The Sun.
London, England, 1821-11-29 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, N0V.28.
DAVIDSON V. THOMPSON.
This was an application made by Mr. HART, on the part of
the plaintiff, praying that an order might be directed to issue
for the payment of a sum of money, claimed to be due to him
as part owner of a vessel which he had been charged with for
repairs. The facts of the case are shortly these :--The defend-
ant was owner of two-thirds, and the plaintiff owner of one-
third share in the vessel, which had gone through six voyages.,
but in preparing for prosecuting the seventh, she had under-
gone sundry repairs, and towards which the applicant was al-
[edged to be charged properly with 1,0001.
On the other side, Mr. HEALD and Mr. MacHIN contended
that the plaintiff had himself permitted the repairs to be clone
without expressing any objection, and that he was consequent-
ly not intitled to any relief.
The LORD CHANCELLOR decided, that the motion should
be dismissed, on the ground that as the plaintiff had allowed
the repairs to be done without putting in any declaration that
he would not share in the expellee ; or given any idea that he
gave up his claim to the profits that might eventually accrue,
he could not rule that the money ought to be paid. The ques-
tion here ought to be decided, not only with a view to the pre-
sent; but to future cases, and being unaquainted with the rule
on which the Court of Admiralty decided such points, he
should, in the event of saying nothing further in the case, dis-
miss the motion with costs, for though the vessel might cer-
tainly be more valuable at the conclusion of the voyage from
the repairs that had been done, yet she might also from circum-
stances be so much dilapidated from wear and tear, that she
would not be so valuable. It was clear that the plaintiff had
no right to say he would have the ship valued at the moment
she was about .to sail, without entering into a recognizance to
share mutually in the voyage, and with this view, if he said
nothing more on it, he should make an order in the terms he
had mentioned.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 28.
THE BUSINESS OF THE COURT.
The Lon'n CHIEF JUSTICE, on coming into Court, inti-
mated that it was necessary to postpone all matters likely to
occupy much time until the 10th of January, when the Judges
will sit to dispose of the business in arrear.
THE KING'S BENCH PRISON.
IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM JONES, ESQ.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, adverting to the. application
which had been made to the Court against the Marshal of the
King's Bench prison, said that the Court had considered the
case, and some of its Members had read over the affidavits on
both sides with great attention. It appeared, taking the whole
of the affidavits together, that the matter of a personal nature,
of which Colonel Bailey had complained; had taken place so
long ago as the 21st or 22d of December last matter which
related to some threatening expressions used by some other
person towards Colonel Bailey. As to that matter, in the
judgment of the Court; the ground of complaint against the
Marshal personally to Colonel Bailey had been answered satis-
factorily. The Court thought that the Marshal had acted Most
discreetly in not bringing those parties together before him,
but in hearing them separately, although he might have been
justified in sending one or both to Horsemonger-lane Gaol.
*The Marshal certainly was not subject to any blame for
taking a more mild and lenient measure, that course having
the effect of keeping peace within the walls of the prison.
What related to Colonel Bailey personally .was therefore
answered most satisfactorily. Another ground of complaint

Mr. Cu RWOOD now moved for a writ of Habeas Corpus, in
order that the custody of the prisoner might be changed. The
sentence of the Court (the Learned Counsel said) ran thus :
" The defendant was to be imprisoned two years in Gloucester
Gaol, to pay a fine of 5,0001., and to be further imprisoned un-
til such fine was paid." The two years being now expired,
Levi remained a prisoner for his fine unpaid ; but it did not
form (Mr. Curwood submitted) any part of the sentence that
the imprisonment for fine should be in the same gaol as the im-
piisonment for punishment. An affidavit was then produeed
from Levi, -stating his extreme bad health, and the opinion of
medical men that change of air was necessary to his life ; the
deponent further declared that his wife was dying, and that his.
children were in a state of beggary ; and prayed that he might
be removed to some prison in or near London. '
Mr. CURWOOD submitted that (by the expiration of the term
of two years) the defendant's situation was changed from that of
a criminal prisoner to that of a crown debtor.; .and cited two
cases of removal of prisoners—one unon the ground of insecu-
rity in a particular gaol ; and another upon the ground that
(being confined for misdemeanour) the prisoner had been sent
to a gaol which was a gaol for felons only.
The COURT thought that they had no power to interfere.—
By the terms in which the sentence was recorded, the defendant
was delivered to the keeper of the particular gaol, to be kept
by that keeper in custody for a certain stated term, and furtlier
Until his fine (if any) should be paid.
The LOUD CHIEF JUSTICE observed, upon the defendant's
affidavit, that the contents, if true, might have effect in another
quarter. •

