The Sun.
London, England, 1827-11-09 00:00:00

LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 9, 1827.

PEERS CREATED BY THE KINGS OF

ENGLAND, FROM 1066 to 1827.

According to the valuable and curious Statis-
tical Tables on Ireland, by Cesar Moreau, Esq.,
F.R.S., just published by Treuttel and. Wurtz,
we rind in page 14, the number of English and
Irish Peerages conferred or restored from the
Conquest to the present time, 1827 :
Tim ENGLISH PEERS CREATED_WERE, EY

William L, 20; William 11., 4 ; Henryi, 5 ; Ste-
phen, 18 ; Henry 11., 9 ; Richard L, 6 ; John, 8 ;
Henry 111., 22 ; Edward 1., 164 ; Edward IL, 63;
Edward 111., 81; Richard IL, 34; Henry IV., 17 ;
Henry V., 8; Henry VI., 57 ; Edward IV., 57;
Edward V., (none); Richard 111., 5; Henry VII.,
20; Henry VIII., 66 ; Edward VI., 22; Mary,
9; Elizabeth, 29; James 1., 98; Charles 1., 130;
Charles 11., 137; James IL, 11; William and Mary,
46 ; Anise, 47 ; George I, 60 ; George 11., 99;
George 111., 254.; George IV., 27.

THE HUSH PEERS CREATED WERE,• By
Henry 11, 7; Richard 1., none; John, 4;
Henry 111, 1; Edward 1., none; Edward 11., 4;
Edward 111., 4; Richard 11., 2; Henry IV., 2 ;
Henry V., none; Henry VI., none; Edward IV.,
3; Edward V., none; Richard 111., none; Henry
VII., none; Henry VIII., 17; Edward VI., 2 ;
Mary, none; Elizabeth, 3; James 1., 55; Charles
1., 57; Charles 11., 41; James 11., 5; William
and Mary, 14; Anne, 8; George 1., 54; George
11., 76; George 111., 268; George IV., 9.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 8.
CORONER FOR SOMERSETSHIRE.

Mr. DANIEL moved that a day might be fixed for
hearing this case. It was arranged that it should
come on at the first motion day.

PHIPPS V. LORD FNNISMORE.

Cotinsel were heard in this cause upon an appeal
from a judgment of the Vice-Chancellor. The sub-
ject of the suit was the validity of a trust in the mar-
riage-settlement of Lord Ennismore's daughter with
Major Balders. The party claimant was entitled to
an annuity charged on the estate of which the dis-
puted trust was declared, and he insisted that the
trustees bad no right to receive and appropriate the
rents for the purposes of the settlement, otherwise
than subject to his charges.
The LORD CHANCELLOR would consider the case,
nd give judgment at a future day.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 6

RHOADES V. LORD SELSEY.

The plaintiff in this case, who had for many year:
acted as steward, agent, and solicitor, to the family
of the defendant, had advanced several sums to the
present Lord Selsey, for the purpose of enabling the
defendant to pay certain legacies left by the late
Lord Selsey. The,plaintiff and the defendant dis-
agreed in 1820 about a farm, Which the plaintiff had
taken under an agreement, from John, Lord Selsey.
The defendant endeavoured to -Set that agreement
aside. His Lordship brought the matter before the
Court of Chancery, where the decree was in favour
of Mr. Rhoades. His Lordship then appealed to
the House of Lords, where the decision was also in
favour of Mr. Rhoades. Lold Selsey took the
agency out of the plaintiff's hands so long ago as
1820, bat the settlement of the accounts between
them, and the payment of a large balance due from
the defendant to the plaintiff, was delayed from time
to time ; and during this delay, the plaintiff, knowing
that the defendant was indebted to him, and for
other reasons, had suffered the rent of the farm,
which had been the subject of dispute between them,
to go into arrear. Lord Selsev put in a distress for
rent, and the plaintiff then filed a bill, which prayed
an injunction to restrain any further legal proceed-
ings on the part of Lord Selsey, and also that anac-
count -of all the transactions between the plaintiff
and defendant might be taken before the Master.
To this bill the defendant had demurred, on the
ground of want of equity on the part of the plaintiff.
Mr. SUGDEN, in support of the demurrer, con-
tended, that the plaintiff's remedy was an action of
account.. The learned counsel cited cases in support
of his argument, and especially one decided by the
present Master of the Rolls, in which a bill for an
account between a. landlord and tenant had been dis-
missed on the ground that a court of law was the
proper place for investigating such accounts and de-
ciding such •differences.
Mr. PEPYS, on behalf of the plaintiff, contended,
that the accounts between the plaintiff and the noble
defendant were of such a complicated nature that
they could never be settled by an action at law. By
the agreement between the parties, the plaintiff was
to have 51. per cent. for his agency, on the net rents
of the estate. It was impossible to ascertain clearly
what the net rents were, except by such an investi-
gation as a Court of Equity could alone afford.
Mr. SUGDEN was about .to reply, when

The VICE-CIIAisiCELLOR Said he would not trouble
'appeared fo-hitii iierfeetly'-elear that the
demurrer must be allowed, as the plaintiff had not
sufficient equity. Nothing could be productive of
greater mischief to the landed interest of the country
than the countenancing of a proceeding which would
justify agents, by filing bills in equity, to compel
their employers to go into an account of the tran-
sactions between them, at an enormous and alto-
gether unnecessary expense.—The demurrer was.
accordingly allowed.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 8.
ATTwoon V. SMALL AND OTHERS.

