The Sun.
London, England, 1827-06-13 00:00:00

GARRICK V. LORD CA3IMIK.

The Court heard cause petitions. The greater part of
the morning was occupied in discussions on the construc-
tion the Master had put on an order in this case made
by Lord Eldon, directing him to tax some costs. On the
one side it was contended, that the Master ought to have
allowed Mr. Carr his costs, charges, and expenses, which
his Counsel stated had not been done. On the other hand
it was argued that it had, and the whole resulting into a
single question of fact, which did not appear decided on
the affidavits, his Lordship said he would dispose of I.- by
seeing the :Viz:Ater on the subject, and tiled letting the
parties know what took place at the interview.

DEACON AND DEACON.

The Court was occupied during the remainder of the
day in hearing the motion for dissolving the injunction in
this ease, which has already been before it for several days.
When Mr. HEALD had concluded his reply,
The LORD CRA.NCELLOR said be should not dissolve the
injunction which had becn granted, and observed to Mr.
Cull, who was in Court, that although be did not consider
his conduct as culpable in a moral point of view, yet he
had departed from the strict line of his duty as receiver,
by trading with the partnership effects without the consent
of the partners or the authority of the Court.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
JONES V. PAUSES.

An application was made in this cause by Mr. 1-Icolcrix,
that the Master's Report might be revised.
M. HEALD opposed the application, and contended that
the exceptions °ugh' obe overruled, because the oppose
side, instead of bringing them forward now, in Court,
ought, in the first instance, to have mentioned their objec-
tions to the Master, in order that he might have the oppor-
tunity of correcting the Report.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR, in overruling the exceptions,
said, that before any could be made to the Report, the par-
ticular objection should be pointed out to the Master, the
non-observance of that rule in the present instance was fatal
to the exceptions. If the practice heretofore had been
otherwise, it would well deserve the consideration of the
Bar to see whether they ought not to lay the matter beforo
the Lord Chancellor, with the view of having his opinion on
the subject.

ABSENCE OF SOLICITORS.

In the course of the morning, complaints having been
made of the absence of Solicitors, who had not even taken
care to leave the necessary papers with their Counsel,

The VICE-CHANCELLOR said that the conduct of Soli-
citors, in thus neglecting their clients' interests, was un-
pardonable. " I'll engage (said his Honour) that each of
them will take good care to charge 13s. 4d. for being ab-
sent. I remember that I was always pestered with them
when I did not want them, and that, when I had occasion
for their assistaPce, they were not to be found."

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
THE ICING v. DANIEL.

This was an action on a writ of fieri facia:, for re-
pealing a patent granted to the defendant, who carried on
business in Somersetshire, in July, 1819, for the supposed
invention of certain improvements in dressing woollen
cloths, and in preparing wire cards as applicable to this
purpose. The ground for repealing it was, that the inven-
tion was neither useful nor original.
The Attorney-General, Mr. Park, and Mr. Scarlett,
jun. were for the prosecution ; and the Solicitor-General
and Mr. Brougham for the defendant.

On the part of the prosecution, several woollen cloth ma-
nufacturers were called, whose evidence in substance went
to show, that the machinery supposed to have been invented
by the defendant, had been invented about twenty years
ago, that another person had then got a patent for it, and
that it was some time afterwards disused in consequence of
the effects proiuced by it being found injurious to the
cloth.

The examination of the plaintiff's witnesses occupied the
Court all the morning, and at last the defendant's Counsel
abwadoned the case, and the patent was of course abolished.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
DUTTON V. BARNES.

This was a new trial. The cause was tried after last
Michaelmas Term, and a verdict returned for the plaintiff.
The plaintiff, a youth of 19, ordered the defendant, an auc-
tioneer, to take and furnish a house for him, giving him 1001.
on account. The house was taken and re-let upon the plain-
tiff's family interposing, but the defendant claimed a less
of a considerable sum upon the re-letting of the house, and
re-selling the furniture ; that claim was disputed, the de-
fendant would not give up the money already received, and
the Jury now assessed the damages at 571.

PREROGATIVE COURT.
rALPET V. PALrEr.

Sir J, IsTicuoLL proceeded to give judgment in this ease,
in which a question arose as to the validity of a will. The
testator was a Veterinary Surgeon, residing at Worcester,
and died in the end of last year, leaving three sisters and
six brothers, and personal property amounting to above
7,000/. His will was dated in October 1824, and by it
he left 500/. to his eldest sister, Mrs. Price, and only 3001.
in small legacies to all his other brothers and sisters. Mrs.
Price was also appointed residuary legatee, and in that cha-
racter would, of course, take the whole bulk of the property.
The will was properly drawn up and executed, and the
only question was, whether the testator was of a sound and
disposing mind at the period of its execution. It appeared
that the deceased was a man of active habits and of consi-
derable intelligence, until the commencement of 1824,
when he met with an accident at the Worcester Race course,
from the falling of a stage, and after this circumstance, it
appeared that his faculties were rapidly decaying up to the
time of his death. Under all the circumstances, the
Court was of opinion that the deceased did not appear to
have sufficient understanding and memory to dispose of his
property, ;tad therefore declared the will invalid.

Mrs. THOMAS CHAPLIN entertained an ele-
gant circle of fashionablee yesterday evening, at her house
in Grafton-street.