The Sun.
London, England, 1821-08-01 00:00:00

appointing A receiver could haVe no
.other effect,
than that of incurring most enormous- expellees.
The Earl, it was also contended, in the course of
the arguments adduced, waccapable of conduct=
ing his own affairs, and was entitled to be relieved
from a deed of so peculiar a nature as the one, in
question. The estates; it was also asserted, were
managed- as Well as they could be ;• and When it
was considered that there were SOG Irish tenants,
some idea would be had of the expence likely to
be incurred, if a receiver were to be appointed:.
Mr. HEALD, contended at. great length against
the motion fora receiver, and expressed astonish-
ment at the total failure of the charges brought
against his Client. If there were any blame at-
tachable to him, it was the neglect of •presenting
his Bill of Costs ; but surely this could not be
said to warrant the appointment asked for. The
only good that could arise would be to incumber
the estate with most heavy charges in passing,
such voluminous accounts through the Master's
Office. Mr. Fellowes's narne in fact, he said,
appeared to the accounts that had been passed so
late as 1819; and how l‘lr. Hanson could be said
to have appropriated the money to his own use,
was to him a.rnatter wholly inexplicable. If the
Court should be of opinion that Mr. H. ought not
to bold the money in his hands as a-set-off; it
could order it to be paid into Court without ap-
pointing a Receiver, for which there was not the
slightest necessity.
Mr. SKI RIIO %V, for Lord Grantley and Mr.
Justice Best, said his only wish was the Main-
tenance of the honours and dignities of the House
of the Noble Earl. lie dwelt on the great ne-
cessity of preventing enormous expellees being
incurred, particularly when it was known that
there were not less than four or five suits insti-
tuted in the Court relative to these estates.
The Loan CHANCELLOR remarked at great
length on the nature of the deed, and the circum-
stances that characterised the present case, which
gave rise to so many doubts. Adverting to the
principal one, his Lordship said, in the present
state of the case, he must certainly consider the
deed to be a valid one, and in fact upon this point
would the whole. turn ;..for if it was invalid there
was an end to the cause ; but, as he had before
said, he could not at present bring his mind to
that conclusion. A. different feature might be
given to it, if. a case to try that. question were
put on the Record, and for this purpose be would
allow the case to stand till Saturday ;. but if that
was not done, he would on that day dispose of it,
as it was of importance that the question should
be set at rest. One Trustee, it was clear, could
not take on himself to act for all the rest ; nor
could he suffer the present alleged management
to continue. In saying this he put wholly out
of sight all the differences stated to exist, and
'should decide the case wholly. on the question
as to the validity of the deed.
(A notice was posted on the usual spot, an-
nouncing that his Lordship, would not possibly
be able to continue the present Sittings after
Saturday, the 25th of August.)

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 31.

PIPPET HEARN.

This was an action of assault and false im-
prisonment, the declaration stating that . the
defendant maliciously' charged the plaintiff with
felony, and caused him to be- carried before
Mr. Alderman Atkins, and detained for the
space of four hours. The defendant pleaded
—l. The general issue, Not Guilty ; and
2, that the plaintiff had feloniously taken and
carried away a box of lace, wherefore the
defendant laid hold of him, and gave him in
custody of a constable, to be discharged, by due
course of law. Replication de injuria, and issue

thereon.
Mr. SCARLETT, Mr. Anor,ruus, and Mr. OS-
BORNE conducted the plaintiff's case; and Mr.
GURNEY and Mr. PLATT the defendant's.
The plaintiff's case was this :—The plaintiff
was described to be a young man residing in
Somersetshire, carrying an business in the lace
trade as a factor and Commissioner. Being in-

formed by a' person named White, that the latter
had a quantity of lace, worth 60 or 701. deposited
in the hands of the defendant, who keeps the
King's Arms Inn, Snowhill, on account of a per-
son named Strange, a lace manufacturer,. at

Whaddon; in Bucks, it was agreed that the 1
plaintiff might have it for 401. The plaintiff not
having the immediate commatid of sotnuch money,
he communicated the circumstance to a Mr.
Bridges, a laceman and hosier, in Wood-street,
Cheapside, and the latter agreed to advance the
money to redeem the lace. Having obtained a
tt ritten order from White upon the elocendant to
see the article, the plaintiff and Bridges went to
the defendant's house and asked to see the lace.
It was shewn to them, and Bridges being satis-
fied that it was worth 401. paid down the money,
the defendant agreeing to deliver up the lace for
that sum. The defendant took up the money,
and said he must have 7s. more. Upon this there
was some altercation, and at length Bridges gave
the remaining money. As soon as the defendant
got the money, he put the lace aside, and throw-
ing down a sealed letter, said " that is all you
are to have for your 401." Mr. Bridges insisted
upon having the lace or the money back, but the
defendant refused both. Upon which the former
snatched at the money, said he was not going to he
robbed, and after a considerable struggle, got it
back. The defendant, in his turn, struggled to re-
possess himself of it; but Mr. Bridges dashed in his
hand through a pane of glass, and gave it to a
porter who was in waiting to carry the box. of
lace, and desired him to take it home. The de-
fendant then detained both the plaintiff and
Bridges, sent for a constable, and had them
taken to the Compter, where they were detained
for two hours, and in about two hours afterwards,
upon an investigation of the transaction before
Mr. Alderman Atkins, they were discharged.
To prove the case, Mr. BridgPs, Mr. Thomas
White, and Mr. Payne, the Magistrates' clerk,
were called. Mr. Bridges did not know where
the plaintiff lived, nor did lie know any body
who did. Mr. Nite described himself to be a
general broker, living at No. C, M trket-Street,
St. George's-market. He had had transactions
• in flour, hams, Yorkshire cloth, and one or two
; in lace. At the time of this transaction, he had