The Sun.
London, England, 1829-01-28 00:00:00

FREEMAN V. FARLIE.

The COMMON SERGEANT WaS proceeding to make
a motion on this case, when he was interrupted by
Mr. SUGDEN, stating he was placed in rather awk-
ward circumstances with respect to it. He held two
briefs for opposite parties, each contending they
were entitled to his assistance. He had no doubt
upon which side he ought to be, if he were allowed
to give an opinion, hut it was quite impossible 1)0
could do justice to both.
His LORDSHIP observed, in such cases a reference
was usual.
Mr. SUGDEN wished the matter to be referred to
the Common Sergeant.
The COMMON SERGEANT said he should at once
decide in favour of Mr. Murray the solicitor, and
leave his Learned Friend, Mr. Sugden, to make the
motion instead of him.

Mr. SUGDEN was sorry to have mentioned this in
public, but he knew of no other means to settle it
satisfactorily.
The COMMON SERGEANT then retired with the
Solicitors on both sides, and upon his return, stated
that he was sorry to say he felt bound to decide in
that manner which would not only deprive him of
the benefit of the great talents of Mr. Sugden, but
have them set in opposition to him. He would now
with the Court's permission, make his motion:—
It would be recollected that this case had been
frequently before the Court, the question in which
arose upon the intestacy of a person of the name of
Samuel Holdham, who died at Calcutta, in 1788,
possessed of immense freehold and personal estate.
A ribbon weaver at Coventry was found to be enti-
tled to his property, as his personal representative.
The two females for whom the Learned Sergeant
appeared, Charlotte and Elizabeth Holdham, were
the only descendants of the elder brother of the in-
testate. A question as to the legitimacy of the
elder brother had been raised by the person
whom the Court had decreed to be the heir-at-
law. Lord Eldon had directed an issue to try
that fact, and upon the case coming on at the
Warwick Assizes in 1823, a register was produced,
purporting to show that he had been" born before
marriage took place. Mr. Baron Garrow, who tried
the cause, was of opinion that the entry without re-
gister was not genuine, and a verdict in favour of
his legitimacy was recorded. Lord Eldon was not
satisfied with that verdict, and directed a new trial,
which took place before Chief Justice Best, and an
opposite verdict had been given. With this deci-
sion Lord Eldon- expressed- himself satisfied, and the
matter was then considered hopeless on the pelt of
his clients. Since this period the Court had decided
upon the nature of the property in India, declaring
it descendable to the heir. Mr. Murray, the solici-
tor, had, however, in his vigilance,:;found out that
which the Learned Counsel appreliended would not
only entitle his clients to what they now asked by
their motion, but to a third trial, and placed the le-
gitimacy of the elder brother beyond all doubt.
In the parish of Sr. Martin's, at Birming-
ham, in the register for the year 1712,
the period about which the marriage of the
father and mother of the intestate took place, there
seemed to have been an erasure of several lines.—
On examining the duplicate of the register, depo-
sited in the Archdeacon's Court, at Litchfield, no
such erasure appeared, but the marriage of John
Holdham and Elizabeth Stonehurst was recorded.
Under these circumstances the Learned Counsel
thought the Court would grant what he asked,
namely, to stay the transfer of any fund in Court
until an opportunity had been given of making fur-
ther inquiries with respect to matters so important to
his client.

Mr. SUGDKN thought, in point of form, it was
quits impossible for the Court to make any order.—
If so, it would be quite idle to go into the metite.
No decree of the Court could be got rid of upon a
motion.

Mr. SPURRIER considered the present application
was nothing more than an attempt to overturn the
decree of the Court by motion, which he appre-
hended never could be done.

After some considerable discussion between the
Bench and the Bar, in which Mr. SUGDEN made
some strong observations, us to affidavits being ad-
mitted, charging fraud, without an opportunity of
answering them, and upon which subject a mutual
explanation took place, it was agreed on all hands
that no proceedings were to be taken for the pur-
pose of removing the fund out of Court for a fort-
night, without giving notice to the parties.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH'.
(SITTINGS IN BANCO.)
TESTERTEN V. HART.

This sas an action of ejectment to obtain posses-
sion of certain premises at Bedford, in which a ver-
dict had been found for the plaintiff.
Mr. PLATT now moved for a new trial, or an
order to stay proceedings till an action of replevin,
now pending, had been tried, on the ground that the
defendant was taken by surprise at the trial by the
production of evidence on that occasion, which
the plaintiff could have had no reasonable expecta-
tion or opportunity of beingable to refute or explain.
The Court granted a rule to show cause why
the proceedings should not be stayed, until after
the trial of replevin had been decided.