The Sun.
London, England, 1820-08-12 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY, Aticusr t.

The LORD CHANCELLOR came into Court at
nine o'clock, and . disposed of. all his Bankrupt
Petitions Wore one. '
ewt.ittA HOUSE.
Mr.IIEALD stated to his Lordship, that he had
-a motion to make of a pressing nature; it was in
the case of the Opera Hon-Se, into which au exe-
cution had be6)_ put.
C The Loan IIANCELLOR.-4 can't help m hat
they put into the Opera IlouSe—but I hope they
will Lot put me there. 'Let the motion be taken
I;efore the ViceXhancell, r, ho understands the
business 'of the Opera llous'e Much better than
do.

His Lordship, in the afternoon, consented to
heir the motion.
INFORMAL PETI'T'IONS.

During the-morning an individual of humble,
Litt decent appearance, handed a written paper
the Lord Chancellor. The demeanour of the
applica►:t was extremely correct, and (contrary
to the custom in such cases established) he said
-nothing in support of his motion.

The Lotzn•.CHANcnnt.ott.-1. will read this
mapper to-night, but • I an afraid uoth►ing- can be
done it► Persons' who com►:e to the Court in
'this way com►ttonly attribute to a Judge powers
,wl►iel► he really do 6 not possess.

Cif_ the petitioner 'ref& ing, his Lordship ob-

served, that
_applications lilre the present were
.; far Too frequent, and that, 'from the manner in
such petitions were drawn up, it was evi-
dent that they were ,prepared by persons who
-.knew. that the Court could not possibly act upon
them. Those persons, however, did not forget,
he was afraid, to charge their unfortunate em-
ployers as well as to deceive them.

LORD FRANCIS GODOLPHIN
.OSBORNE J. LORI) COL..

ciiEsTmt, SIR RICHA H D RICHARDS, LADY CHAR-

LOTTE ELIZABETH OSBORNE, AND OTHER.

Air. IlonN applied to the Court under the fol-

circumstances : The plaintiff,. Lord
'Francis Osborne, was married in the year 1809 to
the present Lady C. E. Osborne, who was a
• daughter of Lord- Auckland. Previous to that
;marriage a deed was executed, by which a sum
of 20,0001., then due to Lord F. Osborne from
. his brother, the Duke of Leeds, was assigned to
the late Archbishop of Canterbury, the late Lord
Hobast, z-.nd the present defendants, Lord Col-
tcheSter and Sir Richard Richards, (Chief Baron
of the .Exchequer), 'Upon trust to lay out that.
•sum either in mortgages or in such other secu-
rities as theyshould think fit, as an accumulat-
ing fund for the benefit of_Lady Qsborne and of
the younger children (if any) of the marriage.
The fund_ was to continue to accumulate during:
'the joint lives of iLord.F. Osborne, and of Lady
Osborne, until it should amount to 50,0001. ; but
if, during the joint lives of those parties,, it
.should increase to that amount, then Lord F.
Osborne was to be entitled, during his life, to
;the current dividends or interest arising from the
Tiintio :Lord F. Osborne, by his petition, now
.s.t.a..ted that the fund had increased to 68,0001.;
iand prayed that the overplus above the specified

60;0001. might be laid out in such manner as he
should desire ; and that the interest arising from
the whole amount, which was vested in the 3 per
cent. Consols, might from time to time be paid
to him.
The LORD CILINCELLOIL—Who appears for
the trustees ?

Mr. MtItRIVALE appeared for the defendants
(Lady Osborne and her children), who did not
'dppose the petition.
SIMEON believed that the Attorney-Gene-
ral, who was not in Court, appeared for the
'trustees.

'The Loan CHANCF.LiOR.-I will make no or-
der in this case unless the trustees are before me.
'The 'Lord thief-Baron can decide the matter as

B ell as I can.

Mr. 5131E6N.-LlVill your Lordship allow me
0: hand up the opinion given by Sir Arthur
Piggott ?
' LoYt'D CuA:sTeaion..—No. I f Lord Col-

