The Sun.
London, England, 1826-11-18 00:00:00

P.%-PAILTIC MAINZ.

Mr. URAL!) took the liberty of adverting to this case again.—
Ile considered that in a case precisely the same as the present the
Vice-Chancellor had made such an order as he had made here, and
which had been totally reversed by this branch of the Court; the
Vice-Chancellor had ordered costs to be paid in the present case,
which had been appealed from, and the appellants thought it would
he a hard thing to pay costs into a pocket out of which they might
never get them again should the order below be reversed, and
therefore they hoped the Court would stay the compulsion of the
payment of those costs.
His Lohman'. desired to have it understood, that nothing he
now said was to be considered as a judicial intimation, that he
would or would not reverse his Honour's order, but he would not
stay the enforcing of the payment of the costs, except on the con-
dition he had mentioned. Were he unqualified to stay the pay-
ment, he felt quite confident that the tendency of such an order
would be, to encourage appeals fur no earthly reason but to stay
the enforcing payment of costs.

Mr. ILu submitted that the practice of the Court ought to
prevail, leaving it to ha decided hereafter, whether his clients
should he called upon to refund the costs that had been ordered to
be paid to them,

Mr. Hz...an—Then we shall pay tlid costs into Court.
Mr. HART--When ?
Mr. HEALD—Directly.
Mr. HART---Directly is no time.
Mr. HEALD--Mention your own time then.
Mr. HART—Then Monday next.
Mr. HART—What, Monday next, and to-day is Saturday !
Mr. HART—Why you told me to name my own time. No-
thing pleases you but to have your own way.
Mr. thcAtn—l said, mention your own time.
His LORDSHIP here, to cut the matter short, said let the amount of
costs be paid into Court at or before two o'clock on Tuesday next,
otherwise let the proems of execution issue to compel the payment.

. .
IN THE MATTSR Or SUTTON, • BANXILUrT.
His LORDSHIP desired to know whether the gentlemen engaged
in Mr. Sutton's matter, who is in custody in the King's Bench
prison, had made themselves masters of the nature of the debt in
respect of which be was detained.

Mr. flatus stated that the attachment, by virtue of which he
was detained, was in respect of costs incurred in a cause in this
Court, that had been taxed before the bankruptcy occurred.
His Loausnzr then said, if an affidavit were made to this effect,
the prisoner would have to be dischatged. He took it to be the
clear law, that if the costs had been taxed before the bankruptcy,
the debt might have been proved under the Commission, and that,
therefore, the prisoner would be discharged by one of the com-
mon law Judges upon producing his certificate.
Mr. Mcorranuit submitted that this Court might order his
discharge. .
The Loan CHANCELLOR (lid not know that the Marshal
would obey the order of this Court, if he would, his Lordship
would have no objection to direct the discharge when the affidavit
alluded to was made.

Mr. %MAX said the affidavit should be made in the course of
this morning.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.--(Tuts DA.r.)
METIMINTATIVICS OF itovzus, DECEASED, v. maim

In this cause a bill was filed by the plaintiffs for the purpose of
compelling the defendant to pay over to them the sum of 1,300 h,
being the amount of certain Bank Stock, and the dividends due

ther;s, which the bill charged to have come fraudulently into his
hands.

Mr. Suanzw, in opening the cue, observed that, as it was of
the utmost importance to the plaintiffs, and, if possible, of still
snore importance to the defendant, who filled the high station of a
Bank 'Director, he would confine himself in the first instance to
a simple detail of facts.

Mr. Awmtanon, for the defendant, requested that the cue
might be allowed to stand over for a few days.
Mr. Suanits strongly opposed any such concession.
Mr. Attnitanott said, the only grounds on which be asked for
the delay were as a personal indulgence to himself. lle rvav the
only Counsel appearing fur the defendant, and from the grave and
solemn manner in which the cause was ushered in he could not
but feel anxious for further time.

