The Sun.
London, England, 1829-11-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
JUDGMENT.—MENDIZABEL V. HULLETT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR disposed of the question that
arose in this case, on the substance, merits, and form of
the plea that had been put into this bill. The question
was, whether the plea was to be considered a sufficient
answer to the bill. The treaties and documents mentioned
in the pleading had been so often before the Court that
his Lordship did not think it necessary to enter into them
in detail, for the purpose of chewing the grounds on which
the Court proceeded. Treaties in 1814 and 1815 were
entered into between France and Spain, by which France
undertook to raise a fund of 1,800,000 francs or rentes,
for the purpose of paying off the claims the Spanish sub-
jects had on the government of France. This sum was to
be divided into two parts, the one was immediately to be
(as it was) paid, one to the Government of Spain, and
the other was to remain in the hands of the Commissioners
to he appointed (as they were) by both Governments.
The money was raised and thus disposed of. Things stood
in this way till April, 1822. At this period, by another
convention, France withdrew about the half of this sum,
and the remainder was to be paid to such person or persons
as the King and Government of Spain should direct. Jr.
pursuance to this arrangement, this large sum was paid
over to Machado, the Consul General and agent of the
King of Spain. In 1823, the King and Government of
Spain directed Machado to transfer the sum. Accordingly
Machado realised the property and came to England with
it. The Cortes, in the s ane year, passed a law, au-
thorising the King to apply this money to ether than
the original purposes, his Majesty indemnifying his sub-
jects in respect of their claims in another way. By
virtue of this authority, the King and Government of
Spain entered into a contract with the plaintiff that he
should pay over money for the general services of Spain,
and receive as an equivalent bills of exchange drawn upon
Machado, in respect of the fund in his hands. The money
was advanced, the bills drawn and presented to Machado.
Machado refused to accept the bills, contending that the
King and Government of Spun had no right to dispose of
the property in such a way ; and also that be himself was
entitled to it. The bill stated that Machado was to be
considered as a trustee of this property, having received
the money as agent of the Government of Spain. Machado
was a Spanish subject, and the whole of the claimants
were also of that character. Millet stood in the same si-
tuation that Machado did, being Machado's agent. The
plea stated that the money was irrevocably to be appro-
priated to the discharge of the Spanish subjects' claims ;
that, according to the laws of Europe and the
usages of Spain, it could not be applied in any
other way, and that the King had no right to make
a law for a different appropriation. It was impossible,
in his Lordship's opinion, that any sum of money could
be said to be irrevocably appropriated to any particular
purpose in any country where the laws, &c. of that coun-
try were to be controulled by the Legislature. It was not
denied that a law had been passed for the different appro-
priation of this money, and it was impossible therefore
that this plea could be regarded as an answer to the bill.
If such a law was passed in Spain, this country would
give effect to it under such circumstances—the plea
would have to be overruled, with costa,

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
ALLEGED MURDEIt.-THE KING U. WM.:ATKINSON AND

WM. MILNER,

These defendants had been committed to York Castle
on the Coroner's Inquisition, for the wilful murder of
Thomas Holmes on the 26th of October last, at Skirlow
Moor, in the county of York.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS now applied to the Court to admit
the defendants to bail. It appeared by the depositions be-
fore the Coroner, that the defendants were both game-
keepers to Sir W. Ingleby, and that the deceased was a
labourer. The latter was, at eleven o'clock on the above
night, in company with two other lahourers, named Mot-
ley and Thackery, going to the house of a farmer, who
had appointed them to come and receive their harvest
wages. Holmes and Thackery were going first, and had
a lurcher with them, but no instrument for the purpose of
killing game. The two defendants suddenly rushed out
upon them ; the night was very dark, and a scuffle en-
sued, in which Thackery was knocked down and stabbed
with some short sharp instrument, and he heard Holmes
cry out that he was stabbed and killed. The two Motleys
came up and joined in the fight, one of them having only
a small stick, and the other of their party having no of-
fensive weapon; but they were ultimately, however,
obliged to run away, for fear of being killed. Holmes
went to a neighbouring house, where be arrived at one
o'clock, and knocked violently. The occupier, John
Wetheral, thought some one was trying to break in, and
would not admit him, although Holmes told him he had
been out night-hunting, and was badly hurt. He begged
them to assist him in getting to Shaw Mill. Another
man kindly offered to assist him, and, finding he could not
walk, got a cart, and took him to Shaw Mill, where he
died the next day. When about half way to Shaw Mill,
Holmes cried out violently that his bowels were coming
out, and begged his conductor for God's sake, to let him
get out of the cart and die on the road. Witness saw
that his bowels were protruding. Mr. Cooper, surgeon,
attended Holmes at four o'clock in the morning, and found
his intestines, which were violently inflamed and partly
mortified, protruding. He had a wound about two
inches long, slanting downwards i❑ the lower part of the
abdomen. Holmes told him that he had been out poach-
ing with the two 'Motleys and Thackery, and had been
stabbed in a struggle with the keepers. The deceased
died in a few hours after witness saw him.
The defendants produced an affidavit from their master,
Sir W. Ingleby, in which he stated that Atkinson had
been in his service seven years, and Milner one year, and
that he had known both defendants for several years before
as well behaved and humane men.
The COURT ordered them to be di.ebarged out of cus-
tody, upon their entering into their ows recognizances for
400/. each, and finding two sureties for 1001. each
Bail was immediately put in.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
EIAVES V. -

