The Sun.
London, England, 1829-11-25 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 21.
CARTER AND WIPE V. DRAPER AND LRE.

Mr. Hott, beftht he proceeded to call the at-
tention of the Court to this ease, could not help
expressing the surprise be felt, on learning that an
account of it bad already appeared in the paper.
This was the more extraordinary, as the pleadings
had merely been opened yesterday, and he could not
therefore sce how any body could tell by such
means what the real nature of the case was. It had
been stated, however, that the point involved in the
case was the right to one-eighth of two-thirds of 5/.
Now this statement was exceedingly improper, and
could only have been put into the paper to preju-
dice the cause, or to excite the public mind, or for
some other improper purpose. The plaintiffs in this
case, Nicholas Carter and Jane his wife, were per-
sons of low condition. The wife was one of the
children of a labouring man, named Draper, who
died intestate in 1814. All the Court at present
knew about the property of the plaintiffs, and all
that could be known shout their property, until the
accounts were taken, was, that they were entitled
to certain leasehold property belonging to the intes-
tate, and also to other personal property consisting
of household furniture and so forth. On the death
of the intestate in 1814, his widow retained posses-
sion of the property, and, acting under what legal
advice he dal not know, but could easily guess
from the evidence, she had continued in the
possession of the property up to 1822. In 1822,
a Mr. Lee, an attorney who resided in the neigh-
bourhood, who had a garden adjoining this pro-
perty, and who cast his eye beyond the limits of
his own domain, introduced himself as the solicitor
of the widow. He was next found enticing the
plaintiffs, at nine o'clock in'the evening, to a pub-
lic-house, and there 'persuading them to execute a
certain deed. Now, the plaintiffs were illiterate
persona ; neither of them could read or write. By
this deed, however, the plaintiffs assigned over to
Mr.'Lee this said leasehold property, which had
belonged to the intestate, Draper, and the only con-
sideration that passed was 51., which was paid by
Mr. Lee to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had taken
out administration, because the widow had refused
to do so; but the deed made no provision for the
expellees of the administration. The deed, more-
over, expressed that a consideration of 401. had been
given for the property, arid a receipt for 401. was
endorsed on the deed ; but only 5/. was paid by Mr.
Lee, the remaining 351. continuing still in his own
pocket. He did not mean to say that Mr. Lee in-
tended that the 351. should remain in his pocket,
but such was the mode in which the transaction had
been effected. And see the consequence. The
deed bearing on it a receipt for 401., his illiterate
and ignorant clients would have been liable •to ac-
count for that sum to the others who were entitled
to shares of the property, although, in fact, they
had only received 5/. He would ask, then, whether
such a deed,—whether such a transaction,—was to
be held good in a Court of Equity ? A suit in
equity was the consequence of Mr. Lee's conduct.
In order to put an end to that suit, an arbitration
was agreed upon : the arbitrators made their
award ; but a certain time having been fixed,

within which the arbitrators were to sign, two
of them, by an accident, neglected to sign
within the limited time, and consequently the
award was of no avail. His clients had made ,
every offer to remedy this legal defect, in order
that the award might be carried into effect ; but the
other party had thrown obstacles in the way of this
arrangement. On the farce of the award, however,
it appeared that the property was worth 6GI. and a
fraction, and the transaction of Mr. Lee, therefore
could not stand. Mr. Lee had stated in his answer
that he had purchased the property for a valuable
consideration, and that gentleman could not, of
course, be pleased with an award which falsified his
defence,and declared the property to be worth 661.,
instead of 401. The Court would see, then, that
it had to deal with a case very different from that
which had been put in the paper by Mr. Lee, or by
some one on his part.
.Mr. Lee—l deny that, Mr. Horne; I havenothing►
to do with newspapers.
Mr. flortNE contismed—He did not know that
that gentleman was Mr. Lee. An account of this
case, however, had been put into the paper. Editors
of newspapers were too respectable, too just, too
cautious, to insert such statements without authority.
It had, however, been stated that the hearing of
such a cause was fixed for to-day : the counsel who
were to argue the case were, mentioned by name,
and the whole was merely an invitation to people to
come and hear the proceedings.
Mr. PARKER followed on the same side, and read
a vast quantity of ;evidence.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was heard for the de-
fendant at' great length, after which
The VICE-CHANCELLOR dismissed both the origi-
nal bill and the supplemental with costs. His Honour,
after observing that Mr. Lee's conduct in the trans-
action appeared to him to have been perfectly fair
and upright, and that that gentleman appeared by
credible witnesses to hare given the full value for
the property, said that the only question now re-
maining was, who should pay the costs. It had
been intimated to him that he had the power to make
Mr. Leek pay the costs. He should be happy to hear
the defendants on this point, if they thought fit, for
he looked upon the conduct of Sir. Leek to have
been most blameable.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL would look into the
point of jurisdiction, and, with his Honour's per-
mission, mention the matter.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR gave the Learned Conn-
' sel the permission he asked.

COURT 01? XING'S BENCH, Nov. 24.
FISHER V. CLEMENT.

This case stood in the new trial paper. It was
an action for a libel published in a newspaper called
Bell's Life in London. It has been tried twice,
and on the second trial a verdict paSsed for the de-
fendant. In a former term Mr. Campbell, for the
plaintiff, obtained a rule nisi for a new trial. The
case has been standing for some time in the new
trial paper. In the last term the Court recommend-
ed a stet procestus. On the case being called on
to-day,
Mr. Justice BAYLEY inquired whether that re-
commendation had been acceded to.
Mr. CAMPBELL said that his client (the plaintiff)
wished to have the opinion of the Court upon the
application for a new trial.
The case, therefore, stands for argument.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 24.
JAMES V. OLIVE, CALLING HERSELF PRINCESS OF

CUMBERLAND.

Mr. Serjeant JONES moved for a rule to show
cause why the warrant of attorney executed by the
defendant in this cause should not be delivered up
to be cancelled, and why the plaintiff's attorney
should not refund to defendant the sum of 111. 1 Is.
Mr. Justice PARK—hlow is your affidavit entitled?
Mr. Serjeant JONES—in the same way as the
cause—" James v. the Princess of Cumberland."—
The Learned Serjeant then proceeded to state the
grounds on which he founded his application. The
defendant had formerly been acquainted with a lady
of the name of Stevens, by whom she was induced
to join her in a promissory note for 321. for her ac-
commodation, upon which they were both after-
wards sued by the plaintiff. Mrs. Stevens paid the
amount of the note, but not being able to pay the
costs, both she and the defendant were charged in
execution in 1822. Mrs. Stevens died, and James
went to America, where he also died. The "Prin-
cess" remained in custody until 1828, when the
attorney induced her to execute a warrant of attor-
ney, she paying him 11/. in cash, and half-a-guinea
for the person whom he took with him to the prison
" a witness. Under these circumstances, the de•
fendant sought to set aside the warrant of attorney.
on the ground that the suit had abated by the death
of the plaintiff before and alto that she
•