The Sun.
London, England, 1827-02-09 00:00:00

PRACTICE IN CASES OF COMMITTAL.

Mr. SPENCE applied for leave to move the Vice-Chancellor
for an order, that certain documents might be produced by a
party, or that that party might stand committed. There was a
difficulty in making such motions in the other Court, inasmuch,
as that almost all orders of committal were appealed from, and
his Honour hid refused to hear several of such motions; but the
Learned Counsel thought the Vice-Chancellor would hear the
motion in the present instance, if Mr. S. might be at liberty to
say, he had the leave of this branch of the Court to move it before
him.

.....
His Loßnsurr would not give such leave. He thought the
Vice-Chancellor had acted very properly in refusing to hear mo-
tions to commit, because the order to commit had to be signed
by hie Lordship, whether it was made by himself or the Vice-
Chancellor, and he never had, and never would sigr. an order of
such a nature, without first acquainting himself with as much of
the case as if it had been argued here. The consequence was,
that this branch of the Court would hear this motion itself to-
morrow morning.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
PRACTICE OF THE COURT
THE ASSIGNEES OF TWO BANKRUPTS V. LORD KENSINGTON AND

OTHERS.

In this case an application was made by Mr. BARBER, on the
part of the defendants, to dismiss a supplemental hill, o❑ the
grounds of irregularity. The plaintiffs are the assignees of two
gentlemen, who had entered into a contract with the defendants,
for a building lease of some ground at Kensington. Under the terms
of the contract, the building was to have been completed within
a certain time. The defendants having commenced proceedings
in a Court of law to recover possession of the premises, a bill
was filed for an ibjunction to restrain them from proceeding with
the ejectment. Before the case came to a hearing upon this bill,
the defendants had obtained a writ of possession in a
Court of law. The plaintiffs having thus lost possession
of the premises, and being of course unable to go on with
the buildings, so as to entitle them to a lease, filed a sup-
plemental bill, praying that the possession may be restored,
to them. Mr. Barber argued, that as the plaintiffs had intro-
duced new matter into this latter bill, which might have been set
forth in the original, it ought to be considered an amended bill,
and as such dismissed, inasmuch as it was not competent to a
party to file an amended bill without having, in the first instance,
obtained permission from the Court.
Mr. RAY opposed the application; he submitted to the Court
that in no instance had a supplemental bill been struck off the
file, merely on account of the introduction of new matter into it.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR.—'Phis is really a novel application;
let it be mentioned on the last day of Term, I will in the meantime
consider the point.

At a subsequent part of the _a M
y, —KALI) applied for an
injunction ex-parte upon a bill of interpleader.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, that it was not usual to grant
such applications ex-parte.
Mr. HEALD was well aware that such was not the practice in
his Honor's Court. The Lord Chancellor had, however, again
and again, held the practice to be otherwise, and, indeed, one of
the reasons for such a mass of business of this sort being carried
before his Lordship was, that be bad no objection to grant ex-
parte application of this nature.
The VICE CHANCELLOR—I certainly did think that it was not
right to grant such application ex-parte, but as it appears that the
Lord Chancellor thinks otherwise, it is my duty to be guided by
him. The practice in both Courts ought to be uniform, you will
therefore take your order, Mr. Heald.

JUDGMENT.
coLurß V. MORRIS AND OTIIERS.

The particulars of this case were given in our paper some time
since. It will be recollected that it was an application for an
injunction to restrain the defendants from publishing or exposing
to sale a work entitled Fuller's Remains.

His HONOUR. gave judgment to-day. He refused the dispensa.
tion, but in case the plaintiffs might proceed and try the question
at law, he directed that the defendants do keep an account of the
profits of the sale of the work for the next six months. If at the
expiration of that period the question should not he brought under
the consideration of a Court of Law by the plaintiffs, the de-
fendants might then be at liberty to apply to His Honour to dis-
charge that Order.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
The Court was occupied until eleven o'clock in disposing of un-
defended causes in Nisi Prius.

TILE KING V. THE BAILIFFS OF irswicu.

Mr. ALnEasoic moved for a rule to show •cause why a writ of
mandamus should not be directed to the Bailiffs of Ipswich, com-
manding them to admit a person of the name of Bristoe to the
freedom of that borough. The applicant had served an appren-
ticeship, the indentures of which were dated the sth of August,
t• commence from the June previous, for the term of seven years,

which expired in June last. The objection to his admission to
the freedom was, that he had not served seven years.
Mr. Justice BAILEY asked if it was the usage of the borough
to admit such services.

Mr. ALDERSON—I have an affidavit of a person who states
that he knew many instances wherein such constructive services
were allowed. It would therefore be for a Jury to infer whether
it was the custom of the borough or not. . .

The CHIEF JUSTlCE—Youraffidavit should state that be be-
lieves it to be the custom of the borough.—Rule refused.
Mr. SCARLETT, addressing the Court, said that he had an ap-
plication of a novel description to make. It related to pro-
ceedings of such an extraordinary nature as to justify it, however
singular. A Mr. Cooper had brought an action of trespass against
thirty-four defendants, several of whom were constables, who went
with the owner to recover possession of property of which he had
been wrongfully deprived. The plaintiff's object, in bringing an
action against so many, was to deprive the principal defendant
(Mr. Bloxam) of the benefit of their testimony. His application
was, that their Lordships should order some of the defendants to
be liberated, to enable them to give evidence ; and Mr. Bloxam
would willingly take the entire weight of the trespass on himself.
—The Court refused the application.

THE KING V. THE REV. W. DAVIS.

The'defendant in this case is perpetual curate of the parish of
Oysterinouth, in Gloucestershire, and some time ago superseded
John Tovey, the parish clerk, (who had been appointed by his
predecessor in 1820, and had a license from the Bishop), without
showing sufficient cause. A rule to skew cause why a man-
damus should not be directed to compel him to reinstate Tovey
having been obtained,

Mr. TAUNTON appeared to oppose it, he observed, that the
conduct of Tovey warranted his removal, he left the church dur-
ing divine service, and on being asked why he had left it? he
replied, that he did not like to sit under the desk of such a fellow
as the defendant ; he was also heard to, say, that he was sick in
body and soul of the parsons, and to have several times made use
of offensive epithets respecting the defendant and his predecessor.
Mr. TAUNTON also observed, that the Bishop of the Diocese
had approved of the defendant's conduct in removing the pro-
secutor.

The CHIEF JUSTICE said, that the defendant did not adopt the
proper course in removing Tovey ; ho ought first to have sum-
moned him, and hear his defence. As to the Bishop's approba-
tion, it did not avail, since it did not appear that he had
heard what the prosecutor had to say ; the rule therefore should
be made absolute, unless the defendant should make a better
return.

COURT OF COADION PLEAS.
Nothing of public interest occurred in this Couit this morning.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
THE GOONEARL MINING COMPANY.
CAMPBELL, HAWTHORN, AND OTHERS, V. HANCOCK, DAISY, AND