Mr. Suomi, after observing that Mr. Anderden had more die-
eretion than his client, proceeded with his statement ; the bill set
forth, that in January 1795, a person named Levi Solomon, then
carrying on business in Hanover, purchased, for Mr. Movius, the
then Auditor General of that Kingdom, five hundred pounds
in the Three per cent. Consols. The stock thus purchased
was paid for by Movius, but stood in the hank books to the credit
of Solomon, lie having given to Movius en acknowledgment
to that effect, clearly setting forth that he (Solomon) was
merely his trustee. In May, 1797, Solomon purchased for
Movius a further sum of 500/. stock, which was in like manner
allowed to stand in the name of Solomon, who at the same time
charged Movius with commission and brokerage, on the pur-
chase made on entry in his own book, and also of the receipt
of the purchase-money. Movius, it appeared, regularly received,
top to his death, which took place in 1803, the dividends on the
stock ; he died intestate, leaving as his heirs his wife and brother,
G. F. Movius, who for sonic time were paid the divi-
dends by Solomon, who, in consequence of his commercial
intercourse with this country, had, all through, been the
agent of the family. The brother died shortly after, and the present
plaintiffs are now the representatives of Minim. No step had
been taken in the matter until 1821, when a person named
Wilhelm Conrad Korf, then residing in this country, was
requested to get possession of the stock, and all the dividends 1
due thereon. Korf being a foreigner applied to the defendant,
an eminent merchant residing in King's Arms Yard, Coleman-
Street, for advice, and was instructed by that Gentleman, as the
best mode of proceeding, to have the plaintiffs transmit a
power of attorney, having first clearly established their
right to the stock in question. The plaintiffs, in consequence
of this advice instituted a suit in the Court of Chancery,
in Hanover, for the purpose of having their claim approved of by
that Court, the plaintiflii being then only aware of their right to
the first 8001, having no knowledge of the second purchase by So-
-I°m°n• They obtained a judicial certificate of their right to the,
property of Movius, and were recognised by the Court as his sole
, tratismittin
'raepreseatatives. In Jul 1822, the plaintiffs sent over a power of
to them,
authorising KurfY and the defendant to recover ail debts due
and the took , g at the same time
nowicsigone Solomon to Movius;
upon Dorien gave
in August 1822, Ka,
that it must be aseertateinect
nt given in 1797 by '
hi'nfi delivered all the the judicial certificate,.
Dorien, where-
papers to. 1
to the effect
certain written
instructi9Dnijstered ; if they
did cot, notice was
A. B. to take it out as a :jiver'
whether his heirs Atm
the intention
_.._
of
ot°f onestate o that
f Ik I Vitt ihse' a
taoodiv taketcreditor
l° ofnt' uoB:te thelo"t-hmfe Soloman.
it of
ipniTiastilhn'reeat itbsli iialnvi%elvvl Ali utdfotoewno:
much inquiry, the relatives
of remuneration was
them in favour of one or
the plaintiffs, empowering that In
obtain:dirmon were found, and to proxy_
ad-
ministration to the goods and effilgaintiff to take out
the of Solomon. Kart died
in November, 1822, upon which *
widow to manage the affairs in conneacion with Mr. Dorien.
Novenclabteironj
pluintiffs requested his
The bill went on to state, that frequent
to Mr. Dorlen for thepapers remaining 711:11):i
recovered the meneyfor the plaintiff,' in November Is hando, he not having
however much surprised at receiving from Mr. F sB2"sd;btethelyl made
were
reshfield a letter
to the effect that he was authorized by Mr. D
the plaintiffs that Mr. Dorien, being himself a rien to acquaint
creditor of Solo-
tuon'a did, in that capacity, tido out aduainistatinn to hie vino', and

that he had since disposed of the stock standing in his name,
not being aware that the plaintiffs, or the person they repre-
sented, had any claim thereto. To this bill the defendant had put in
an answer which the learned counsel commented on in very harsh
terms. The defendant's answer, which we regret that we cannot
give at length, denied that the money came into his hands fraudu-
lently, and stated that he had all along acted in concert with Korf,
and under an arrangement that the defendant was to receive one
moiety of the stock in part payment of his claim on Solomon's
estate. The defendant further added,thathe was induced to make this
arrangement, because he had listened favourably to the statement
of Korf, without by any means, believing it. The answers set
forth that the house of Solomon, Michael, David and Co. were
for many years employed by the defendant's house, as their agents,
and that Solomon always spoke to the defendant of the stock in
question, as belonging to him, and that on the faith of this represen-
ation be had given him credit to:the amount of 10,0001. In proof of
the correctness of this statement, he appealed to the fact of his
having, on Solomon's statement taken steps to prevent the trans-
fer of the stock. The Learned Gentleman, as well as Mr.
KINNERSLY, who followed on the came side, spoke at great length,
and contended that the conduct of the defendant was a tissue
of fraud.

