The Sun.
London, England, 1828-02-21 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
.Thisbeing the first Seal after Tenn. his Lordship
**lt in Lincoln's Inn Hall. •

MORRIS V. DAVIS. ,"1-
Mr. HORNE said; that in consequence' otan-iuti-
Ination received from his Lordship's Secretary, ;he
'understood it was not the intention of the Court to
pvt: _ judgment in this ease to-day.
His .LORDSHIP had only seen the Learned Judge
"sxzha tried the cau;e for a very short interval of time,
and Wore he pronounced judgment he• wished to
have a further interview with him;

IN RE QUEEN'S • COLLXGE-.
In this. case, in which it will be recollected certain
Admissions were to be .agreed.upon and handed to
the Court, •
-- • Mr. KING begged now to- hand• in those,4drnis-
iolls. He then proceeded to comment upon -cer-
tain elections which had taken place, for the purpose
of showing the practice of the College; from Whieb
he contended no negative vote was the Master.
If the Master had that authority which was contended
on the other side, be would have the power to de-,
rive any man of his. fellowship. •, -
Mr. GARRATT and Mr. JACOB were beardat.some
length on the other side.
Mr. KING shortly replied, and requested that his
Lordship would be so good as to let his.officers in-
-form him (Mr. K) when it was the intention of the
Court to give judgment, as he felt great anxiety to
hear it.
His LORDSHIP r would certainly. _ take Fare Mr.
King &heal have that information!!!lorr

' VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
This was the first seal after Hilary Term.
aaAsroN V. LAMMING.

• Thia %%assail application on the part of .the plain-
tiff on. the record, praying that a sum of money paid
into Court, to the-credit of this,eause, might be re-
turned to the defendant; that the bill might stand.
dismissed, and that Mr. Millington, the plaintiff's soli-
eitor might be ordered to pay the costs, on the :,*rounds
that he had commenced and prosecuted the suit
lrithout the. authority of the plaintiff.
- Affidavits in support of the application were tiled
by, the plaintiff and defendant. The latter stated that
she met the defendant at -.Spalding, in Lincolnshire,_
and that upon asking him why he. hadi filed a bill in.
Chancery. against her, he positively denied any-
knowledge of such a proceeding. The plaintiff,t in
his affidavit, deposed to the same effect, and added,
that upon taking the bond, for the recovery of which
it appeared that the suit had been•commenced, to
Millington, the solicitor, he distinctly told that
gentleman- that he would not go to law, or
otherwise put himself to any trouble respecting
it. The affidavit further stated that the bill
had been filed, and the ulterior proceedings adopted,
without the knowledge, privity, or consent of the
plaintiff. This statement was contradicted by Mr.
Millington ; he declared that Beaston had called on
him with the bond, and directed him to-recover the
amount. In support of Mr: Millington's- ac-
count, letters written to him by the plain-
tiff were produced, in which he repeatedly
alludes to the suit, and inquires when it
was likely to terminate ;—lie was also proved
to have asked other persons respecting the
proceedings. The plaintiff now accounted for these
inquiries, by stating, that he was aware of a bill
having been filed, but cot that it was filed in his
name.

Mr. TRIsLovE, in support of the motion, sub-
Mitted that Mr. Millington ought to have procured
a retainer from the plaintiff before he tiled a bill in
his name.
The motion was opposed by Mr. RoE.
The VICE-CHANcELLOR refused the application.
He thought it evident that the plaintiff was aware
of the proceedings. . But as Mr. -Millington might
have removed ^ll doubt by procuring the retainer,
his Honour did not think that the application
should-be dismissed with costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
PROSECUTION FOR PERJURY.

TKY ItIN6 V. ATTWOOD.
.''This
was an indictment against John Attwood for
wilful and corrupt perjury.
Mr. GURNEY. stated the plaintiff's ease for the
prosecution. Early in the year 1825. a Company
was established, called the British Iron Mining Com-
pany, for the purpose of working mines in England
and Wales. In May, 182.5, a negotiation was
opened by this Company with Mr. Attwood (the de-
fendant) for the purchase of certain mines in Cornwall,
in which he had an interest, and the sum of 600,0001.
was spoken of by defendant as the amount of purchase-
money which he would require. The proposition
,vas entertained by the Managers of the Company,
, and Mr. John Taylor, one of the Directors, was de-
puted to carry on the megociation, and Mr. Philip
Taylor was sent down to Cornwall to inspect the
works. Mr. Attwood having givetta most flourish-
ing account of the property, a favourable report
was made to the Company, and on the 10th
of June an agreement was made, under which
Mr. Attwood was to receive the sum of VOO,OOO/.
subject, however, to his making out a good title--
In furtherance of this agreement the sum of 2.5,000/.
in Exchequer Bills was deposited in the banker's
hands, but as the title was not satisfactorily esta-
blished, the treaty was ultimately broken ofi. The
negotiation, however, was renewed in October, when
. persons were sent down to inspect the mines, who
met with great obstructions,- and when they en-
tered into a calculation of.the expenses of working
the mines, Mr. Attwood referred them to two of
his clerks, named Edwards and Jones. Those clerks
produced certain papers, which they stated contained
an account of the receipts and eipences of the
mines; and when the Directors 'asked to see the
:books, they were told that no books had
been kept since the defendant got possession
of the mines. The Directors were satisfied with
this explanation, and finally completed the pur-
chase of the Mines for 261,0001. It was afterwards
discovered, however, that all the accounts submitted
to the Directors, by Attwood, were fabricated.—
When this discovery -was -made, the Directors • filed
a bill in the Court or Exchequer, charging Mr. Att-
wegid with having practised a gross fraud on- the
Company, calling on him to produce his true ac-
counts,and praying the Court that the agreement
might he set aside. After taking advantage ofall the de-
lays which the practice of the Court allowed, Mr.
Attwood putin his' answer; ow which the present
indictment was founded. It was a question with
him, whether he should abandon-. the 'contract be
had made with the Directors, or swear that he had
dealt fairly and honOurablY with the con 3..
pany, and he chose the latter. He denied all
that was imputed to him'. He -denied that his
accounts were false:- He denied that he had in-
structed his clerks to fabricate accounts. He-per-
sisted that he had no bOoki of the receipts and ex-
penses of the mines; and. be added, that Mr. P.
Taylor was present at an experiment made to ascer-
tain the cost of producing 500 tons of iron from the
mines. 'Now he (Mr. Gurney) proposed to prove by
the evidence of those who kept the books, that books
were regularly kept fromaccounts seat every fortnight._
lie Would also prove* that the papers shown to the
Directors were fabricated, and the jury could judge
how gross a fabrication it was, when the aferepee
between the stated and the real cost of. Carrying on
the concern was 50,000/. per annum. As to the as-
section that Mr. P. Taylor was present at the experi-
ment, it was pure invention; and it was a most remark-
able circumstance that Mr. P. Taylor has subsequently
received large sums of money, under the name of
mans, from .Attwood. This showed the corrupt mo-
tives.of Attwood, and if it could be proved that he
'Was guilty of one half of what was stated, the Jury
could have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion,)
that he was guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury.
Wm. Manning_ produced a copy of the bill and
answer :ill the Court of Exchequer, in ,the case of
small and others v. Attw,o4.
Min Morris (Clerk to the Chief Baron), stated,.
that the defendant had been sworn to the answer be-