The Sun.
London, England, 1826-12-09 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCT.

. COURT OF CHANCERY.—(This D•Y.)
oastown v. TINDALL.
Mr. Holm stated, that this was a case of great importance to
his client, a lady far advanced in years ; there was a large fund in
Court standing to the credit of the cause, and as one point in it
had been disposed of, he was instructed to ask that it might be or-
dered to be put into the Paper for hearing before the Christmas
recess.

Mr. Harr thought it but fair to inform the Court that there
was an appeal to the House of Lords against the part of the case
that had been disposed of by this Court, but as that appeal did,
not touch the point yet to be brought before his Lordship, and
which involved the question, whether or not Mr. Horne's client
should be paid the moiety of the money in Court, no less than;
10,0001., he had nothing to interpose in the way of the hearing;
being speeded.

His Los untie said, if the facts were as they had been now re-
presented, he saw no reason why it should not be heard imme-
diately. He could not, however, be instrumental in advancing:
the appeal elsewhere; because, as Lord Hedesdale was not in
town, he did not like to hear an appeal from himself to himself.;
—Ordered to be heard on Thursday next.

SCONOAL 1. C.4.3IPBIELL.
Mr. CHINO finished his reply ou behalf of Mr. Stead, in this
appeal Motion, for an order to have the bills of costs taxed of
Messrs. Kaye and Freshfield.
His Lonnsute reserved to himself the opportunity of again
looking into the affidavits, particularly the new ones, that had
been made. With respect to the application that had been: made
to the Court of King's Bench to have the bills taxed, that heel been
withdrawn, 'on the supposition that Mr. Dennet, a very respect;
able Solicitor, now deceased, would adjust the changes in'
the bills ; that sort of arbitration, however, had failed,
and the result had proved to demonstration, that when
a party desired to have his bills taxed, the better way
was to have the officer of the Court to do it, and not to leave
it to the most respectable Solicitor 'that ever breathed to tax ther
bills of a fellow Solicitor. The Court had not been able to find
out why the Vice-Chaucellor, on a subsequent application to him
for an order of taxation had refused the motion ; but unless he
found in the course of the affidavits reasons for his Honour having.
so done, which had not been discloied in the course of the ergo-,
mema here, his Lordship could see no ground on which to con-
clude
the order ought not to have been marls as of course.—
With respect to Mr. Freehfield nut having the assistance now of
some clerks, that he would have had some years ago, if the hills
had been then taxed, the Court thought it would be giving too
much credit to a solicitor, hoWever deservtally respected he might,
be, to hear him say, that he had not preserved all the evidence for
the course of two or three years, that he had been originally in
possession of, so as to mast the taxation of his bills at that (Hs-
' tance of time, in a case in which the last payment had been
made, expressly under a protest that the client would have
them taxed, and when that intention had almost ever since
been more or less renewed and kept alive. There was, how-
ever, some difference in the mode of referencing matters of this
sort. In some cases, the order was made referring the items to'
taxation generally—in others referring the items only that had
been complained of, with directions to receive evidence that the
Master could not have received without such special directions,
and which of these sort of orders must be made in the present
case if a taxation is to take place at all, his Lordship will inform
the bar as early as possible after he can apply himself to the affi-
davits.

ATTORWRI,ONNEUAT. V. JOLLIFFE.
The Court proceeded to hear this matter, hi which there Avert,
two long appeal petitions.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.—(Titre DAY.)
THE VICE CHANCELLOR'S. ADVICE TO THE BANK.
Mr. NOitTON stated to Hi, Honour this morning that an order
had a short time back been made, directing certain trustees and
the Accountant-General to transfer some bank stork to the per-
/10111 beneficially entitled to it. The Bank had refused to allow
the transfer on the ground, that it was not set forth in the body
of the order that the persons directed to transfer, were actually
trustee,. Another objection on the part of the Bank was, that
one of the trustees, not before the Court when the order wa,.
issued, was not stated in the order to be at the time out of the ju-
risdiction of the Court.

The Vlcx-CstAxeut.t.oa after examining the orders said,
these facts are distinctly stated in the petition on which tire order
was made, and that petition is embodied in the order.
Mr, NORTON replied that the objections came from the Bank
Solicitor.

The Vier CHANCILLORTIIid is quite new on the part oi
is Bank ; Ist them consult their Counsel ; there is no sense it
lese objections.

