The Sun.
London, England, 1827-05-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCt-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY,
IN THE MATTER OF SIR GREGORY FAGS TURNER,
A LUNATIC.
Mr. HORNE presented a petition, which prayed that
this matter might be referred to the Master, that be might
make a separate report for the maintenance of the infant
daughter of the lunatic.--Prayer granted.

1N TUX MATTES OP YOUNG) A LUNATIC.
Mr. Bort°Lvit had a petition, which stated that it had
been referred to the Master to enquire whether-a lease or
leases of the Lunatic's property ought to be granted ; he
had found it would be for the benefit of the estate that leases
should be granted, and he had approved of the terms ; the
present application therefore was, that the Master's report
might be confirmed.—Report confirmed.

MORRIS V. DAVIS.
Mr. TAUNTON appeared to show a prima fade caae,
why this Court ought to direct a new trial, that the Court
might decide upon whether or not it would send for the
Judge's notes of the trial. The issue directed out of this
Court by:Lord Eldon was, to try whether the plaintiff was
the legitimate son of William and Marry Morris, of
Argoed. The ground of Complaint was, the manner
in which Mr. Baron Vaughan had left the law to the
jury; he had said, that the jury must be satisfied that the
husband by no possibility could have had access to the wife,
they being at that time (1792) living separate and apart,
at a distance of 16 miles from each other.
The Counx was satisfied that.this statement of thelaw,
justified it in calling for the notes.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
JAILED V. VINCINT.

This was a bill filed by a creditor against three parties,
for the recovery of a debt contracted by one of them. The'
Master reported that the debt was due, and the case now
came on for further directions on the Master's report.

vV
The VICE-CMANCELLOR enquired what had been done
with respect to costs when the reference was directed.
Mr. HORNE replied that the costs were to he paid to the
plaintiff.
Mr. PRILLIMOAE for the defendants, assured the Court
that no such order had been made with regard to the costs,
in proof of which the Learned Gentleman read the en-
dorsement in his brief, which was to this effect, that the
question of oosti bad been reserved.
Mr. HORNI pledged himself for the aocuraey of his first
assertion.

The Vwx-CsuarcaLt.oa observed, that during his long
experience he had known many instances in which the
Gentleman of the Bar, of whose honour and integrity he
always would entertain the highest opinion, differed in the
same manner : his Honour recommended the parties to
apply to the Master of the Rolls, who might perhaps re-
collect how the question stood. If the Master of the
Rolls refused to interfere, the case must come on again de
novo before hie Honour.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
The Court was occupied all the morning in hearing ar-
guments on points of law of no general interest.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
STOCKLEY V. CLEMENT.

This was an action fora libel published in the Morning
Chronicle, as an advertisement sent for insertion, by the
solicitor of Lady Page Turner, and purporting to he a
caution to bill-brokers and others. It stated that informa

tion had been gives► to the advertiser that attempts
had been made to get discounted a Bill of Ex-
change for 6,000/. drawn by Janice Stockley, and
alleged to have been accepted by Lady Page Turner. It
the❑ stated that if any such document was offered for dis-
count, bearing the above Lady's signature, that such was a
forgery, and the advertiser offered a reward to any person
who would give information of the person having posses-
sion of it. An action was then brought by Stockley for
the libel.

1:118 LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, in charging the Jury, ob-
served, that if they considered the advertisement was pub-
lished midi a view to bring an offender to justice, or to re-
cover lost property, they would find for the defendant ; as
it was, in either of these eases, a privileged communica-
tion. The Jury found for the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant WTLDE obtained a rule to show cause why
the verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial granted,
on the grounds that evidence had been admitted that shoulti
not have been, and the case was argued on Monday, last,
Mr. Sergeant Taddy appearing for the plaintiff.
The Court took time to consider, and the LORD CHIEF
JUSTICE gave judgment this morning to the following
effect:—lt had been contended that this was a privileged
communication; and, secondly, that it was no libel upon
the plaintiff. Upon the first point the Court questioned
whether the defence ought not to have been specially
pleaded, in support of which opinion the Lord Chief
Justice cited several cases. In this case, however,
they were of opinion that it was ro libel on Stockley,
it merely stated, that a bill had been drawn, and that the
acceptance had been obtained by fraud. The Court, how-
ever, thought it right to apprise the profession, that if
an action should be basonght for libel, when the public-tion
is privileged, they had a doubt whether the defence
should not he specially pleaded, or at least pleaded on the
record. After some farther observations the Court refused
the rule.