The Sun.
London, England, 1826-11-24 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS, THURSDAY.

The House met at Half-past Two o'clock ; soon after which,
the SPE Aux, accompanied by a considerable number of Mem-
bers, proceeded to present to his Majesty the Address in answer to
his gracious Speech from the Throne. The House then adjourned
until to-morrow.

All the Papers were led into error as to the numbers of the di-
visions on Tuesday night; besides, during the exclusion of the
Reporters, there were two divisions. On Mr. Hume's Amend-
ment, the numbers were—Ayes 24 ; Noes 170 (not 107) ; Ma-
jority against it 14G. On a second Amendment, pledging the
House to inquire into the state of Ireland, &c., the numbers were
for it 58 ; against it 185 ; , majority '77. The original Addreosp

moved by Mr. Liddell, was then carried without aelivisiou.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 17.
TYLER V. DRAYTON.

Mr. KNIGHT mentioned this case to the Ceurt, in which Mr.
Agar had on a previous day moved fur the production of deeds,
and papers in the defendant's possession. The billwas filed to set
aside a contract and conveyance, on the grounds of fraud and in-
adequacy of consideration ; and he (Mr Knight) was instructed
by one of the defendants, who claimed one moiety of the estate,
having purchased it fur a valuable consideration, and having
had his title confirmed to him by the original vendor.—
Under these circumstances, he submitted, whether his client ought
to be compelled to produce the title deeds, upon the mere allega-
tions of fraud in the bill (which were fully denied in the answer),
before any evidence whatever lied been given to distrust his right
as a hone fide purchaser. The defendant for whom he (Mr.
Knight) appeared, had no interest in concealing or withholding
the deeds, except the ebjeetions every man has to part with hie
title deeds; and he was willing to produce them, provided the
Court thought he was bound to do so. At the same time he felt
it his duty, and be had, therefore, instructed him (Mr. Knight) to
submit this point to the Court. Mr. Knight thought it right to
state, that the actual circumstances of the case were very different
from what had been represented by Mr. Agar, in his opening ;
and he begged to request that his Honour and !lie public would
not allow such misrepresentations to prejudice him; for Mr.
Knight pledged himself, that in whatever way his Honour might
ultimately decide the question, Mr. Drayton would be found to
have acted with the greatest fairness and generosity. At the
time the original contract was made the vendor was not in pos-
session, but the estate as well as the title-deeds were in the hands
of adverse parties, who denied the right of the vendor.—
, The purchaser took all this risk upon himself, and remained out
of possession; after he had paid his purchase-money, many years ;
and if the man from whom he purchased had died during this
interval, all his money would have been lost. Besides the running.
this risk, the purchaser had been at great expellee in getting pos-
-1 session of the property, and in making good his title to it; and when
be, afterwards found it to be more valuable than he had considered
it, he voluntarily made a further advance to the vendor ; and so
far from the man who sold being imbecile, or unsound, or im-
posed upon, it is sworn that he was a man of goad abilities, and
well knew what he Was about, and confirmed and recognized the
bargain as well by deeds and solemn legal instruments as by con-
versation with his friends and people in the neighbourhood of the
property; and so far from the bargain having been a purchase or
an estate in possession worth 500/. per annum for 1,0001., us
stated by Mr. Agar, it was charged with a life annuity of 140/,
in addition to the consideration, and afterParatant of that annuity,
it is sworn that the estate does not now produce more than 701.
per.annuni. He (Mr. Knight) mentioned these facts because
another defendant in the cause, Mr. Drayton, who was an auc-
tioneer, anti therefore in some degree in public life, might be very
materially affected by the statements made by Mr. Agar. Of
course he did not mean to impute- any improper motives to Mr.
Agar, every one knew him too well for that ; but when that gen-
tleman Made the strong statements he was in the habit of doing,
he ought to recollect that they might have an injurious effect
upon individuals, which he was sure Mr. Agar himself did
not wish.

