The Sun.
London, England, 1827-02-10 00:00:00

'1 DV; '3' re .Zr:

'7:OT

LAW INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY),

COURT OF CHANCERY. •
IN THE MATTER OF DAN. A EANICRUPT.
His LORDSHIP stated that he had giien this matter his most
serious attention since it was argued before him, in which the
question was, whether 1;700/. was to be considered as the
separate estate of Mr. Dan, a partner, or as the estate of
Dan and Bentbsm.?' Before the bankruptcy, it was clear that
for several years, this amount of property, being of a reversionary
nature, had been considered as the separate estate of Mr. Dan ;
the Commissioners under the Commission had, in the first place;
also so considered it, but afterwards they had held it to be a joint
estate ; it then came before the Vice-Chancellor, who had
agreed with the Commissioners in their last judgment, and next
followed the appeal to this branch of the Court. Under the
circumstances of this matter, his Lordship would not be
surprised, should any third person differ from his opi-
nion ; but still it was the duty of those who had to
pronounce a judicial opinion, to pronounce their own judgment;
and his motion upon the question certainly was, that it was the
separate estate ,of Dan. This was the first opinion he had form-
ed upon having heard the matter at the bar ; he had tried to alter
it, but in vain, and therefore the order would have to be, rever-
sing the Vice-Chancellor's order.
ALTERATIONS OF THE COURT.
His Loansuir observed in the cotate of the Morning, that the
part of the Court in which he sat, was so cold, as to make it
Almost impossible for him to retnain for any length of time in his
Chair.

Counsel joined his Lordship in loud complaints against the con-
struction of the Court altogether. Heat and cold in it were al-
ternate ; they could not understand it at all. Entering into part
of it was like stepping into a volcano, whilst a person, in some
other parts of it, might fancy. himself in Greenland.
His LORDSHIP said, there must be some considerable altera-
tions made in the Court, but what those alterations world have
to be might require some consideration.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S' COURT.
The Court was occupied this morning in hearing " short
causes," none of which possessed any general interest.

COURT OF KING'S 13FNCH.
ROWE V. BRENTON'.

This was an action of trespass brought against the defendant,
for carrying off copper ore from the premises of the plaintiff, who
resided within the manor of the Duchy of Cornwall. It was tried
at the Assizes in Durham in 1825; when a: verdict was given for
the plaintiff. A rule for a new trial was subsequently had on the
grounds that the defendant, acting as agent to a Mining Com-
pany, which leased all the mines and minerals situated
within the Duehy of Cornwall, of the Crown, his Majesty (by
reason of his being Prince of Wales) being Lord of the Manor,
was justified in entering on the premises in question, and carrying
off the ore.

The Aproaxer-GrxisaAL obtained a rule this term to have
the case tried at Bar, on the ground that the. Crown was in-
*rested.

Mr. Bkotrottax appeared this day to sliew cause, why the
rule should not be discharged; the Crown, he observed, was not
entitled to :a trial at Bar, unless it was a party to the case on re-
cord, or directly interested ; as it had leased out its interest in
the mines in question, for which it had received a remuneration,
it was evident that the Crown had no direct interest in the
result.

The CHIEF JUSTICE said, that the fact of the Attorney-General
baying appeared in person to apply for a trial at Bar, was suffi-
cient evidence of the Crown being interested, and to reverse the
rule which the Court had granted in this case would be acting
contrary to the established doctrine of Westminster Hall. It was
not necessary that the King should be a party on record to entitle
him to a trial at Bar ; it was sufficient that he had any interest in
the result.—The rule for a trial at Bar was therefore confirmed.
JUDGMENT.
THZ ZING V. SLAY.
- - -

The defendant in this case, who is a wine merchant, residing
.in Mark-lane, London, was convicted of having published a libel
on Sir Gilbert East, Baronet, on writing a letter to him
containing:the following words :—" You may be a .Baronet, but
you are a disgrace to your rank. lam sure you are not a gen-
tleman." The above letter was written inconsequence of the prose-
cutor's complaining of short measure in some wine which he bought
of the defendant. Being brought up this day for judgment, Mr.
Brougham addressed the Court in mitigation, and Mr. Scarlett
in aggravation of punishment.
Ur. Justice BAYLEY, in passing the sentence of the Court, ob-
served that the fact of the defendant having previously to the in-
dictment beini found expreeted his regret for having written such
a letter, and having offered 'to make a personal apology, and
pay a sum of money, -operated very much in his favour. The
sentence of the Court was, that he pay a fine of 501. and be dis-
charged.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
The Court was occupied this morning in hearing and deciding
points of law in cases of no general interest.