BISHOP V. irALLETT.
This was a -motion to set aside a commission granted by the
Court to examine witnesses atliuenos Ayres.. The parties to
be examined were three gentlemen named Dyson, Nonell, aial
Wild ; and the subject matter was a cargo of goods shipped
some years since from this country to South America.
.Mr. GURNEY' obtained a rule to shew cause why the com-
mission should not be set aside. The rule was granted upon an
affidavit produced, which alleged that the commission had been
sought for delay, and that two of the witnesses (Nir. Dyson and
another) were actually in England.
Mr. SCAJSLETT now shewed cause against Mr. Gurney's
rule, and in 'his turn produced an affidavit. That affidavit
stated that Mr. Dyson only had arrived in England ; that he
was in such bad health as to be utterly incompetent to busi-
ness; that he had left all and documents with Messrs.
Nonell and Wild, who were still 'in' Buenos Ayres ; and that,
in fact, he could throw no light upon the transaction.
Mr. GURNEY (in reply) endeavoured to shew that all the ma-
terial facts of the case were in the knowledge of Mr. Dyson.
The COURT thought that, upon Mr. Scarlett's affidavit, the
necessity for the commission still existed, and decided that Mr.
Gurney's rule should be discharged.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov: 28.
• iiENC} V. rwt-mokp.
Mr. Sergeant HuLLOCK moved the Court for a rule to skew
cause why the annuity deeds in this4case should not be cancelled.
He grounded his motion upon the cad of the late King, C. 141,
sect. t, which regulated a new mode of registration, and also
provided that where any part of the sum granted upon an an-
nuity should be retained for the purpose of answering the pay-
ment of any future, art of the said annuity, or under any other
pretence whatever, "it should be liwful for the Court in which
any action should be brought to recover en the annuity deed,, to
set aside and "cancel .the same.. The faCts Of- the present case
Were these:—Mr. Hammond was.a student in the.Uaiversity of
Cambridge, and-two friends Of his there at time, Messrs.
Hopper and smith, also studentS, applied through his.uiediurn
to negotiate a loan of 1,4001. Ir. Hammond applied to a perty
to transact the business, and the necessary .arrangements were
prepared. On the Bth of Al aY, U.lB, Mr. Hammond went to Mr.
George B. White; at an inn at ('a abridge, to complete the
deeds, and --receive
.the money he signed and sealed them,
and also confessed judgment in two warrants of Attorney, for
there were two annuity deeds of 9031. each: The defendant,
against whom an action. was brought upon one of these deeds,
now deposed, that neither himself; nor Messrs. Hopper. and
Smith, for whom he negociated the loan, ever received the full
sum of 1,5001., for which sum the said deeds had been granted
that the whole amount they received was only 9811., and no

PR_ERQOATiVE- COURT.; Nov. 2C •'
No businCss particular interest iameon to•-day,---Two rro:
ticins of course were made for the CoUrt's 'giant of_ lettei:s. of
ministration to next of kin, in cases where the widow and-111
mother were .resident abroad ; 'due -notices having been -served'
upon the pillars of the. Royal txchange. The Court gzantkd
the.prayer, but intimated that in any itititte instance of intes-,
tacy, wherein the widow might be resident in, Framed; or:soMe -
other part of. the continent, the Court would not hold tilt mere
publication of notice on thi Royal Exchange sufficient, 'but.
would require. to'be -satisfied that due diligence hanceti ud
in .conveying such notification to the party so dwelling out of
the kingdom. ...