cbester and the Lord Chief Baron are' satisfied
with Sir Arthur Piggott's,..apinion, why do they
come here ?. In a casee-where such authorities en-
tertain doubt, I ought to have that doubt before
me. Suits shall not_, ie,instituted here merely
for the sake., of asking`triy, opinion. As Connie'
`a'l'e "not .prek!.nt.on the Part of the trustees, let
'tie petition stand over..
i. ,OPE.RA
,FIO.USE.
'Mr: ItEALD;al7ter adverting..to the protracted
f'to c.eeditgs of this interminable case,, and pro-
iliesyino- its endurance in full health and vigour
or at least ten years to come, stated to the Court
itiat' Mr. Waters having assigned ;the Opera-house
(without 'pacing for it), for a -debt.of
.5-1,0001., to
hlE>ssrs.' Midi and Obanifiers, Bankers, of Bond-
treet, those Gentlemen had taken possession of
il4'. property ; and thatifie Sheriff, being duly
. ..
indeinnified,"was about to'sell the scenery, rp4-
etiinery, dresses, ' &c., in Satisfaction of their
Claim. Against these proceedings, which would
put the Opera-house- (Still in equity, the property
3!:,141.-r. Taylor, the purchase-money . not being
aaid) ..horsrde combat as a theatre, he now prayed
injunction.
• Vlie Loit'n'CtiAxcE i.t.O'n did not see hOw he
could" MesSrs.' Birch and Chambers from
. . ..
soling the interest of Mr. Waters in the property,
.. ,
siibject to the obligations of that Gentleman ;
but would restrain them from selling any thing
else. ...
''Mr. lidoper:.--7.A. n'd. from removing the pro-
.r..
lielily` without ,ttie.fuqllFr direction of the Court?
' 'The Lotto Cii,o4l CELLO R.-Let Messrs. Birch
and Chambers be restrained from selling, under
eiViseXectitidn; any- thing, except (he interest of
Mr. 'Waters ln the proPerty ;, or from removing
....
Or 'doing any .act inconsistent with, the empjoy-
in'eint ;of the property necessary to the carrying
din of the' toriceim. . .

't
-:ICE-CHANCELL'OR'S COURT, A vourr 11.

WE. iICKAON AN'D 0r11RS•
qqr. BPJ.T.ititi;ttetilo the Court, 'Yepon the pe-
tition of Mr. J. Hunter, to expunge a debt of

q,:500/. improperly proved against the estate
Messrs. Jackson, Goodchild and Co. The circtn
of the case were these :—ln the gar I'Bls,
Messrs. Crosby, of London, South-Ameritan
merchants, became embarrassed.- Believing their
difficulties to be only of a temporary nature,
they applied to their friends for assistance,
and a number of houses, among which were
the firm of Messrs. Jackson, Goodchild,
and Co., and that of a gentleman named
Rayner, agreed to support them to the ex-
tent of -10,000/. The aid so afforded, how-
ever, Iva§ not given in cash, but in bills at two
inontlts' date, drawn by the several auxiliaries upon
each other, K hick bills the Bank promised to dis-
count, and to continue such: discount for I.q
months, the paper being renewed from time to
time as it should become due ; and as a security
to their supporters, Messrs. Crosby executed a
decd of trust, by which they assigned to them
certa'n valuable American produce ; with a co-
v(..nant that if any one of the a:ding parties
should, by death or bankruptcy, become,incapa-
ble of continuing acceptances 'from time to time,
such party should 'be excluded from the benefit
of the deed in question, while it should be com-
petent,• to the rest of the securities to put some
*ufficient person in his place, giving to that per-
son the interest which his Predecessor hail for-
, felted. In the month of J uly, ISI6 (the 12
months being to expire in September), Messrs.
Jackson, and Goodchild became bankrupts;
and a bill drawn by Mr. Rayner, upon those
gentlemen, for 2,5001., being part of the ad-
vance to Messrs. Crosby, was in consequence re-
turned by the Bank to the drawer. .Mr. Ray-
ner, instead of paying that bill in cash, exchang-
ed it for another bill accepted by a person of the
name of Thornhill; not at that time making any
claim under the commission of Messrs. Jackson
and Co.- Subsequently, however, Messrs. Cros-
by themselves became bankrupts ; and Mr. Ray-
ner proved the debt of 2,500/. against Jackson's
estate, and received dividends upon his claim.
On the part of Mr. Hunter, as assignee of time
estate of Jackson, Mr. Bell now prayed that the
proof of Mr. Rayner's debt might be expunged.
Ile prayed this upon various groUnds ; but first
and principally, upon the around that the pro-
ceeding of Rayner as to Jackson's acceptance
had not been a payment, but merely a substi-
tution.

Mr. AGAR, on the other side, contended that
the exchange of the bill had amounted, to all in-
tents and purposes, to, a payment.. It was the
same thing as if,. the bill being brought to Mr.
Rayner, he had paid it by a check. ,
The VICE-CHANCELLOR being of opinion that
the:re had not been any payment by Mr. Rayner,
but only a substitution, ordered that the debt
should be expunged, and that the dividends re-
ceived should be refunded to the assignees.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

SUKREY.—GUILDFORD, Auo. 7.

CIVIL SIDE.
Before the CHIEF JUSTICE and Special Jiries.

THE KING V. SELMAN.

This was an indictment against the defendant,
for a nuisance, under the 26th, Geo. 111., for re-
gulating the Toads in St. George's-fields, in hav-
ing erected an additional building to his dwelling
house, contrary to the provision of that Act.
The prosecution was conducted by Mr. Gun"
NEI- and Mr..CniTTY, and the defence by Mr.
MARRY AT and Mr. ANDREWS.