40,411.1 Si WI.
Thia Argument. in dal 1,411,40 Wt.re ttl
Occupy thy entire flay.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH...—THIS DAY.
(Before the Cuter JUSTICE and a Common Jury.)
THE KING V. NIGHTINGALE.
This case being called on, the Curer JUSTICE asked if any per-
son appeared for the prosecution, being answered in the negative,
his Lordship told the Jury that this was an indictment against the
defendant, and as no person appeared to prosecute they should
acquit him.
Mr. /tooLnius wished to make a few observations on behalf
of the Baronet (Sir Charles Nightingale,) who was indicted.
The Cellar Juvrtett said that it would be setting a bad prece-
dent. He, therefore, could not allow it.
ste

BENDINCi v. at:Nott.LoN.
11r. ScAar.Err stated that this was an action brought to re-
cover from the defendant (a Major in the Army) compensation
in damages for having given hint in charge to a constable without
cause.

Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 181.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—(Tms DAY.)
LIBEL —nsurn v. cf.xstxxv.
Mr. Matottna opened the pleadings.
Air. Sergeant WILDE stated, this action arose out of a scandalous
libel on the plaintiff, contained in " Harriet Wilson's Memoirs,"
which were published by Stockdale. It was well known that an
action had been raised by Mr. Fisher against Stockdale, under
which he recovered a verdict of '7OO/. In that case it was not the
object of the plaintiff to recover money, but to clear his character
from the slanderous opinions cast upon it. The plaintiff was a
respectable gentleman in the profession of the law, having a large
family, grown up to that time bf life when their father's conduct
would have a powerful influence on their morals. In the Memoirs
the plaintiff was held up as the most profligate of mankind, as
an intriguer with every woman he met with, and as having
ruined his constitution by his immoral habits. Though the Jury
however, had, in Stockdale's case, by their verdict wiped off any
stain that might have attached to his character in consequence•of
that libel, yet in a copy of a paper called Bell's Life in Londol,
dated the 24th of May last, a few day's after the verdict was ob-
tained in an article entitled& "London Eclogue," in which Harriet
Wilson and Stockdale were represented in a garret conversing
about the fate of Stockdale'a cave, Harriet Wilson is made to say,
that though the verdict was fur Mr. Fisher, the charges in the
main were true. The plaintiff conctivedit due to his own character
to bring the present action, not for the paltry consideration of the
damages, but in order by the opinion of the Judge, and the verdict
of the Jury, to have his character clearest from the effects that
might be produced on the public from seeing the libel repeated in
a Paper of such circulation, and character for ability, as Bell's
Life in London.
A copy of the Memoirs was then identified, from which the
original libel was read.
A witness proved that the plaintiff hail three children, each of
whom had attained to majority.
Mr. Sergeant \ration* tr, for the defendant, then read the
"Eclogue," commenting strongly on every part of it. He said
that the object of the defendant was, to hold up the
execrable character* of Stockdale end Harriet Wilson to
the scorn of mankind, and not by any movie to slan-
der the plaintiff, and no person who read the piece could
construe it otherwise. The defendant had besides apologized
to the plaintiff, but the latter would not compromise the matter,
unless the defendant placed 20/. at his (plaintiff's) disposal.
This trial was not concluded when we went to press.

PREROGATIVE COLTRT.—(THIs
(Before Sir Jouti Mellott-)
GANZ V. FILTER.
•
The parties in this case were the Executors of Henry Gene,
deceased, who was a farmer residing at Bradford, and had left
very considerable property. Probate was granted to James Cane
one of the parties and the brother of the deceased, upon a will
and two other papers, alleged to have been left by the deceased.—
The validity of the two papers WAD now denied, and it was con-
tended that these papers were not in the hand-writing of the tes-
tator, hut were fabricated by James One and his wife. In sup
port of this view of the case it was stated that the will was pro-
duced immediately after the death of the testator, that lilies Cane
was discontented with the disposition of property made in the will,
and That it was seVerilinontba after the death of the testator that
these testamentary papers were produced, the validity of which

was now contested. In reply it was alleged that the dispositionk
of the property made by the two papers produced was in strics
accordance with a specific agreement made by the testator with
his brother James_Gane.
The Court was occupied in hearing the arguments of Counsel
in this Court during the greater part of the day.

OLD BAILEY.—(THIS DAY)
OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Sergeant AnAWL)

Michael Sullivan, an Irishman, aged SO, was charged on an,
indictment with maliciously stabbing Thomas Evans, w►th intent
to murder.
Mr. Wontner, the Governor of Newgate, informed the Court
that the prisoner was so exceedingly deaf, that since the time of
his becoming an inmate of Newgate, it had been impossible to
make him understand any thing. He had imagined at first that
the deafness was assumed, but from what he had learned be was
of opinion that the prisoner was deaf, owing to bruises received
in the affray, out of which the preeent charge arose.
Mr. Sergeant Azouns was of opinion, that it was impossible
for the prisoner to take his trial while labouring under so great an
affliction._He was accordingly removed from the bar.