PREROGATIVE COURT.
(Before Sir J. Nrcnotz, Knight).
BOOTH V. HURD.
This was a suit to decide the • validity of several testamentary
papers, executed by a Mrs. St. Leger, who was stated to have
been a lunatic, with lucid intervals. The testator was the Widow
of Col. St. Leger, in whose family she had lived as a chamber-
maid, previous to her marriage. She died at a very advanced
age, leaving a large property, derivei from her husband, whose
relatives are parties in the present suit, against the relatives of the
deceased. •

The COURT ordered the allegations to be admitted, :with cer.
tain corrections.'

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
JUDGMENT IN JONES V. CHESTER.
TIM LORD CHIEF BARON gave judgment in this case to a mo-
tion for setting aside the verdict, and granting a new trial. The
case was argued some days past, and stood over for judgment. The
action was for an alleged libel in apublic paper in the report of an ap-
plication to strike the plaintiff,an attarney,offtheßolls for alleged mis-
behaviour. The plaintiff in the action for libel pleaded first the
general issue of not guilty secondly, the.statute of limitation ;
thirdly, that the report in which the alleged libel was stated to
be contained, was a true and fair report of the proceedings on
the above application to the Court ; and fourthly, that
the statement was public news. The Jury had re-
turned a general verdict upon all the pleas in the record,
when the .evidence of the plaintiff completely disproved the
plea of, the statute of limitation ; upon that plea therefore his
Lordship thought a new trial ought to be granted. With
regard to the goodness of the other pleai, a, great many im-
portant'questions might arise, and the Court would not pass any
opinion upon that subject in the present stage of the proceedings,
as it might come before the Court in an ulterior` stage. His Lord-
ship, however, thought it necessary to obserVe, that it was riot
from want of attention to that subject that the Court now re-
frained from giving their opinion, as they'had most attentively
tgc o nro
ant;
ei
rdf
oode
rust. ed t
the
nGe new trials,
ordera and s
uo f hadora
and
formed
anddn teiwe
u,trialLL Loan
cDe opinion.
c litgenerally.
nrHis Lordship then
A continuedito Np r
otcoeehear t
to sit
at Nisi Prius in the

1 . EXCHEQUER CHAMBER..
Evists V. EVENS.
TheA
d Laienars, neldate Counsel
Sseurl itnhaentil,
pro_a and
' Mr. ILIUM stated this -to be an action for the recovery of
certain monies received by the defendant for the plaintiff. The
lt ahtet er
defendantw a. 4 the
n\-asvidohivs brother. tl‘hleir... W.
ceeded to read some letters from the defendant to the plaintiff, on
which he said he should found the whole of his case. The
first letter stated the death of the plaintiff's husband, Mr. W.
Adams, that he (lied on the Ist September, 1823, after
an illness of nine days, the greater part of which time he was
delirious, and' consequently -could not make a will ; but that in
one of his lucid intervals he bad given the writer three notes f
hand, each for the value of 15,000 guilders Surinam 'currency,
and the defendant at the jams time informed her, that he had in
his possession 5,000 guilders belonging to his deceased brother,
which in value amounted in the whole to between 1,550/. and
1,600/., and which he should transmit to her: In a subsequent
letter from Holland, he stated that he was much pressed for money,
and asked time for payment of his account with her, at' the same
time informing her that the 45,0001. guilders were transfeired to
himself only, but in his beneficence he had told her that they
were for her. The 7 earned Counsel was then proceeding to call
a witness to speak to the value of the guilders, which he assessed
a

,6661. I3s. 4d., when ,
Mr. RICMARDS contended that the action was irregular, and
was brought to recover monies, when there was no evidence that
any money had been received ; at all events, the notes could not
be considered money.
The LORD CHIEF BARON considero this objection fatal with
regard to the notes, and 'directed the Jury to return a verdict for
the value of the 4000 guilders, with liberty for the defendant to
move for a new trial. This was ultimately agreed to, and a ver-
dict fixed at 1581. with 40s. costs.