The Sun.
London, England, 1827-04-11 00:00:00

GALWAY ELECTION.

The Speaker sent a Message to the House of Lords on
the application of the Chairman of this Committee, to re-
quest the attendance of. the Marquisses of Sligo and. Clan-
ricarde, Lords Mounteagle and Sumrnerhill, to give evi-
dence on behalf of Mr. Martin. The Lord Chancellor in-
formed the Messenger, that the Lords would return an an-
swer by a Messer.E,,er of their own, but the noble House
forgot to return an answer, in consequence of which, Mr.
Martin was compelled to close his case without the be-
nefit of their testimony, and the investigation being thus
concluded, the Committee retired to deliberate.

The Committee having deliberated for about an hour, re-
solved that Richard Martin, Esq. was not duly elected, and
that Mr. Lambert ought to have been returned instead.

The CIfAIRNIAN added that he would make a Report to
the House, recommending it to adopt some measurcs to
secure the freedom of election in the county of Galway for
the future.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
INJUNCTION.
DORAN AND OTHERS V. LIDSTER.

Mr. Ducx worm! applied for an injunction to restrain
the defendant from taking any further proceedings in an
action at law for the recovery of 14,0001.
It appeared that a gentleman named Lidster, executed
a deed of assignment, by which he conveyed his property
to the plaintiff Doran, in trust for the other plaintiffs.—
part of this property consisted of a sum of 14,0001. secured
to Lidster on a bond. Lidster died in August, 1824, and
shortly after Doran took a mortgage fur the 14,0001 on
the estate of the gentleman by whom it was due, and since
that time the cestui que trusts have been regularly paid
the interest on that debt. In February last the defendant,
who never disputed the validity of the deed of assignment,
took out probate on an old will, made by Lidster before the
execution of the deed ; the defendant was named an exe-
cutor to this will. Since the probate was obtained on it,
he arrested the gentleman by whom the bond had been
given, although he had since secured that sum by a mort-
gage.

The Vict-CHANcEr.tott inquired why the defendant's
claim could not be disputed at law ?
Mr. DUCKWORTH replied, that the defendant, as exe-
cutor, was prima facie entitled to recover, and that the as-
signment of the bond could not be set up against the action
at law. It was positively sworn that the mortgaged estate
was an ample security for the 14,0001.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR granted the injunction.

FIC-FARTS CHAMBERS INTIM MATTER OF CHAMBERS.

The ATTORNZINGENKRAL, for the petitioners, proceeded
to reply, and argued at considerable length that the mem-
bers of the Committee of Management, by whom the letter
of license was revoked, had not been duly elected, and,
therefore, that they had no authority under the deed, to
make the revocation. One of the provisions ,of the deed
was, that l 4 days notice should be given in the Gazette,
and in two London newspapers, of the intention of pro-
posing any new committee •man at the next general meet-
ing. It appeared, on referring to the Gazette that the notices
inserted were:of a general nature, and did not explicitly set
forth that a new Committee-man was to be . submitted to
them. The Attorney-General in conclusion, begged that his
Honour would put the legal questions in the shape of an
issue, to be tried at law, if he did not feel that the peti-
tioner was right in his interpretation of them.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR said that it would be necessary
for him to read through all the affidavits before he gave
judgment. He would take care to do this during the
Easter holidays, and be prepared with his judgment on
their next meeting. It is an extraordinary fact, said his
Honour, that one of the affidavits is a folio volume of 300
pages.
Mr. WAKEFIELD observed that the affidavits in all, con-
sisted of not less than 1,500 pages.