The Sun.
London, England, 1827-06-28 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

NICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Juxx
HARRIS V. KEMBLE.

Mr. Twiss applied to his Honour on behalf of the de-
fendant in this case, that the motion
_for a rehearing might
be advanced. The petitioner declared that he was consi-
derably embarrassed by the decision of his Honour's prede-
cessor, anti the numerous creditors claiming on the joint
property were in a condition of uncertainty until the re-
hearing should take place.
His HoNous observed, that, as soon as the further di-
rections were got through, it would then be the proper
time for him to consider the question of rehearing.--Mo-
tion refused.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JENE 27.
THE KING AGAINST RAM3DEN AND CLARKE.
These defendants were brought up to receive the judg-
ment of the Court upon an indictment for a conspiracy en
which they were found guilty at the sittings after last
Easter Term, in London, before Lord Tenterden. The
indictment charged the defendants, and others who were
acquitted, with conspiring to defraud the creditors of
Ramsden, by suing out a fraudulent commission of bank-
rupt against Rarnsden and Clarke ; and there was also a
count charging them with conspiring to sue out a fraudu-
lent commission for the purpose of defrauding the creditors
of Ra.msden.

Mr. F. PoLLOCK and the CoMMON-SERGEANT, by leave
of the Court, who had ordered the matter to stand over,
were heard in behalf of the defendants, who applied for a
new trial, on the ground that evidence had been improperly
received. The 96th section of the last Bankrupt Act pro-
vides, that no commission of bankruptcy, adjudication, as-
signment, or certificate, should be received as evidence
miess entered on record. The commission was not pro-
duced at the trial, nor was it enrolled, and, in consequence,
the Attorney-General gave up the first count of the indict-
ment, and relied solely on the second, which charged the
defendants with conspiring to sue out a commission ; and,
to prove this conspiracy, he offered in evidence the assign-
ment by the Commissioners, which had been enrolled ; and
Lord Tenterden, after argument, admitted it.
Mr. POLLOCK, for Captain Rainsden, now contended,
that the assignment, although enrolled, was not evidence ;.
because the commission not having been enrolled, the officer.
had no authority to enroll the assignment. The adjudica-:
tion, and other proceedings under the bankruptcy were
open to the same objection.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Mr. GURNEY, for the
prosecution, contended, that the Act of Parliament pre-'
vented the commission and assignment being evidence in
case they were not enrolled, for the support of any pro-
ceeding founded upon the commission; but did not pre-
vent their being evidence on a charge like this of fraudu-.
lently issuing the commission ; and compared it to the case'
of a forged bill of exchange, written upon a wrong stamp,
where the bill, notwithstanding the defect of the stamp,
might be given in evidence against the person indicted for
forging it.
The Court deferred pronoun'cing their opinion.
At the rising of the Court, Lord TENTERDEN said that
the Court would proceed on the new trials to-morrow,
after.the motions on the special paper on Friday ; and that
on Saturday they would not take any Crown case, but
proceed on the new trials.

ROLL'S COURT, TUESDAY, JuxE 26.
EMMANUEL V. CONSTABLE.

This was a bill filed by the brother and residuary lega-
tee of a gentleman named Emmanuel, who died possessed
of very considerable personal estate, which he bequeathed
by will to several persona.
Among the legacies, which
were numerous, was one to Dr. Barry, of Paris, to whom
the testator gave 2001. and his gold watch, seals, &e. "in
testimony of the testator's esteem for his moral excellence,
and professional attainments." Mr. Emmanuel bequeathed
also a legacy of 2,0001. to the defendant Constable, who, in
addition to his character of legatee, was also an attesting