The Sun.
London, England, 1826-07-06 00:00:00

MEMBERS RETURNED.

STATE OF THE POLL.
I'VORTRUMBtRLANb.
Liddell

/519
1348
1281

Beaumont -

LAW INTELLIG'4NCt.

ZLEPANT AND CASTLE
"Mr. HART was H
instructed to state,'CHARITY that. the Commis-
sioners of Charitable Uses, had suspended making their
report until the Court had disposed of this matter, m de-
riding upon a scheme for the administration of this cha-
ritable property.
His LORDSHIP said, if the attornies would attend him
on Saturday morning, they should be allowed to ride off
on the Elephant, and, he hoped, for ever, as he would
then take his leave of them in this matter.
YOUNG V. GOODSON.
This was the name of the commitment case we report-
ed yesterday, and which Mr. Ching mentioned again, to-
day, not having been aware, as he afterwards said, that.
the Court had mentioned it yesterday.
His LORDSHIP said he had refused to sign the commit-
ment, on the -ground of irregularity. The parties would,
therefore, have to begin de novo ; they would have to
serve both the Attornies in this partnership with the
original order of the Court, direeting them 'to deliver in
their bills of costs; next
.they would have to make an
affidavit of such service; then obtain the four day order;
subsequently serve that regularly ; and, to wind up, apply
for the signing of the commitment.
The. Court sat on Appeals:

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT—(Tau act.)
DELAY.
His Hos:putt continued his seal.
Mr. WAKEFIELD moved, That a cause might be ..put
back, on the ground that his client- would
pared, when the cause would come regularly 'on for
hearing. • .
His lioNtoun desired to know whether the other side
Consented.

Mi. WAKEFIELD appeared for the plaintiff, and he did
not conceive that the defendant's consent was necessary.
His HONOUR said, the plaintiff's not being prepared at
the proper time would not prevent the Court's hearing
the defendant.
Mr. WAKEFIELD said his application was for exactly
such an order as had been. made in many cases before.
His HONOUR said be, should not add to the number of
errors. The old practice was, that a plaintiff was at
liberty to act in his own delay, but that had entirely gone
past ; the principle 'now was that a plaintiff should not be
permitted to delay the hearing of his own case, and there-
fore the Court refused the motion.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Guii.m4ALL.—(Tnis DAY.)
FRY AND OTHERS V. TERRY.
This was an action to recover from the defendant the
sum of 4971. 155., being the amount of four bills of ex-
change, :drawn by Mr. Summerfield, and paid by the
plaintiffs at the request of the defendant.
The plaintiffs were hankers, and kept an account with
Mr. Summerfield, a coal-merchant, who was brother-in-
law to the defendant, proprietorof St. John's Coffee-house.
The bills in question were made payable at the house of
the plaintiffs, and, became due on the 22d June, 1825.
At this time Summerfield had overdrawn his account,
and when the bills were presented, the plaintiffs hesitated
to pay the amount until they received a note from the de-
fendant requesting of them to pay, and that he would be
answerable. These facts having been proved
.by wit-
nesses, Mr. Scarlett addressed the Jury for the defend-
ant; he said that his client had been induced, by the false
misrepresentations of the plaintiff, to write the document
in question.. The plaintiff's clerk called on the defendant
on the day that the bills had been presented for payment,
and informed him that his brother-in-law's credit would
be ruined'uniess he should become security 'to the firm
for these bills. • Terry, anxious to support the credit of
his son-in-law, wrote the above document, not knowing
at the same time that Summerfield had fled the country,
and committed an act of bankruptcy; of which the plaintiffs
were previously aware by a letter to that effect from Sum-
merlield.. The Learned Comae] contended, that the sup'.
suppression of these facts argued deceit on the part of
Meths. Fry and Chaptrian. If the plaintiff had been
aware that Summerfield had committed an act of bank-
ruptey, he of course could not go security for the pay-
tt7tatetdotfhatt the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover.
the bills. Under all circumstances, he sub-
Several witnesses were examined to establish these
facts; hut it appeared that Air,PrY had informed Terry
that Summerfield had left the country before the docu-
ment had been written, and that Terry said he did not he-
,
lieve it.
The ATTORNEY..GENERAL replied.
The CIIIF.F JUSTICE briefly summed up, and :informed
the Jury that there vas'no e videnee of any misrepresents-
tions having been made by the plaintiffs to the defendant;
but it was. for
~them to say ,if:there
suppreraion of
any material fact. The plaintiffs told nefetidant tliey were
informed that. Surnmerfield had left the country; but 64,
did not tell_him that they had his own letter to that effect.
The Jury rotor/lei:l'a verdict for, the defendant.

INSOLVENT DEMUR'S COURT.—(Ims Day.)
Charles. Cooper was heard at) hie petition- fb be dis-
ehatrd; but it fippearing, that he had' not trientituted a
vattaidernhle deal of -propertk in his Schedule and balance-
sheet, he was remanded: for six months, to amend, them.

[RRCRIVin TIIIS MORKti.e..]
1.-OONTF OF DIMBARTON--J. Campbell, Esq.Bonoucat OF CUPAR---Hoti. H. Lindsay.
ARBROATII DISTRICT OF BURGHS—J. Hume,
CRAIL Dlstßitr OF BURGIIS---i. 1:1411014Fr, EN.
DtIMFFRAILINE DISTRICT Of 111:RGHS-11. bOwnie,
LAU Dig, harmer or Buouxs--Lirtit.-Col. A. J. Dalrymple,

F
A TOR NCOEIIZTEN9ERCAIILAVIC.C-
-• 4,, • - • .0P kXIiITE, R.
Fjl%,Fll:;•o—R(TtinNj'sl)ll4:o.n) POR -
'His 'LORDSHIP stated, "that there were a great many
passages in this case that required' the Court's attention.
The infortnation was filed by the Attorney-General, at
the relation Of the grandson bf the founder of the charity,
alleging ebriain aises, and praying for an account, as
against the Mayor and Corporation of the city of Exeter,
to whom the charitable estates, by devolution, had de-
scended. When the matter was heard before the •Vice-
Chancellor his Honour directed the accounts to betaken
for nearly 200 years back, ,indeed, since the founding of
the charity. It went accordingly to the Ma.ster, who
made his report. The Defendants appealed against the
order of the Court below, and also took exceptions to the
Master's report. The
appeal came on yesterday after-
noon ; Defendants complaining of his Honour's order, on
the ground that they ought not to be called on to account
either for what had gone into the hands of the predeces-
sors, or for What they had done, over whom they could
have had no controul; but stating they were ready to ac-
count for what had come into their hands, since they had
become trustees. After having read the appeal, the answer,
and the other papers, his Lordship was of opinion that he
could not relieve the defendants from accounting, as or-
dered. He felt it extremely hard to call upon the parties
to account during such a distance of time past, but he
could not help it from the nature of the account. The
Court pitied them, because they had been so very hOnest,
and whether. the Attorney-General would do any thing
for them or not on that ground, it did not know, but it
could do nothing.
Mr. HART considered it a very equivocal sort of ho-
nest), for the parties to confess the debt, and yet do every
thing in their power to keep the money in their pockets.
The Court dismissed the appeal, and ordered the ex-
ceptions, which his Lordship had read, to come on to.
Morrow.