The Sun.
London, England, 1817-11-11 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY, 'Nov. 10.

This inorning the Lord Chancellor and the
King's Counsel were in full mourning on account
of the ittetwelaneholyevent.
CLANDESTINE MARRIAGE.

NI/ADS V. SCHUThIsT.

Sir CgbIULL
RbMtLLY, on the part of the Guar-
dians, moved that it he referred to the Master in
this case to reporthat Costs were die ,to the
Petitioners, under-the peculiar circumstances in
which they, had acted, and also to tax these costs.
The Leartied Gentleman then entered into a long
detail of the facts, which are already too well
known to require repetition: ,
Sir ARTHUR PIGGnTT and Mr. 116.13 N, on behalf
of Mr. and Mrs. Baze,bey,.oppo4ed the Petition,
on the, ground shat a refer.euPe.;l4-04 made to
:the Master,. who, o the 28111, Aiy„.1815., a ward-
!ed 128Grwhich sum had been deeprdingly paid ;
and also a subsequent sum of 'bool. odds, "'taking
considerably more than 1900/. and no coMplaint
whatever was made with respect to the decision
of the Master. -Among site items in the expen-
_diture, there was a bill for 11131. which being
taxed, was reduced to (would his Lordship be-
lieve it ?) 2931.! -On die whole, AC- Learned
Counsel maintained it would be touch' better to
wait till the Lady was of age, especially as that
event was now so near-.
Mr. LEACH, on behalf of Mr. Wade, &mtended
that the• expellees, extraordinary as they were
in t'temselves, were claimed on grounds equally
oxtraordinary ; but this had been done before
by the same Petitioners. The Petition for-

merly- presented was nearly the same as that
now before his Lordship ;• and in truth, the
present application .was neither more nor less
that► a wish for the Master to review his Report,
with which the Petitioners were dis,atisfied,
Much epence ♦vas alledged to have been incurred
by the elopement, but the Court bad no means of

decidingtvhetherthe 'statements of these expences
were justly con9dl, for certainly "much. care
should he Os( n the investigation of the elope-
ment, and if it had taken place. in consequence of
the neglect of the guardians, they had certainly
no legator just claim
.to hope for 'a refund-lug. of
the expence occasioned by their own inattention.
Another claim was put in on account of the 10.. s
of time, which was-certainly a most singular de-
mand on the part of-a
guardian. 'He hoped, there-
fore, tinder all the'circutnstances of the case, • the
application .would be refused. . • .

Mr. BELL, on the satrie side, said, the -Lady was
allowed 4001. a year prior to' 181.0— which, had
subsequently been increased to 7001. and latierly
by the Court of Chancery hi .Durham to 'BOO/.
This sum was surely adequate to her support, and
he therefore had no doubt the claims would be•
refused.

Sir S. ROMILLY made an ingenious and able
reply, and contended, that nothing had been said
to shetv the guardians had been guilty of the
slightest culpable neglect. • With the circum-
stances attending; the first elopement his Lordship
was well acquainted, particularly when the affida-
vit attending that event was recollected.

The Lou.) CHANCELLOR pid he remembered it
very well, for the person ‘V.I)6 made it expected to
be hanged. He also remembered a conversation
he had with ilielhen Attorney-General, who eon-.
eidered that a •great crime had been committed,
but was not sure if the evidence was strong nough
for a Jury. • •

Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY further contended,- tl►at
the second elopement had taken place under cir-
ci►nistauces Which no human energies or vigilance
could have prevented.
The LORD CHAtvcilAoß then went over the
different items at considerable length, and reviewed
the .faCts of the case from its first commenremnent.

..,•••_•.•
Tbere.were two or three of the claims .which he
did not altogether understand, but on which he
would speak to the Master ; but he refused Ibis.
application isn the ground that no claims had been
refused which ought not to hate been. tie viewed.

this case without any prejudice whatever, although
lie now felt himself bound to say, that a more
wanton, gross, continued, and sullied contempt

of the authority of: the Court had never taken
place in this country. ,No application had been
made to him suggesting any rational. objection to
the making of a settlement, and though probably
affection might be urged as an apology for former
imprudence, be had 'fever heard of that. Alter

seine strong animadversions on the line of col

duct •which had been followed in this case, his
Lordship dismissed the application.
• . otherhusiuess of importance came on, and
the Court adjourned at a quarter to three.
- -The new Lord Mayor, .accompanied by Mr. Al-
derman Wood, the late Mayor, the Recorder,
Aldermen,. and Sheriffs, came into Court at one

o'clocjt, and paid their respects to his Lordship.

U1.••.1%./.:\ Nor. ID.

DIE 1,,k DIM. ‘VENNI3II V. HAWTHORN.

This was an ejectment to recover the posses-
sioln of a Chapel at Dartford, in Kent, devoted to
the followers of Lady Huntingdon; and at the
last Assizes held at Maidstone, before Lord El-
lenborough, the plaintiff was nonsuited upon the
principle that inasmuch as persons who happened
to come to the Chapel were accommodated with
seats gratuitously, it was a devise for charitable
uses, and conevently void by the statute of
mortmain.

Mr. MARRYAT now moved for a rule to 'Am
cause why the nonsuit should not be set aside
and a new trial granted ; but
The COURT, after hearing the nature of the
question stated, recommended that it shaild be
turned into a special case.
Abdut two o'clock the new Lord Mayer, at-
tended by Mr. Allerman Wood, the Iteeorr:erand
Sheriffs (all the party being attired in plain
mourning), appeared in this Court, and it pur-
suance of ancient law and usage, delivered in his
warrant of attorney. Aftjr which his Lordship
retired, and returned to the Mansion-home, in
the same 'unostentatious manner as he
ceeticd to Westminster, ..
_ .