Star.
London, England, 1830-04-26 00:00:00

- -
•
..-,4

•Lafir NOTICES-THIS DAY.
COUR—TairraHES.
Pint Session in Easter Term, before Sir John Nichol.
• 'COURT OF CHANCERY.—Petitions.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.—Petitions.
courvr OF KING'S BENCH.
Middlesex Simla Juries.
v Anderdon .Burrows,lst hyorder Cane, who hash survived Carder,
Spratt, jun. v. Davis v. Lord Dalhousie.
. Common Juries.
Brown and another v. Stratford I Doe dem. Robson v. Meade
and others Robinson' executor, dce. v. Brown
Date v. Gibson . Green v. Bertram
Thorne v. Mortis Boyle v. Perkins
Woodford v. Crocker: Harrison v. Walker
Doe dem. Harrison v. Mitchell Padmore v. Montagu, Esq,
To sit at half-past nine.
:COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
London Special Juries.
iklildmay v. Knapp.
;No Common Juries.
' Sat at half.put nine.

~ i

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
!COURT 01177-CANCERY.
BARNES V. WILSON.

fins was a motion heard a few days since, and the object was to
prevent the enrolment of the decree in this cause. The question
whether the caveat against the enrolment of the decree had
kern lodged in time to entitle the party lodging the caveat to a re.
hearing of the cause. It appeared to have been a race between the
two solicitors in the cause—Mr. Taylor on one side, and Mr. Per-
kins on the other—and an express had been despatched to Brighton,
to his Lordship, to stay the enrolment of the decree. By the prac.
tice of the Court a party, upon lodging a caveat in due time, is en.
titled to stay the enrolment of a decree for 28 days from the presen-
tation to the Lord Chancellor to be enrolled ; and even after enrol.
ment if any surprise had been used, or irregularity shown, a decree
has ban opened.
The LoRD CHANCELLOR now gave judgment on the motion,
and stated that he had consulted the Clerics upon the point. By
their certificate they had declared it to be theiropinion that the caveat
was lodged too late to prevent the enrolment. This question being
decided, the next point was, whether any case was made by the
affidavits which would justify the interference of the Court, by
vacating the enrolment. A case of Stephens v. Guppy, 1
Turner 178, had been cited, to show that the Court had on a
former occasion, interfered, and vacated the enrolment. The plain.
tiff had there moved to vacate the enrolment on the ground of
surprise, and it was proved that there was surprise and that the
other party was led to suppose that the decree would not be en.
rolled in the ease cited at the bar the decree was enrolled on the 10th
of December, 1822, the decree having been pronounced in March
preceding, and on the Bth of December the plaintiff presented a pe-
tition for rehearing. A few days before the petition of rehearing
the plaintiff's solicitor informed the other side that the petition was
prepared, and the defendant's solicitor desired that no time might
be lost in presenting it. Here there was no ground for alleging sur.
prise or irregularity ; the decree was duly enrolled, and the only
mode now left for impeaching the decree was by an appeal to the
House of Lords.
Motion refused without costs.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
RICHARDSON T. DICKENSON.
Mr. RussELL, at the sitting of the Court this morning, applied
for a special injunction to restrain the Lotds Commissioners of his
Majesty's Treasury from paying a sum of money to the defendant.
The SOLICITOR.GENESAL observed that he was ilit had occupied
of the Court in the case of Wilding v. Bolding, which h occupied
three days. He thought the application should have been made to
the Lord Chancellor.
Mr. Armand. (with some warmth)—I can only say, Sir, that I
never heard anything like this, that a gentleman behind the bar, in
making an application for a special injunction, is to be stopped by
learned counsel within the bar, stating that they are in the middle
of an argument. lam totally unacquainted with the mode of pro.
ceeding in this court, if it is not its habit to give precedence to ap.
plientions of this kind.
The Vtex-Caarrezt.Lort—Hand me your brief, and I will rad
the affidavits. I stated yesterday that I would take the case of
Wilding and Bolding in preference to every thing.
The Soticuroa.figsgast.—Sir, I don't choose to be bandied
with those observations of Mr. Russell. I trust. therefore, if he
presses it, you will allow him to make his application ; but I should
have thought he would have bad a little more courtesy than to have
said what he has.
The VICE-CwarrcEtz.oa—lndeed I shall not hear his applica-
tion now : I will read the affidavits. Proceed, Mr. Solicitor, with
Wilding and Bolding.
Mr. Rossera.—lf I go to the Lord Chancellor I shall then be
told that I ought to go to the Vice Chancellor; and when I come
here, I am told by the Solicitor General that I ought to have gone
to the Lord Chancellor. The motion would not take two minutes.
The SOLICITOR.GENERAL—Your Honour, I hope, will quiet
my friend by hearing the application.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR—I shall not. I will read the affidavits.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Aran. 23.
