The Sun.
London, England, 1826-11-08 00:00:00

BANKRUPT LAW.

A gentleman behind the bar, stated that a person had been, in
April last committed to Northgate prison, in (we thought the
Learned Counsel said) Chester; that since then, a Commission of
Bankrupt had been taken out against him ; that he had got his
certificate, but that the Sheriffs, who were the keepers of the
prison, had refused to liberate him; and, therefore, he had now
presented a petition to this Court, praying it to order his discharge,
which the Learned Counsel requested might be allowed to be put
down for an early day.
His LORDSHIP inquired why the application was not made to a
Common Law Judge ?
The Gentleman was not aware that his client could get dis-
charged by a Common Law Judge.
His LORDSHIP certainly understood, that if a bankrupt present-
ed his certificate to the Judges, or to a Judge of the Court of
King's Bench, he would be entitled to have an order for his dis-
charge, which this Court recommended to be tried ; and if the
Judges in the Court below felt themselves incapable of the task,
then the applicant might come here.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. MAYOR OF EXETER.
This matter stood for this morning, that the Court might be
informed whether any statement had been made to the Master
when the matter was before him, to set it right with respect to
the large admission that had been made in the account, and also,
that the account-book alluded to yesterday, might be produced.
The Counsel fur the defendants were still unprepared to give
satisfactory explanation to his Lordship.
The COURT felt reluctant to decide a point so important, upon
the admissions in the answers, if there really had been a mistake
in the framing of that answer. The admissions went further than
the Corporation now wished to abide by, and the subsequent pro-
ceedings had been upon those admissions. It had been doubted
by the Court, whether some sort of motion ought not to be made
with a view of having liberty granted to amend the answer in some
way or other, even after a decree amide. This certainly would be
a strong power to give.
Mr. Meitivat, felt greatly obliged to the Court for this sug-
gestion.
Mr. 'Haar, for the relatorerhad no 'personal feeling -on the
subject: but he certainly did think, that if the Court were to give
such liberty in the present matter, as his Lordship seemed to in-
timate, the most mischievous consequences might result to cha-
rity estates.
His LORDSHIP had not lost sight of this consideration, but it
was to be observed that the Attorney-General might perhaps re-
fuse to proceed upon a decree, made upon the account of this Cor-
poration, which to say the least of it, was but a slovenly sort of
thing, if he saw that that decree was only to work injury.
Mr. HART said, nebody had ever thought of what the Court
now pointed out; and it was rather hard for him, not only to
have to resist his learned friends, but to have the powerful arm of
the Court in the ranks against him.
His Loaminie had no wish but to deal out justice impartially,
but were he Attorney-General, and a decree had gone before hiin
clearly injurious in its nature and upon its principles, lie certainly
should refuse to advance. Care, however, would have to be taken
that every security be given to the charity in the event of any
further delay, to remodel the case on the part of the charity.
Mr. SHA DWELL then applied for a week's time to communicate
with the defendants in the country, by which time he had no doubt
of being able to make an offer with respect to paying any balance
into Court. _ _

His Loanssur granted this time, saying the defendants would
have to be pretty liberal.
Mr. SHADWELL had no doubt they would, but the Court would
he pleased to remember that they had already paid 1,0001. into
Court.

SIR E. BACON, BART. V. PROCTOR.

This was an appeal from an order at the Rolls, made on the 6th
of December 1822 ; it was pronounced by Mr. Baron Graham,
who at that time sat with Sir James Simeon, Bart„ anti Mr.
Stralford for Sir Thomas Plumer. The suit was an ami-
cable one, and argued both at the Rolls, and here, at no
sparing length by a phalanx of learned gentlemen upon dry
points of law. The compendious statement of the argu-
ments may bei, said to be, that Sir Edmund Bacon had disposed
of, in trust, by his will (dated in 1815), his estates, to raise ac-
cumulations to meet charges, that might run to an unlimited
time before those accumulations could be raised ; and that therefore
the disposition was void, having the character of perpetuity. The
plaintificonssquently contended, that, as heir-at-law (being eldest son
of the testator), he was entitled to the absolute possession of the
estates ; but if the Court did not think so, then he submitted that
he was entitled, under the construction of the will, as tenant in
tail. The defendants were the sons of the plaintiff and the trustees.
.—The judgment pronounced was, that the present plaintiff was
only entitled as tenant for life.
The arguments were not concluded when we left the Court.
APPOINTED JUDGMENTS.

