The Sun.
London, England, 1826-11-28 00:00:00

LAW INTELLICOSNCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Wasyssmsrvit—(Tuss Mr.)
His LORDSHIP wished to mention one thing before Counsel
proceeded. He had been supposed to have said yesterday, that if
an affidavit had been made before a person not having the authority
to administer it, and if that affidavit was not true, the party could
not be punished for it. Now, his Lordship wished it to be dis-,
tinctly understood, that if an affidavit was made before a per-
soa having a want of authority, and that affidavit was false,
according to law, it may be considered a great offence, and
the party snaking it may be most severely punished. Because,
when his Lordship was Attorney-General, and the pillory was in
use, the Lord Chancellor of that day directed him to prosecute
person for such an offence, and it ended in that person being put
in the pillory.

IRAVELL V. MEASLY CANAL COMPANY.
Mr. SPENCE was heard this morning in this case, on the same
side as Mr. Shadwell.

Mr. Iloarix was replying when we left the Court:

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COIIRT—(Tuts Day.)
STEVENSON AND OTIIFES V. LIARDON.
Mr. Moon stated that the plaintiffs in this cue were the cre-
ditors of a person named Liardon, who had been for many years
in the service of a noble family, residing in this kingdom. Liar-
don died a short time back, leaving the present defendant, Mare
Louis Liardon, his residuary legatee. The defendant adminis-
tered to the testator's estate, and had applied to the Bank to be
allowed to sell out stock which stood on the books to the credit
of the testator. The amount of the stool( was 850/. in the new
4, per cents., and 532/. in the three per cent. consols. The plain-
tiffs stated that the defendant, who was a Swiss, had hitherto
eluded all their efforts to find out his residence, and that they
verily believed he intended to quit the country as noon as he re-
ceived the amount of the stock, without paying the creditors of
the testator. For these reasons they prayed that the Court might
grant :an injunction to restrain the defendant from transferring
the stock in question.
His Hotioun granted the injunction.

COURT OF KING'S RENCII,--(THIs DAY).
TOIL KING V. eI,LLANAN.

The defendant in this case was brought up again to-day, to re-
ceive judgment on a conviction of perjury. In consequence of
affidavits which he put in, he has been remanded to Newgate until
the second day of next Term.
IMPORTANT TO BROKERS.

GARTWER V. AFLEDO.

This was an action brought to recover from the defendant a
quantity of gum which the plaintiff had purchased of him through
the intervention of a broker, the defendant having refused to abide
by the contract, it was tried at Guildhall and a verdict given for
the plaintiff subject to the opinion of the Court as to the validity
ofthe contract. It was argued by Counsel in the beginning of this
term.

Mr. Justice BAYLEY, in delivering the judgment of the Court
this day, observed, that in this case the broker was fully autho-
rised to sell the gum, and the only objection made to the saki was
the want of his signature to the entry, which he made of it fp hit
hook. It appeared that after the sale had been made he rote
notes to both parties, specifying the terms, &c. It was clear thit
if he had signed his name in the book, it would be suffieient,
along with such notes, to render the contract valid, there being
many decisions to that effect. But the question before the Court
was entirely new; there was no decision of a contract being held
valid where the signature of the broker was not annexed to the
entry of the sale in the book ; notwithstanding the absence of such
decisions, it would be going too far to say that such a signature
was essential to the validity of a sale, for that would be making
the contract to depend on the act of a third person, who by neg.
ligenee or design might defraud either party.
The Court were, therefore, of opinion; that the sale was valid,
and that the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS--(Ttus Dar.)
BROWN V. rAIRMAN, raoritstroa, OF TIM PALLADIUM.
Colonel Fairman appeared in court to-day, and presented an
affidavit, in which he depased, that he had supplied his Attorney,
Mr. Wragg, with funds to conduct his suits; that he, had been
completely deceived by him, and that but for his misplaced ennfi,
deuce in him, judgment should not he allowed to pass against him
(Col. F.); that there was no ground whatever for the present
action, he having never received any value whatever for the bill
on which it was founded. He therefore, prayed the Court to open
the proceedings, and allow him to he heard.

Tlrs
Cum JUSTICE expressed his regret that the Court could
not relieve him, because it was a rule with them not to grant the
prayer-of any petition cio the last. flay of Term, as the opposite
party could have no opportunity of anasvering is.

XI A AVM V. LAPP i 400114.
Mr. Sergeant VA.uossmq argued iss opposition to tint rule
obtained by Air. Sergeant Spankie in this cue on Saturday, Ind
after some uninteresting discusation, the rule was made absolute.

ARCHES COURT.—(Tuts DAY.)
(Before Sir J. Nu.:'mix.)
TIUC emelt OF Jill= V. REED AND HARRIS.

This was a suit promoted voluntarily by one Evan Griffiths, in
the Consistorial Court of Llandaff, against John Reed, Esq. of
the parish of Wick, county of Clamorganahire, and Alice, other-
wise Alse Harry, otherwise Harris, spinster, his niece, for ihcrist.•
Upon the production of the articles in the Court below, the
Presiding Judge refused to admit certain articles, whiCh were
considered material in the suit, and, in consequence, the promotant
appealed to the Court of Arches.
Dr. Luauiturrosi, for the appellant, appeared to move the ad-
mission of the article& now produced.
Dr. JENNER objected to the admission of the articles, which,
he contended, contained a 7nivunner. One of the parties was
designated Alice, or Also Harry, otherwise Harris. The parents
of Alice Harris were known by the name of Harris, and by that
name alone ; and there was no reason why the name of Harry
should have been introduced. In law a misnomer was always
considered fatal. In 10th East, page SS, a case was reported,
named the King v. Shakespear ; and, because the defendant was
called Shakepeare, and not Shakespeare, the objection was consi-
dered fatal. In this case the informality was much stronger, for
a new name was introduced. Upon this ground he submitted
that the articles should be rejected, and the parties dismissed. '
Dr. SALISBUZY followed on the same side, arguing that in' a
charge of such a serious nature, and attended with such penal
consequences, the parties should have the benefit of any objection.
Dr. LUSHINGTON replied. The objection made was strictly
technical, and did not at all effect the merits of the case. In that
part of the country in which the parties lived it was usual to call the
family indiscriminately Harry or Harris, whichever was the
proper name it appeared on the articles, and no inconvenience
could arise to the parties from the introduction of the two names.
The Couar was of opinion that no injury could arise from the
introduction of the second name. It was notorious that many fis-
milks in Wales had second surnames. Almost every family added
to the name. David became Davis, and Griffith Griffiths, hy
the progress of modern refinement.
Under all the circumstances, the Court conceived that it was ,•a
great scandal to the neighbourhood, if two persons lived together
in the manner described. It was the duty of the Court, it such a
connection subsisted to put it down, and the Court therefore pro-
nounced for the admission of the articles.