Mr. Atinutoou, for the defendant, expressed his conviction
that he would be able to place the character of his client in a far
different point of view from that in which it bad been represented
by his Learned Friends. Ile trusted he would remove every im-
putation of fraud, and show the injustice of the charge advanced
against him.

The Learned Gentleman hail not concluded when we went to
press.

COURT OF KING'S 13ENCH.—(hus DAY.)
CRIMINAL INFORMATION..VIL JOHN BULL.

Mr. Scan Law moved for a rule to chew cause why crirnina,
information,ahould not be filed against Edward Shackel, proprie.
tor and Editor of the John Bull newspaper, for having published
a libel on Charles Henry Hartshorn, ILA. of St. John's, Cam-
bridge. In snaking this application, he
deemed it necessary to
accompany it with a narration respecting the prosecutor. Sonic
years ago Mr. Hartshorn was at Mr. Butler's academy in Shrews-
bury, preparing for his entrance into College. While at Mr.
Butler's, he was introduced to Mr. Helier, late Member of
Parliament for Oxford. Being particularly anxious to cul-
tivate Mr. fleber's friendship, he wrote a Latin Poem,
complimenting him, which Mr. Heber received very kindly, and,
in return, paid him mush attention, and introduced him to several
of his friends ; among others, his respected brother, the late
Bishop of Calcutta. Shortly after this Mr. Hartshorn entered
college, and, in 1825, he came to London, in vacation time,
where he met Mr. Heber, who asked him to his house, offered
him the use of his library, and, in many other respects, manifested
cordial feelings towards him: Mr. Heber returned again to
college. He (Mr. Scarlet) would say of Mr. Heber, that
there was no man in England, of whatever distinction,
who would not deem it an honour to be acquainted with him.
The Learned Counsel himself had the h(inour of knowing Mr.
Heber well, and there was no man of whose acquaintance he felt
more proud. In August, 1826, Mr. Heber left England, of which
Mr. Hartshorn received the first intimation by a letter from Calais.
In the September following the Earl of Guilford was about to visit
Italy, and being acquainted with Mr. Hartshorn he asked him to
accompany him ; his friends thinking it a good opportunity of
travelling through the continent, advised him to go; he accord-
ingly did accompany that Nobleman, who introduced him into
high circles, and among other persons to the British Ambassador
at Constantinople. They stopped a considerable time at Corfu,
and then visited different parts of Asia, and returned to Lucca,
where the Earl of Guildford left Mr. Hartshorn to take charge
of a young Gentleman, until such time as his friends could attend
to him. On the 16th of August, 1826, he received an important
letter from kis friends, containing a paragraph, which formed the
subject-matter of this libel; be immediately came home, and
collected all his friends to consult them on what steps
he ought to take respecting it. They told him that un-
pleasant rumours had been afloat respecting bim and Mr.
Heber, and advised him to write to the latter respecting
it, which he (lid accordingly, requesting of him to conic
home. Mr. Heber sent an answer immediately, but declined com-
ing home ; Mr. Hartshorn swears that he bad no communication
with Mr. Heber, either personally or by letter, from the time that
he went to the Continent up to the period of the receipt of this
last letter. He has taken great pains in making an investigation
respecting the groqnds of the dark insinuations thrown out against
him and Mr. 11., hut he could not find even the shadow of a foun-
dation for them. The first of the paragraphs of appeared
in the joAo Run of the 7th of May
.4,4 &WM t
"Mr. Usher, lote.ltil:P. Am the thtiversitrti • , pi-ascot
on the Continent, and we understand will not return for some
time, the backwardness of. a foreign climate, at this season
of the year, being more congenial to his hahits." The
second paragraph appeared in two numbers after as follows
" We understand that Mr. Heber'e complaint proceeds from an
over predilection for Hartshorn." The Learned Counsel showed
that Mr. Hartshorn has been cordially received among his friends.
who feel convinced that there is no foundation fur the insinuation
contained in these paragraphs, and that their origin is solely in the
base mind of some writer who gets his livelihood by calumny.....
Rule granted.