Mr. Serjeant RUSSEL obtained a rule some time since,
calling upon an attorney, residin4 in the country, to chew
cause why he should not deliver up a deed to be cancelled.
It appeared from the affidavits that a poor man of the name
of Elwes went to the attorney, and wished hint to dispose
of an interest which he derived under a will, but which
was not payable until a person of the name of Thompson
died. The attorney said he wou'd write and enquire into
the circumstances. Some time after this Elwes was in-
formed that nothing had been heard resrcting it, but that
lie (the attorney) was willing to enter into an agreement
for the purchase, which, after some further negociations
were agreed to, and the poor man executed a deed,
assigning over to the attorney his life interest for
the sum of nineteen guineas. The affidavit further
stated, that at the time Elwes was induced to sign
an agreement for the sale of this property, he was in a
state of intoxication. Shortly after the execution of the
deed the person, daring whose lifetime the money was to

accumulate, died, and steps were taken to pay the money,
which then amounted to nearly 200/. Elwes, on ob-
taining this information, applied to the Court, and ob-
tained a rule, calling upon the attorney to show cause why
the deed thus obtained should not be given up.
Mr. Serjeant WILDS this morning showed cause against
this rule, and contended that as the defendant supposed
Elwes' interest was onlya contingent one, nineteen guineas
was a fair price ; and his not being the attorney of the
plaintiff, the Court could not call upon him to give up the
deed. There were affidavits of two of the defendant's
clerks, which stated that Elwes was quite sober at the
time the deed was executed, and that it was not at eight
o'clock in the evening, but early in the afternoon.
Mr. Serjeant RUSSELL was heard at some length in
support of the rule.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—We are not at all satisfied
whether the attorney knew that Elwes had a vested inte-
rest in the property, or that he supposed it was only a con-
tingent one. Our opinion of the part he has acted must
entirely depend upon that, we shall therefore refer it to
the prothonotary to make further inquiries.
The Attorney, who was in Court, here addressed their
Lordships, and said, he hoped the Court would express
an opinion that there was no imputation resting on his
character.
Mr. Justice PARK—lndeed, we shall do no such thing.
Attorney—l am anxious to set myself right and vindi-
cate my character ; I will therefore consent to deliver up
the deed to Elwes, on his paying me back the 19 guineas
with interest, and the costs of this application.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE said he thought this a very
fair offer.

.-.. ......
Mr... Serjeant RUSSELL assented to these terms, and a
rule to that effect was ordered to be drawn up.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
STUACH V. GRINDALL.

Mr. Cox applied in this case that the depositions of a
lady, in a declining state, might be read on the trial of an
ejectment, provided her health would not allow her to
attend, and be examined vine voce. Mr. Grindall was en-
titled to a large property in the funds under the will of
the original testator, the plaintiff asserted that the will
had been improperly obtained, and filed his bill for an in-
junction to restrain Grindall from getting possession of the
property. Upon the case coming on before the Court the
plaintiff undertook to bring an action; an injunction was
g+•anted ; several ejectment' were brought, and it was at the
OW of ORO Of these ejectments the evidence of this old
lady, given in the cause, was: sought to be read. The
Court made the order directing Mr. Coe's clients to pay
the costs.