• LEITII AND ANOTHER V. Hr.NRI.
At the-request :of Dr. LUSHINGTON; into whose hands tire-
papers relative to. his, client's case had been very shortly Ilefop •
deposited, this cause was postponed to the by-day. . •
Dr. 3E NNrlt.,fOrtllC information of the Court, • stated 'that.
this was a cause'of interest Mrs. Henri was usually resideltt
in France; and in the French courts a divorce snit wa.s noir pend-
ing betwAt her and her husband. The application intended T. 9
have •beetrstibmitted 'on her part this day, but whiOrmust now
be postponed till a future opportunity, was, that the Couriqtma
allow ht.: to aple;:r at its bar, either personally or by, proxy,;aild
then• and hIT appoint a proctor to represent her in this cause.
The case was then def.rred.

HURD V. Ii 7) AND °TIMIS.:
Dr. JENxtn. said, that -Vie deceased in this case, Mr.
Hurd, of Tewkesbury, in Gloucestershire, died in the:month
of June-. last,. haVing. left behind him a will in an unfinished
state, as now propounded. There were several persons who
would 'have been entitled in-distribution to his personal pro-
perty, in case he had. died intestate. They had been cited to .
appear in Court in the regular manner, but no appearance had
been given for them ; and he should therefore pray the Court
to' decree probate to the will propounded, and to admit the pre-
sent allegation propounding it. He understood there would
be no opposition ofFered to the admission of this zilegation.
Sir JeittNt Nicifoar. directed that the allegation might be
taken as read. lie had carefully perused.it. • But he could not
accede to the prayer of Courtsc.l, notwithstanding the circum-
stances of no appearance given, and no opposition offered.
Ho-v vas it possible that the Court could pronounce for the va-
lidity of the paper in question ? It was quite impossible that
it s:iould do so, unless upon a sufficient and very satisfactory
statement of facts offered to the Court. The paper concluded
in this abrupt manner." And lastly, I give and bequeath all
the rest, residue, and remainder of my said personal estate
in witness whereof, I have set my hand this--:" This was
not a case in which the Court would feel justified to pro-
nounce for the validity of the instrument, and it must thereftire
dismiss the allegation.
. Dr. JEN SE R certainly felt unable to contend that this. was a
valid disposition of property, under • any-rides of legal pro-
ceeding ; but 0)2 peculiar circumstances of thecise had induced
him to think that such an application might be made without
impropriety.
The COURT pronounced the deceased to have died 'intestate
according to the tenour of the evidence at present before it.
O'DOGIIERTY V. CARPENTER.

This day the long depending cause,respecting- the will of the
late Lieut.-Col. .o'Dogherty stood for hearing, when it ap-
pearing to the Counsel on each side that the proofs adduced in
rapport of the will being insufficient to sustain its validity, • it
was arranged that,. with leave of the Court, a decree should
be taken in favour of an intestacy, each party paying his own
costs.

Upon which the Judge (Sir John Nicholl) was pleased toob- •
serve, that it appeared to him the parties had taken the wisest
plan, as he wassonvinced, from what he had read of the evi-
dencebpon the coadidit, that the paper could not be supported.
That it might also be for the satisfaction of the parties to know,
that although he had • not read the whole of the other parts
of the: evidence, he had read the greater part of it, and that 'he
saw nothing to implicate Mr. eirpenter in the fraud of obtain- •-
ing this wilr—if,:;.indeedz any such 'fradd were* committedz 1)
did not see that he was implicated in it—therefore he thought.
the party was not to obtain costs as against him. Mr. Car-
penter had done nothing more than his duty in submitting the
case to the consideration of the Court under the circumstances
atter they arose, and therefore the parties had come to a quite
right understanding in allowing a decree to be pronounced
against the will, eaen party paying his own costa.