van Sandau from proceeding, ex-
cept for the purpose of raising certain questions. The
Court gave Mr. Van Sandau permission to object to the
proceedings on three grounds, but it restrained him from
raising any other questions. In this state of things and
from this decision Mr. Van Sendai' appealed to this
branch of the Court, and the question now was, what
course ought to be pursued by the Court in the present
matter. It was first contended, on the part of Mr. Van
Sandau, that no contempt had taken place. His Lord-
ship thought that no person who read the publication
could be otherwise than convinced that it was a gross
and scandalous libel on the Court of Review,
imputing to that Court the most unworthy mo-
tives. Added to this, the libel was circulated while
the cause was depending ; and further, it appeared to
have been extensively distributed in every quarter, even
in the court itself, while the judge was presiding. No
man could doubt, observed his Lordship, that that was a
gross and scandalous contempt of court. Lord Hard-
wicke had repeatedly laid it down, that scandalising the
court was a contempt. The next point of objection taken
was, that the court had no power to commit for contempt
—upon this point his Lordship thought it clear that the
court had such power given it by the statute of the 3d
and 4th of William IV". in almost direct terms. But
there it was said, that if the court could do it one judge
could not, as the court, as originally constituted, consisted
of four judges. His Lordship could not accede to such a
proposition, as it was clear that the power of the four
judges of the court was now concentrated in the one
Learned Judge, who presided there now. His
Lordship was clearly of opinion that the Court
of Review had the power to commit. It was
then said that the order was vicious because
there was no adjudication of any contempt having
been committed. Now his Lordship thought,considering
he was sitting in bankruptcy, and that from his decision
there was no appeal, he ought to consider long before he
gave judgment in favour of the petition, in which was
granted the injunction restraining further proceedings at
law. It was unnecessary to decide the question whether
the Court of Review had the power to grant injunction,
the question being was it prudent or proper to grant au
injunction in the present case. His Lordship on the
whole thought that the injunction ought not to be
granted, he should, therefore, discharge that part of the
order, and direct the rest of the petition to stand over
till the matter was decided in the Court of Queen's Bench.
THE DUKE OF LEEDS V. EARL AMHERST.
The remainder of the day was occupied with the argu-
ments in this appeal from the decision of the Vice-
Chancellor of England, deciding that a full-length
picture of the great Duke of Schomberg, painted by Sir
G. Kneller, now hung up in the great hall of Hornby
Castle, the seat of the Duke of Leeds, was to be con-
sidered a portrait, and not a picture, the effect of which
decision would be, that it would become, under the will
of the late Duke of Leeds, the property of his son-in-
law, Mr. Walter Sackville Fox, and not that of the
present Duke, and consequently, if the decision be
affirmed, Hornby Castle will be deprived of one of its
greatest ornaments.
The arguments appeared likely to occupy several days.