This was an action brought upon three agree-
ments entered into between the plaintiff, who was
the proprietor of sonic iron-mines in Staffordshire,
and the defendants, for the sale of the mines for the
use of the British Iron Company, to recover the
purchase money, to the amount of 600,000/. The
trial camp on at Stafford before Mr. Justice Little-
dale, and the verdict went for the plaintiff.

Mr. CAMPBELL moved for a rule to show cause
why the verdict should not be set aside and a new
trial granted. The principal ground upon which he
rested his application was, that one of the agree-
ments received•in evidence on the trial was not pro-
perly stamped. The Learned Counsel argued at
considerable length in support of his proposition.
• Lord TENTERDEN said the words of the act were,
that if any instrument should be " endorsed upon or
annexed to" another, they should be considered as
parts of one instrument. In the present case one
deed was merely referred to in another, which he
conceived did not come within the meaning of the
act.

Mr. CAMPBELL then contended, that the verdict
was against the weight of evidence, which went to
prove that the plaintiff was a partner in the British
Iron Company, and therefore could not maintain an
action against his co-partners.
Lord TENTERDVI said, the Court would take
time to consider whether it would grant or refuse a
rule.

BRIDGET V. COYLIV.

This was an action for false imprisonment, brought
by the plaintiff against the defendant, who was a
Magistrate. The cause was tried at Stafford before
Mr. Justice Little&le, and the verdict went for the
plaintiff, with 101. damages.
Mr. Sergeant RUSSELL moved for a rule to show
cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and
a new trial granted, on the ground of the misdirec-
tion of the Judge. It appeared from the evidence
given on the trial, that the plaintiff, being out with
his gun, for the purpose of shooting fowl, approached
the house of Dawson, whose dog ran from the house
towards him and barked. The dog, however, was
returning to the house, when the plaintiff thought
fit to fire at it, at the distance of about 14, yards, by
which it was killed. Dawson summoned the plain-
tiff , before Mr. Coyley, and evidence was given hs
to the value' of the dog. Mr. Dawson valued it at ;V.
Lord TENTEnnEN.—What jurisdiction had the
Magistrate ?
Mr. Sergeant RussELL.=He had jurisdiction un-
der the malicious trespass act. Mr. Coyley said he
would take the value of the clog, not at 51., but at
31., which, with the expense, he directed the plain-
tiff to pay.
The plaintiff said he would appeal to the Sessions.
The defendant again desired him to pay the 31. and
the expences, and told him if he (lid not do
so, would commit,him for three months. The
plaintiff still refusing to pay, the defendant called in
a constable, to whose charge he committed the
plaintiff, repeating the observation he had made be-
fore, that he would commit him for three months if
he did not pay. It did not appear that the con-
stable touched the plaintiff, but they went out of the
room together, and then the plaintiff paid the amount
required by the defendant. In his charge to the
Jury, Mr. Justice Littledale said, that though the
circumstance of the case did not amount to what was
usually called imprisonment, yet if the Jury thought
the wlaintiff was under the restraint of the constable,
that was sufficient to cOtistitute imprisonment. To
that part of the Learned Judge's directions he did
not object. He, however, went on to say, that if

the jury were of opinion that the plaintiff had suf-
fered imprisonment, it did not appear to him that
the defendant could in any way justify his conduct.
It was that passage of the charge of which he
complained.
Lord TENTERDEN—Was there any conviction
drawn up in this case ?

Mr. Sergeant RussEL—No. The plaintiff settled
the matter.

Mr. Justice BAYLEY—Within seven days ?
Mr. Sergeant RussEL—Directly.
Lord TENTERDEN_But how can we say that a
conviction took place, unless it was ultimately re-
corded ?

Mr. Sergeant RUSSEL—It was not recorded, be-
cause the matter was settled.
Lord TENTERDEN—That was a reason for not
acting on the conviction, but it is none for not draw-
ing it up.
After some conversation, Lord TENTERDEN told
Air. Russel that he might take a rule. Shortly after,
however,

Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE, who had been looking
for his notes of the trial, now, having found them,
read therefrom the evidence given, by two of the
plaintiff's sons at the trial, from which it appeared,
that when the plaintiff wisheitThe hearing of the case
to be put off to another day, the defendant would
not allow it to be postponed. On the, plaintiff de-
claring his intention to appeal from the defendant's
decision, the latter, in a rage, said to him, " You
will do this thing, and you will do that thing. Pay
the money, or I will commit you for three months."
The defendant then called in a man named Hardy,
whom he swore in as a special constable, to take
charge of the plaintiff.
Lord TENTF,RDEN.—Upon this evidence, I think
the direction of the Judge and the verdict perfectly
right. 'When the plaintiff said he would appeal, the
magistrate became angry and said, " You talk of
this and that—pay the money, or I will commit you."
After this evidence, we cannot think of setting aside
the verdict.—Rule refused.