FAIR v. ELPHINSTONE.
This case excited much interest. The Court was much crowded.
Mr. DENMAN (with whom was Mr. BRODRICE and Mr.
FOLLETT) stated that the plaintiff was a literary gentleman, and
the defendant was lately governor of Bombay. The action was
brought to recover compensation in damages for loss the plaintiff
had sustained in being forcibly compelled, by an order of the de.
feudant, to leave Bombay. The learned counsel detailed the facts.
In the year 1822, Mr. Fair obtained a licence from the East India
Company to reside in Bombay, to which place he shortly afterwards
repaired. Soon after his arrival he established a newspaper, en.
titled the Bombay Casette, and also another literary work, which
were well received, so much so, that Sir Edward West, then Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court, solicited Mr. Fair to report the pro.
ceedings of that Court. This request was complied with, and tor a
length of time their accuracy was not complains of. In Ju1y,1824.
however, an extraordinary scene occurred. The judges' apartments
communicate with the Court, against the door of which a person called
a " Chop Guard," is placed to prevent the entrance of strangers.
On the occasion referred to a Mr. Shaw was present on business,
and he requested the " Chop Guard" to furnish him with pens,
ink, and paper ; the Guard said he could not leave his post, but
that a Seapoy near him would furnish what was wanted ; the an.
ewer not being satisfactory, Mr. Shaw knocked him down. Mr.
Justice Chambers, who was then presiding, ordered an attachment
to issue for contempt of Court. A scone so extraordinary was of
course reported by the plaintiff, which report by some means or
other gave offence to the Governor (Mr. Elphinstone), and that gen-
tleman gave Mr. Fair notice, that if he did not publish that the re.
port was incorrect he would be expelled the Island. Mr. Fair,
knowing the correctness of his report, positively refused to publish
a statement that would stamp him as a person capable of writing a
falsehood. The consequence was, the defendant issued an order,
and he was carried on board a ship which was going a circuitous
route to England, where he did not arrive for twelve months after-
wards. It was for the expulsion front Bombay, and the losses in
consequence sustained, that the plaintiff brought his p
_resent action.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (with whom were Mr. Guiltier,
Mr. ADAM Mr. Sergeant SPANILIE and two other Gentlemen),
raised an objection—that the statute Of 10th Geo. 3, cap. 147, under
which the action was brought, rendered it imperative that it should
be commenced within three years of the plaintiff's arrival in Eng-
land. Mr. Fair arrived in Sept. 1825.
A long discussion ensued. After which
Lord TENTERDEN Said he felt bound to allow the objection.
The Act was imperative, and made no exceptions.
The plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited.
COURT OF COAIMON PLEAS, APRIL 23.
CATHERINE SINPSON T. NARROW AND ANOTHER.
This was an action brought against the defendants, representatives
of the Globe Insurance Company, to recover the sum of 1,5001. be.
fog the amount of a policy of Insurance effected on the life of Lydia
Jane Simpson, the daughter of the plaintiff:
Mr. Sergeant TADDY (with whom were Mr. Sergeant Andrews
sod Mr. Patteson) stated, that the insurance was effected in the
month of September, 1828, for the term of seven years. The young
lady died in the month of March, 1829. She had previously been
in good health, but early in that month she paid a visit to her half-
brother, a Mr. Edwards, and returned home suffering from what ap-
peared to be an attack of' bilious fever. She was immediately at.
tended, as they would hear, by a medical man; but her illness
defied all the efforts made to preserve her, and she died in about a
week afterwards. Her body was opened, but no latent cause of
death was discovered, and, as sometimes occurred, the medical gen-
tlemen were at this moment unacquainted with the cause of her dis-
solution. Under these circumstances, he was unable to anticipate
the nature or course of the defence. Ilis Learned Brother might,
perhaps, show that, some years before het death, the young lady had
been guilty of an imprudence. Possibly he might maintain, that
the young lady's object in effecting this policy, to obtain money fee
it, by which she would be able to open a school, showed a weakness
of intellect ; and thence he might argue that her constitutional health
Gould not Le good. But let him say what he liked—let him adduce
whatever evidence he could—the question would at last come round
to this--whether, at the moment of effecting this policy, she pos.
mated an insurable life. It would be most distinctly proved that
her's was an insurable life, and the verdict must be for the
plaintiff
The policy was read. It was dated on the 10th of September.
102 a, and dbeted ea a declaration made on the *h of the same
nionth. After the usual words respecting She person going be.
yood the sea, the grounds stated for its becoming void wire, that

. •