COURT bF COMMON PLEAS.—(Tms DAY.)
IVIIBUZN, V. NICHOLAS.
This was an action of damages against the defendant for un-
justly detaining the plaintiff in White Cross-street Prison for 40
weeks. In January, 1825, the plaintiff filed a bill against the
defendant in the Court of Chancery, but it was not insisted on,
and therefore the 'defendant applied to have it dismissed, which
was done accordingly, with 55/. costs. The defendant then
instituted the present action in this Court ; it was tried before the
Lord Chief Justice in last Trinity Term, and 130/. damagcs
found for the plaintiff.

Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN' this day appeared in support of a
rule obtained by the plaintiff; to chew cause why the costs in
Chancery should not be vet off against the 1801. damages. The
Learned Counsel contended, that as no action could be maintained
in this Quirt, founded upon a Decree of the Court of-Chancery,
and as the costs there found due, did not constitute a legal claim,
there could be no right of set off against the damages found in
this Court. Thu Judges, however, were of a different opinion,
and thought that the equity of the case would be suet by allow.
ing the set off.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.--(Tats DAY.)
IN AZ 1/1/31BitIa. v. CLAUCIIITON.
Mr. JARVIS preferred a petition for an order of taxation on the
bill of costs of the plaintiff's solicitor, Mr. Fitchet. The peti-
tioner was imprisoned for those costs, and his friends would come
forward and pay the just amount of such costs, but felt it their
duty to petition for an order of taxation, as they considered them
fraudulent and oppressive.
Mr. KNIMIT observed that this bill was not infected with a
local inflammation, it pervaded its whole system, it was diseased in
all its path, and when a solicitor had a certain knowledge of the
charges which ought to be made, and made an unjust charge, it
certainly amounted to something like a gross fraud. The Learned
Counsel then read some extracts front the affidavits of a solicitor
named Lowe, reflecting on the overcharges. They did not, how-
ever, appear to be very extravagant..

Air. Baron GANUOW rernarki:(l, that it was little more than
local inflammation in the extremities.

Mr. BICKERSTISTII opposed the petition, exposed some fraudu-
lent dealings of the applicant, and contended that the charges in
the bill were not excessive.
The Loan Cutts. JUSTICE observed, that the fraud appeared to
be all on the other side. Ile considered that the petition should
be discharged with costs.

CONSISTORY COURT.--(Tula DAy.)
(Before Sir C. Roemsox.)
BLIOU V. 111,1011.

This was a suit - -
promoted by Mitt. Bligh, Bse. of Marylebone,
in the diocese' of London, against his wife, Helen Bligh, for a
divorce by reason of adultery, alleged to have been committed by
her at various times and places with IV. W. L P. Welle„ley, Esq.
Dr. JENNXit, who led in this case for Mr. thigh, stated the
nature of the unit, and obserrztl, that as the Court was well aware
Various attempt„ had been unenecessfully made to serve Mrs. Thigh
with a copy of citation, at length ibis had been effected, and the
case was now brought regularly before the Court. The aisigna-
lions were made, and the libel, consisting of twenty-three articles,
was exhibited, and now atm*, before tht Court for admission.—
He understood his Learned Friends had mine objectioos to mike
to some of the articles contained iu the libel, and
any observations which were suggested to him until ehould reserve
he learned the
nature of those objections.
Dr. Pnat.istonz said, he appeared as Counsel for Mrs. thigh,
and objected to the admission of certain articles in the libel. The
case generally, was as had been stated by Dr. Jenne'', and the evi-
dence as set forth in the libel, was of two kinds, documentary and
parole.
The objections were directed exclusively to the first,
which consisted of letters addressed by Mrs. Bligh to Mr. Wel-
lesley, letters from Mr. Wellesley to Mrs. thigh. He did not
but he contended
objecttha it towastheneivit nth'iesspioracn titAolfrititenClioguhe'st ttletSatetinm'it the letters of the
alleged
as evidence against the wife, unless it tees dill.
p
rredtlist she wasin low degree Participating in the
cty adulterer,