KINCSFOED V. BROWN AND OTHERS.

Mr. BOLLAND moved for a rule to show cause
why a criminal information should not be filed
against the defendants, Messrs. Brown, Warren, and
Couty, magistrates of the city of Canterbury. The
motion was founded upon affidavits made by the
plaintiff and his attorney, Mr. Sands, which set forth
that a rate had been made by order of the magi-
strates, in the city of Canterbury, in which rate was
included certain property belonging to Mr. Kings-
ford. This property, Mr. Kingsford contended,was
in a precinct called Blackfriars, under the jurisdic-
tion of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and extra-
parochial. On the 30th of July, Mr. Kingsford re-
ceived a summons, signed by Messrs. Brown, War-
ren, and Couty, calling on him to appear before them
on the 2d of August, to show cause why he refused
to pay the rate. lie accordingly attended on the
day specified, with his attorney, at the Guildhall.
On that occasion, not one of the magistrates, whose
names were attached to the summons, were present.
Ile heard nothing further on the subject till the
22d of September, when a warrant of distress was
issued against him, under which his carriage was
seized and detained until he paid the rate and ex-
pences, which amounted to 21 16s. The distress-
warrant was signed by the defendants.
Lord TENTERDEN thought there must be some
mistake in the business.

Mr. Justice BAYLEY said, the Court was not in
the habit of granting informations where no corrupt
motives were imputed. The smallness of the sum
showed that there must be some mistake in the mat-
ter.—Rule granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 8.
(Sittings in Banco.)
SNOW AND OTHERS V. LEYLAND AND OTHERS.

This was an action of trover to recover the value
of a 1001. Bank of England note,. which had been
stolen, with many others, from the person of the
plaintiff's porter in Fleet-street, in 1824.—Rule
granted.

ELLIS V. SMEAR. AND OTHERS.

This was an action for goods sold and delivered
to the amount of 234/. by the plaintiff, who is an
upholsterer, to the Cornwall and Devon Mining
Company, of which the defendants were mem-
bers. The defence set up was, that the defend-
ants were not shareholders at the time that a
very considerable portion of the goods were sup-
plied; that they were not personally responsible
for the debts of the company, which they had not in-
dividually sanctioned; and that the whole company
was a bubble, and founded in fraud, for the purpose
or deceiving and robbing the public: and that the
whole being fraudulent, and the defendants decoyed
into it by false representations, they could not be
recovered against as partners: The case was tried
before Mr. Justice Gaselce, at the late sittings at
Guildhall, when the Jury found that the company
was a bubble and fraud, but that neither the plain-
tiff or defendant were cognizant of it, and gave a
verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE now moved for a rule to
show why that verdict should not he set aside and
nonsuit entered, or why the verdict of 2341. should
not be reduced to 107/. The Learned Sergeant
made this application upon the ground that the Jury
having found the company a bubble, was in fact an
answer to the case, and that upon that the plaintiff
had no right to recover.—Rule granted.

DOUGLAS, AND OTHERS, ASSIGNEES OF STEIN, SMITH,
AND CO., V. FOREST, EXECUTOR OF HUNTER._

judgmentof
timethe eiCourtee
of ehsissi
wa was
some
decided against the deceased, who died in 1817.
This
of art
Scotland,action on
which a
The case was tried before the Lord Chief Justice at
Guildhall, during the sittings before the present
Term, when a verdict was taken for the plaintiff,
subject to the opinion of the Court as to the validity
of a judgment of this kind passed in a Scotch Court,
when attempted to be enforced in an. English Court.
At the trial, the merits of the original transaction
were not discussed; the only question was, as to the
regularity of the judgment. Witnesses were called,
who proved that the deceased's father and mother
were married in Scotland, and that he was himself
baptized there, and remained in that country until
about the age of 17, when he went out to the East
Indies, from whence he never returned. Previous
to his death he became entitled to certain heritable
property in Scotland, which, from his absence, he
never enjoyed. This property was taken possession
of by a life renter about four years before Hunter
died, and he continued in possession until after that
event. At the time that the original suit was insti-
tuted Hunter was in the East Indies, and he was
summoned in the customary manlier at the High
Cross of Edinburgh and the pier and shore of Leith,
but not answering, judgment by default was passed
against him.
Alr. Sergeant WILDE moved for a rule to show
cause why the verdict should not be set aside, on the
ground that the judgment of the Scotch court in
this case was not such as could be recognized by an
English court of law.—Rule panted.

COURT OF CONDELEGATES, Nov. 8.
wEsTmEATit 2f. W ESTMEATIL
This is a case too well known to need specific,.
ion.—AThe COURT directed it to stind over till ne).t

The greater part of the new Custom-houre
is expected to be ready for business before
Christmas.