...
The Vice-Cumscempa—Mr. Agar, you are in the habit of
stating your case rather strongly. Counsel should recollect the
effect that such statements are likely to have uppn the character of
individuals out of doors.,
Mr. ActatiL.-I consider that I stated the case accurately from
the bill.

Mr. Kartairr—But those allegations are denied in the answer;
and, standing at this bar, 1 beg leave most respectfully, and with
deference to Mr. Agar, to deny the truth of all those allegations
contained in the bill.

The Vice-Cuaworct.oa—They may be in the bill, Mr. Apr,
but some caution should be used in stating them, as they a►e likely
to be reported as facts.,
His llotioutt ordered the deeds to be produced; and Mr.
KNIGHT stated his'perfect willingness to produce them without a
moment's delay.

ROLLS COURT, THURSDAY, Nov. 23.

ROBSON Y. IVISTERN, WAKEFIRLD, AND OTHERS.

The arguments in this case were roamed on the sitting of the
Court.

Mr. WAKIEFIRLD, who had not concluded at tl►e rising of the
Court on Thursday evening, now commenced, by reading several
letters written by. the plaintiff when Mrs. Pattie and dated Genoa.
They referred to various pecuniary transactions, in which the
writer. directed Mr. Edward Wakefield to pay different some of
money in discharge of his son's, Mr. Edward Gibbon Wakefield's
debts.

Mr. SITU DIM said, he appeared far Mr. Edward Gibbon Wake-
field and his children, and on their behalf lie had to ask that the
bill should be dismissed with costs. A great anxiety was shown
on the other side to protect Mr. E. Gibbon Wakefield and his
children, but if be, who was their Counsel, understood their in-
terest, they required no protection whatsoever from, the Court.—
Their interest would be best promoted by the dismissal of the bill.
As to the account which Mrs. Robson asked from Mr. Edward
Wakefield, he (Mr: *den) had no objection to such an account
being takes+, because it could not affect his clients; it could only
affect her agent, J‘li. Edward Wakefield: Mrs. Robson could
have no right .to ask any account from Mr. Edward Gibbon
Wakefield, who it was not pretended was ever her agent. It was
true, she had first made a claiM upon Edward Gibhon Wakefield,
but when that claim was decided against hes, upon referring the
case to Mr. Sbadwell, she bussed round upon Mr. Edward Wake-
field, and made the claim upon him. This afforded a presump-
tion that the whole claim originated in *erne dehision of Mrs.
Robsen's mind; but with this he (Mr. Sugden) had nothing to
de for he withdrew lsks client's case from that of Mr. Edward
Wakefield altogether. The only account that could be taken,
was en account of Mrs. -Robson's annuity with Mr.' Edward
Wakefield
,- and on that ground alone the bill should be, dbl.;
mimed, With respect to the fundswhich were in Court, it was
in the name of the Accountant-General, and not one penny of it
could ever
be touched Without the permission of the Court. As
regarded the interests of-the infants, how could that be promoted
by disturbing the fund ; or what had that fund to do with the
present cause? No relief was prayed against Mr: Edward Gib..
father; hot whelet had he to do with in
bon 'Wakefield,.
that he night watch
the taking of the he was only . other-iu4aw and his
accounts between
hhlstlllaccount? nothing more
than any stranger sta •duly
must be dismitased, it Ingwith osts. But there
was another prayer in in the Court;
i regarded him, c .
of the &totes upon which
made by Mr.
bill. it was prayed .1a ~
should be brought inta"cloie Mrs. Robson'a annuity weeci rgeliin
the assignment Now it was expreaslY declared
andd
tthiatetrtelfioertetttliemec!
expressly
deeds should
resuain.in possession of the tenant 11(4311.' that the title _.,.5,
Was Mr. Edward Gibbon Wtaenant for life. The tenant for ht.
the deeds should be taken Wield, and there was no reason why
Friends could not produce lie'? of his possession. His Learned(
single. ease in which the-Court had
interfered under similar cir t!
urnstaneee ; and he hoped he would
never see the day when the Court , such
would assume a power.
What, then, could be time
object of Mrs. Robson in making such