Knatelibull v. Harvey on Friday, and Attorney-General v.
Lord Mansfield on Monday.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT_(TMIS DAY.)
TAAYTZ V. BELLZW.

by the plaintiff, calling on the de-
fendant, Mrs. O'Neil Bellew,
h her husband died possessed of, in order
to furnish an account of the real and
perhsiontalliisprcoapseertaybwilhl
it' was filed
might be handed over to the plaintiff.
that a moiety thereof
of the plaintiff to the following
husband wrote to the father
it becomes us to make our arrange-
It appeared that so far back as the year 1806, the defendant's
effect i......" As we are mortal,
your heirs one half of all my
I think it therefore right to
real and personal property -- the / make no mention of my
half mY wife is entitled to.
intnef:nwYtuiletth'evteihiaevaelelifteeaYillibfaenadltll'time of my death ; the other
if they ever want, you
shaft; because I am satisfied that .
Iwill write to you more
will M* to their assistance. 4 f
you, however, not
at length in a little time, but as I have not yet made my will,
keep this as niy last testament I must bei,o ir. Bellew, how-
to let this matter come to my wife's earl.
bequeathed to his wife
ever, in 184, made a will, in which he heclue' In this will
all his real and ?enema pioperty during her lifetime•
he released his
making an inventory and gag through other forms, wiliiitinuor hr;
the French law would have been necessary (the greater P
should his
personal property being in France), and lidded, that . ,_
heirs insist on her performing these acts, be in that case mute!'
wife
fe°tit theverformance of certain acts.,,cr_oh_Aas__
wife hie "le and ebenlute legatee. Mrs. Bellew had since taken
out letters of administration on both these document'', it being'
according to the statement of Pete. Sugden, who appeared in ell;
, pun by
port of the demurrert i
the defendant, the rule in t

Ecclesiastical Court to admit all papers which on the face of
them were testamentary, unless where there was an absolute
revocation, leaving it to a competent Court to determine after-
wards their construction. The Learned Counsel contended
that the testator, when he was making his second will,
did not contemplate his first one, inasmuch as he, in his second
will, imposed certain conditions on his "heirs." Now, if he
meant by his heirs those who under the first will were entitled to
his property, he must have alluded to Taafe and his wife ; and yet
he says that, in case his heirs refuse to' comply with the directions
'contained in his second will, his wife is to have all his property,
so that if he contemplated his first will, he would be in effect saying
" If my wife, who is one of my heirs by my first will, refuses
to comply with the directions contained in my second, she is to
have the absolute possession of my property." Such a disposition
of the testator's property, the learned gentleman conceived to be
highly absurd.
His Ilorrou overruled the demurrer, adding that the testator by
his heirs, must have meant such persons as by appointment before
his death, or otherwise, would he entitled to succeed him : the
second NVill was, in his Honour's opinion, nothing more than a
codicil to the first.
On the application of Mr. SUGDI6I, time was granted to the
defendant to amend her answer.

COURT OF KING'S BENCII.—(Tnts DAY.)
HART v. CURRY.
This was an action brought to recover front the defendant com-
pensation in damages for the injury which the plaintiff sustained,
iu consequence of the defendant's having deepened that part of
the River Lee, which is between the mills of both parties, so as
to cause a greater quantity of water to flow to his own mill,
and a less quantity to the plaintiff's.
It was tried at the sittings after Trinity Term, before the Lord
Chief Justice, and a verdict was given for the plaintiff.—Da-
mages, 100/.
Mr. SCARLETT moved this day for a rule to show cause, why
the verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial had, on the
ground, that the verdict had been contrary to evidence, as the
plaintiff should establish a right before he sought for damages,
which he did not do.—Rule granted.

BELCHER. V. SVICF.S.
This was an action brought on a breach of covenant, against the
executors of Mr. Brimer, who bed contracted with the plaintiff
to supply Government with provisions; a dissolution of partner-
ship having taken place, a deed was entered into, whereby it was
agreed, that Brimer should give up all his right to the
plaintiff, for a given sum, and should have no further claim
on Government. Brimer died shortly after, and his brother hav-
ing some vouchers, relating to the original contract, in his hands,
he, by virtue thereof, received from Government 9,0001. to re-
cover which sum this action was brought; it was tried at Guild-
hall, and the plaintiff was nonsuited, because the deed entered
into on the dissolution of partnership had an ad valorem stamp.
The Solicitor-General moved this day for a rule to show cause
why the nonsuit should not be set aside, and a new trial had, on
the ground that the deed had been completed by the defendant's
attorney, who must have known previously to the trial the de-
fect in the stamp, the deed being now properly stamped.—The
rule was granted.