The Sun.
London, England, 1845-01-23 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Jan. 22.
(Before Sir J. WIGIAM.)

EMPERINGIIAM V. SHORT.

This case had been before the Court -on Saturday and
Monday last, and his Honour, on the conclusion of the
latter day, stated that before giving his decision he
would read the notes of the common-law judge before
whom certain issues directed in the cause had been tried.
In Fehruary last the case came before the Court on ex-
ceptions to the Master's report, when the validity of a
sale of property, as between father and son, was im-
peached. On that occasion the two issues above-
mentioned were directed, to try whether a con-
sideration had been paid, and, if it had, whether
the conveyances were executed, on the part of the son,
to the purpose and intent to delay, hinder, and defraud
the plaintiff; also whether certain moneys were receiv-
able under a sequeitration. The issues having been
tried, a motion was made for a new trial, and this mo-
tion was now to be decided.
1119 HONOUR, having informed himself of the opinions
of the Learned Judge who tried the issues on the various
questions then decided, thought that there were no
grounds to warrant a new trial ; he therefore refused
the motion, with costs.

.

COURT OF QUEENS BENCH, Jun. 22.

The Court took the Crown paper to-day, and were
occupied with cases which were totally devoid of any
public interest.

BAIL COUR7', Jan. 22.
(Before Mr. Justice WiLLIAMS.)
IN RE DAVIS.-IMPORTANT TO ATTORNEYS.

Mr. OGLE moved for a rule to show cause why certain
proceedings, instituted against Lord Suffield upon a war-
rant of attorney, should not be set aside for irregularity.
The circumstances of the case may be shortly stated
as follows:—Some time ago his Lordship, while residing
in Brussels, contracted a debt of 3002 with M. Legrelle,
a wine merchant there. His Lordship, at a subsequent
period, in order to get rid of this claim, gave an attor-.
ney, named Davis, a warrant of attorney in the penal
sum of 2,0001, and, in consideration, Davis under-
took to compromise the wine merchant's bill.
He contended that this warrant of attorney was useless,
inasmuch as his Lordship did not sign it in the presence
of a professional man acting for him; and, therefore, it
was to be presumed his Lordship was ignorant of the force
and effect of the instrument he was signing. He at first
had doubted whether that Court had jurisdiction in the
matter, as the warrant of attorney was executed abroad;
but he found a case clearly establishing the point,
recorded in 2d Strange, the case of Fitzgerald v. Plun-
kett, to which he would refer his Lordship.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS—Take a rule nisi.
Rule granted accordingly.

ARCHES COURT, Jan. 21.
(Before Sir IL JENNER FUST.)
THIL OFFICE OF THE JUDGE. PROMOTED BY TROWERS V.
THE REV. JOHN HURST.
This is a proceeding of articles promoted by letters
of request from the diocese of Chichester against the
Rev. Mr. Hurst, Vicar of Thackham, in the county of
Sussex, for the " reformation of his soul's health," &c.
The charges against the reverend defendant were con-
tained in a series of articles, charging constant and pro-
miscuous adulterous connexion with two of his ser-
vants, and with many of the wives of his parishioners.
The facts are wholly unfitted for publication, though•
dwelt upon at very considerable length by Drs. Hag-
gard and Bayford, who were civilians in support of the
articles, and they submitted that the Court ought not to
stop short at anything but a total deprivation. The
Learned Advocates contended that habitual adultery in
barns, in the fields, in the furze, &c., had been fully esta-
blished. That on some occasions he had brought his
son and daughters to the house of one of his parishioners
while acts of the grossest immorality were perpetrated
by the father up stairs—that he had attempted the
chastity of a young servant while two others of the
household were in the same room, with whom it is
pleaded he had afterwards and previously had sexual in-
tercourse.

Dr. ADDAMS was heard on behalf of the Rev. Mr.
Hurst. It was a case which ought to have undergone a
preliminary investigation before the Bishop,: and then
probably the party might have submitted t• suspension.
the Court could not, upon, the evidence adduced pro-
nounce a sentence which could have the effect of de-
pnving the wife and family (eight children, as was
stated) of a home. The parties to prove the criminality
were evidently influenced by a most determined spirit of
hostility. He (Dr. Addams) could not justify the
language made use of by the Rev. Mr. Hurst, nor in.
deed some facts that had been proved against the party.
That there had been improper conduct could not be de-
nied—that the Rev. Gentleman was liable to censure—
to admonition—to suspension for a longer or shorter
time, could not be denied ; but, looking to former cases,