The Sun.
London, England, 1827-08-09 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, AUG. 8.
WAKEFIELD V. TEDIPLEK.

Mr. BICKF.RSTETH, for the defendant in this cause,
the plaintiff in which is Edward Gibbon Wakefield,
applied to the Court for an order, awarding to his
client the costs to which he had been put by the
frivolous and expensive opposition of the plaintiff,—
The course which the suit had taken, according to
the Learned Gentleman's statement, was this ; the
Court were proceeding to execute the bequests of a
will, and bad already dispensed a portion of the tes-
tator's property in legacies, when, in 1819, the
plaintiff, and a lady of the name of Patten, applied to
the Court to impound the whole fund in the cause,
upon the allegation that the will was forged, and
that the testator died intestate. The Court com-
plied with the request, in order to afford the plain-
tiffs an opportunity of trying the validity of the will
in the Ecclesiastical Courts. As, however, the
.plaintiffs applied late in the cause, the Court, taking
into consideration the hardship of depriving those
who were then enjoying the fund of all participation
in it during a tediousy course of litigation in the Ec-
clesiastical Courts, admitted the defendant to enjoy
the interest of the fund upon security given. The
result of the suit in the Ecclesiastical Courts was,
that the plaintiffs entirely failed, and the validity of
the will, which they had thus vexatiously disputed,
was completely established. The plaintiffs, there-
fore, having thus, upon false and frivolous allegations,
induced the Court to impound the fund, and put the
*defendant to great and unnecessary expense, in giv-
ing security and otherwise, he submitted that the
Court would not inflict upon the defendant the ex-
penses thus frivolously and falsely incurred.
Mr. HEALD, Mr. HORNE, and Mr. WAKEFIELD,
were for the plaintiff. They contended that it was
for the defendant to show,' by good and sufficient
proof, that the plaintiffs bad proceeded upon false
''and frivolous allegations.
Mr. BICKERSTETII, in reply, said, that the juris-
diction of the Court was not to be ousted, because
in former stages of the suit costs had not been re-
served. The whole proceeding of the plaintiffs hav-
ing proved nugatory, the onus probundi to show
that their conduct was not frivolous was upon
them. It was not incumbent on the defendants to
prove the affirmative, when facts spoke so plainly
for themselves. •

The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, the only difficulty
he felt was, that the costs had not been reserved ;
and, if he could find no authority to overcome that
difficulty, he feared he should be unable to grant the
prayer of this petition. He would read all the affi-
davits carefully before he gave judgment.
[The tolling of the bell for two hours in the
morning, from eleven to one, imparted a feeling of
melancholy to all persons in the Court.]

COURT OF REQUESTS, OSBORNE-STREET.

DOUBLE BURIAL FEES....,WILDMAN V. PUGH.

- -
A ease of considerable importance to the public,
and one of great local interest to the parishioners of
St. Mary, Whitechapel, inasmuch as, on its decision
depended their future liability to the payment of
double dues, claimed by the Rector, the Rev. Daniel
Matthias, on the burial of the parishioners, should
the hand of death unfortunately strike them out of
their own parish (though these parishioners may
have lived in it, and paid scot, and lot, rent and
taxes, for near a quarter of a century), came on for
hearing in this Court, before the Commissioners,
Messrs. Membray and Harris. The persons whose
names we have stated were the ostensible parties to
the suit, the plaintiff being the parochial sexton, and
the defendant, a respectable undertaker, in Church-
street, Mile End New Town. The real ones, as
admitted by the sexton, were the Reverend Gentle-
man, by whose commands he acted in issuing the
summons, and Mr. Bookless, jun., the son of the late
Thomas Bookless, of Rosbnary-lane.
The short facts of the case are thew—Mr.