The Sun.
London, England, 1827-07-23 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.

IN THE MATTER OF LORD PORTSMOUTH, A LUNATIC.
Mr. HEALD said this was the petition of one of
the trustees of the Earl under the deed of 1799,
made previous to his Lordship's marriage with the
Hon. Grace Norton, since deceased. Tie petition
stated that the question had been before the Court,
whether it would be proper to renew the lease of a
parsonage, stated in the pleadings; that it had been
referred to the Master to inquire whether it would
be proper that the lease should he renewed, and out
of what fund the fine and fees should he paid; that
the Master had made his report, certi Eying that it
would be most desirable for the Earl's estate
to have the lease renewed, and that if it was
not renewed before the present life dropped,
there would be no means of compelling the renewal.
The Master also found that the expences of renewal
should be paid out of a fund in the hands of the
trustees. The prayer of the petition therefore was,
that the Court would be pleased to confirm the
Master's Report.
Mr. PEPYS appeared for the Committee of the
Earl who considered it a most desirable thing that
the Master's Report should lie confirmed, otherwise
the tithes of this property might be irretrievably lost.
Mr. Home appeared for Lady Portsmouth, and
Messrs. Palmer and France, who were creditors to a
great extent for opposing the proceedings
under the commission. With respect to the
settlement of 1799, Mr. Heald considered no
argument could be built upon it, because it was
a deed made upon Lord Portsmouth's first marriage,
and was at an end long ago. There could be no
doubt that the renewal of this lease would be be-
neficial to the Earl's estate; an; the only question
was, whether it ought to be renewed at the ex-
pence of his estate or not ? There were a great
many heavy expences on the estate, which swal-
lowed up every penny that arose from his estates ;
and as this fine, amounting to no less than 42,000/.,
would greatly defeat the payment of prior creditors,
if it were ordered to be paid out of the Earl's gene-
ral funds, he thought that the parties applying to
have the lease renewed ought to find some other
means of renewing it, as far as the expellee went,
than those funds.
Mr. BieKeßsTeern appeared for Lord Grantley,
who it was prayed by this petition, might be orcered
to pay the amount of the renewal out or the money
in his hands. There were a great many prior de-
mands upon the estate, and he felt bound to leave it
to the Court to say, whether the satisfying of those
demands ought to be delayed, that those who might
succeed Lord Portsmouth might have the benefit of
this renewal. The Learned Counsel felt bound to
admit, that by a covenant in the deed, Lord Ports-
mouth was bound to renew this lease, but he con-
ceived that he was by no means at liberty to take
away from the creditors so large a sum at this time
as the renewal of it would require.
Mr. SKIRROW appeared for-the same party.
Mr. HEALD replied.—lt had been stated in the
course of the observations this morning that a sum had
been set Apart for this renewal by the Master when
he reported upon the stateeif the debts; that was
untrue in point of fact ; the Master only seemed to
think that it was necessary the fine should be paid,
and that the amount should come out of the general
income of the Earl. The deed of 1799 was not at
an end ; it was under this deed that Lady Ports-
mouth had all along been using the amount she
had been in receipt of. He was surprised to
hear the flimsy, arguments that had been raised
against this application, all parties at the same
time having felt bound to admit that the renewal
was desirable and requisite. He supposed that Lord
Grantley had a great desire to -benefit the creditors,
if he had, he had no doubt that he would come for-
ward immediately and pay the 12,000/. he had for a
long time owed to the Earl's estate, with interest;
and he (Mr. H.) was quite sure that that would
satisfy the creditors much better than all the opposi-
tion he had made, or could make, to this application.
Mr. BICKERSTETH was surprised to hear Mr.
• -Heald advert to this debt. Lord Grantley was per-
. fectly prepared to pay it, but the fact was, there
was a dispute as to whom it should be paid, and
this occasioned his Lordship to remain so long the
debtor.
His LORDSHIP said, it was quite clear that this
fund in point of law was liable to the charge of the
renewal, and the only question was,. whether the
fine should be paid out of the present fund of the
Earl, by which it was possible the claims of creditors
on the estate might be postponed or not, as it was
a valuable property, and as it might be lost entirely
to the estate, if not renewed immediately, and as if
it were renewed, it might become available to the
creditors, he thought he would be acting improperly
• if he were to disturb the Master's report, which stated
that the fine should be paid out of the present accu-
mulated funds.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
Nothing of interest occurred in this Court up to
the time of our going to Press.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

JONES, TROWER, AND LAWSON, V. THE LONDON DOCK

COMPANY.

This was an issue from--- the Court of Chancery,
to try whether the plaintiffs had a right to recover
fifty puncheons of brandy, the property of the plain-
tiffs, which was deposited With the defendants in
November, 1823, in the London Docks, and which
the latter were alleged irregularly to have transferred
in February 1624, to a third party.
The Court was occupied all the morning in the
trial of this cause, which is likely to continue to do
so till a late hour.