The Sun.
London, England, 1826-09-11 00:00:00

tAW INTtLIAGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY.—(Tuts DAY.)
STEAD V. FRESIWIELD.

His LORDSHIP stated that he could not give judgment in
this case to-day, as he had intended, upon the plaintiff's
application to tax the defendant's bill of costs, because he
had received a letter only last night, from Mr. Freshfield,
soliciting a postponement of the judgment, that he might
have an opportunity of answering the affidavits the plaintiff
had furnished the Court with at its suggestion, which he
(the Chancellor) could not but comply with.
Mr. STFAD wished to know if his Lordship would limit
the time for answering the affidavits, which opportunity he
was by no means anxious fo withhold.

Hi; LORDSHIP thought it proper that the opportunity
should be afforded, but as proper that it should be limited
to a week or ten days.

GLASSINGTON V. THWAITES.

His LORDSHIP stated, that in the whole eourse of his
experience, in the business of this Court, now between
forty and fifty years, he had not met with a more entan-
gled case, nor one that had puzzled him so much as the
present. He regretted that Counsel were not in attend-
ance, because the fucts required a great deal of further
consideration before he could undertake to make an order.
A gentleman present informed the Lord Chancellor,
that if he chose to go into the case, the statement should
be laid before Counsel.

His LORDSHIP, upon this statement being made to him,
went fully into a detail of the proceedings that had taken
place from the commencement of the suit until the present
day, making comments thereon, which occupied no incon-
siderable portion of the morning; accompanying this detail
with his earnest wish that the statement might not be
conveyed beyond the eye of the Counsel, and parties In
the cause. This*vish he entertained from an anxiety
that the case might not be prejudiced in any way, from
what fell from him, in the absence of the gentlemen
in whose hands the protection of the interest of both
parties was. The Reporters, however, were permitted to
remain in his Lordship's room during the making of the
detail, and we apprehend, we shall not abuse his Lordship's
courtesy in permitting us to remain in his room, by mak-
ing this short statement of the representation of thei case—
that to the plaintiff's bil, alleging misconduct in the
management of the Morning Herald partnership con-
cern, and calling for an account, the defendant Mr.
Phillip put in what he called an Answer and disclaimer;
that the plaintiff, Mr. Glassington, did not except to
that thing, so called; that he amended his bill; that
to that amended record the same sort of thing was put
in as was put in to the original record; and that the great
question now was, whether the plaintiff ought to have spe-
cial leave to take exceptions to the first answer and dis-
claimer, having, from what he had done, let pass the regu-
lar opportunity of taking those exceptions ? Subject to
what his Lordship may hear from Counsel on both sides,
in November, his present opinion was, that the justice of
the case required that the special leave sought by Mr.
Glassington should be granted, notwithstanding any thing
he had done.