The Sun.
London, England, 1821-11-12 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 10.

THE EARL or SHAFTESBURY V. THE DUKE OF MARL•
'BOROUGH.

Mr. SHADWELL said there were two petitions in this case:
one, which was from Lord Churchill, prayed that it might be
referred to the Master, to take an account of the expenses which
he (Lord Churchill) had incurred by repairing Blenheim-house,
in conformity with the direction contained in the will of the late
Duke:
The VicE-CitANcELLon asked what were the terms of the
direction in the will ?
Mr. SIDEBOTHAM read an extract from the will, which em-
powered certain persons therein named to expend a sum not
exceeding 10,0001. in repairs upon Blenheim-house, which sum
was to be derived from the residuary estates.
Mr. SHADWELL observed, that if the petitioner had laid out
any money in repairs, of course it must be paid to him. The
best course to pursue would be, to leave the Master to report
what money Lord Churchill had expended on repairs, and then
the Court might make an order for his reimbursement: The
Court at present was not authorized to direct any payment.
The order was then drawn up in the manner suggested by
Mr. Shad well.

Mr. SIDEBOTRAM said the second petition was filed by
Mr. Blackstone, under the circumstances he would state. Some
time since the heir-looms at Blenheim-house were seized for
taxes, which were partly assessed taxed and partly taxes on the
Duke's personal property.. The Court had directed the Master
to inquire whether the seizure of the heir-looms under tilos.:
circumstances-was legal, and the Master had reported that it-was,
but stated that a fund • for the payment of the taxes might be
found in the surplus rents. It appeared, however, that there
were no surplus rents, and therefore, if by the assistance of the
Court the money for the payment of the taxes could not be
raised,,the- ancient heir-looms of the family would be sold and
dispersed for ever. Mr. Blackstone then prayed that the Court
would direct the taut to be paid out of the rents in the hands
of the receiver. •

The VICE-CHANCELLOR said the rents in the hands of the
receiver were the fund of the creditors of the late Duke, and
he therefore could not touch them. He should have no difficulty
in granting the order if the rents were derived from copyhold
instead of freehold estates.

Mr. RAY stated, that the Duke was entitled to more than
6001. (the amount of the taxes) from copyhold estates.
His HONOUR said that information relieved him from all dif
ficulty; and he granted an order for the payment of the taxe
out of the produce of the Duke's copyhold estates.
Mr. RAY said he had a motion of course to make. It was,
that the defendant in this cause might be permitted to put in
an answer to the plaintiff's amended bill,. which. was materially
different from his original bill.
The "VICE-CHANCELLOR asked, whether it was necessary to
obtain the permission' of the Court to put in an answer ?
Mr. RAl—replied, Iliadic understood that he had not put in
in time, and therefore it was now necessary to obtain the license
of the Court.

Mr. MATHEws, for the plaintiff, said he was surprised to
hear Mr. Ray call his motion a motion of course. It was the
first time, he believed, such an application was ever made to the
Court. The practice of the Court was, that if a defendant
did not put in an•answer to an amended bill within eight days,
he should not be allowed to put it in at all. The amended bill
was filed on the 9th of June, and the defendant now for the
first time applied to put in his answer, without giving any spe-
cial reasons tOr his delay..
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said that he could grant the mo-
tion only upon some special cause being shewn by affidavit.—
If Xlr. Ray would prepare an affidavit by Friday next, he might
mention it on that day.
•
• COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 10.
LIABILITY OF COACH PROPRIETORS._

Mr. SCARLETT obtained a rule against the decision of the
Chief Justiceirf the' ease of Borne and Hall, by which it was
held that the-printed notice 'given by the proprietors of stage.
coaches not to be armverable for packages above the value of
51. is' sufficient; unless the parcels are entered and paid for ac-
cordingly. ' '