By the Act of Parliament in question, it was
provided, that the main roads leading from the
south side of Blackfriars-bridge, by the Obelisk
in St. George's-fields, to the spot on which the
notorious Dog and Duck tea-gardens formerly
stood, and now the, site of the New Bethlem,
should be of a certain width, to wit, eighty feet,
including ten feet' on each side for foot paths,
and that no building should abut thereon, so as
to diminish the breadth of the foot-path, without
being subject to an indictment for a nuisance.
Less important roads in the same district were
limited to the width of sixty feet, including a
like allowance of ten feet for the foot paths.
The indictment charged that the defendant, a
carpet-manufacturer, had carried out his shop
nine feet beyond the front of his house, so as to
leave but one foot of path between the building
and the carriage way, contrary to the provision
of the Statute. llis shop was in what is called
the London-road, leading to Newington Butts,
and the maim question -raised was, whether the
case came within the words of the 46th section
of the Act.

The CHIEF JUSTICE was clearly of opinion
that it did, but inasmuch as there was a misde-
scription of the road set out in the indictment, as
referred to in the Act, his Lordship directed the
Jury to acquit the defendant, and they accord-
ingly returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

ALLEN V. TURNER.
• •
This was an action to recover 'a compensation
in damages for a malicious prosecution, carrjed
on without reasonable or probable cause by the
defendant,'against the plaintiff, 'on a charge of
embe7zlement.

The plaintiff's case was conducted by Mr.
GURNEY, Mr. COWLEY, and Mr.' An'or.rnus, and
the defendant's 'by Mr. Berjeant ONsLow,
MAlllt VAT, and' Mr. Nor. As.
The case opened and proved on the part of
the plaintiff was in substance this :—The defen-
dant is a person of smile publicity as a vender of
shoe blacking. 'The plaintiff had been one of
his riders for. about two years, and in the month
or April, 1818, be voluntarily gave
.up the em-
Ployment. On the settlement of his accounts,
he claimed a balance of 36/. of the defendant,
Who, on the other hatid; insisted that he was en-
titled to a sett off of 30/. This 'became a matter
of dispute, and' was in the progress of 'adjustment
by minute .'investigation of the' accounts, when
the plaintiff entered the service of 'Mr. Warren,
another blacking-tnanu factuter 'of equal publicity
with the defendant, in the same capacity of rider.
'lt was alleged that the 'defendant became so in-

ceased at tniS criCtitnsian&?,- atat he immediately
shifted his ground, went before a Magistrate, and
charged the plaintiff ith three several acts of
embezzlement during the time helva-,.- in his ser-
vice, and caused a *arrant :to -
,be_ issued for the
plaintiffs apprehension, in order thereby to injure
his character, and frustrate his active exertions iii-
favour of Mr. Warren, which it was supposed
would be injurious to the defendant's trade.
Great.zeal was manifested on the part of the de
fendant to have the warrant executed, and it was ;
sworn that he had offered bribes_to some of Mr.
Warren's servants, to let him know where the
plaintiff was to be found, and that he declared
the satisfaCtion he would feel in having the plain-
tiff itt tonfinement, if it was but for a single day.
The plaintiff w as'a t length apprehended and taken
before the Magistrate at Union Hall. When
first brought up for examination, the defendant
was not ready with his evi4nce, and the Magis-
trates Suffered the plaintif to depart upon kr.
Harmer's undertaking for his appearance, On
seven successive occasions the plaintiff was taken
before the Magistrates on these charges, but the
defendant not being able to bring forward his
evidence, the information was finally. dismissed.
Within live Minutes after Wards the plaintiff was
arrested for 301. at the suit of the defendant, hut
immediately put in bail, and the defendant after-
wards discontinued the action. The plaintiffan-
ticipating that the defendant would still proceed-
criMinally against him, gave him notice that,
in case he should indict him, at the ensuing
May Sessions, he would be ready to surrender
and take ' his trial,. No indictment, however,
was preferred at those Sessions ; but at the,fol-
lowing October Sessions, the defendant went be-
fore the Grand :fury, and preferred two Bills,
on two several charges of embezzlement, which
were found by the Grand Inquest. The plain-
tiff immediately gave notice, that he, would ap-
pear in •the January Sessions and take his trial.
He accordingly did appear, and when the Coun-
sel for the prosecution had opened the case, the
Learned Chairman who presided, Mr. Harrison,
interposed, and said, that supposing all that had
been stated
.were proved, the indictment could
not be supported. The plaintiff was therefore
acquitted on that occasion. Under these circum-
stances the present action was brought. In fur-
ther proof of the defendant's malice, it was
stated, that he had employed two police•repor-
ters to attend at the Union. Ilall Office, take
notes, and cause an ex-parte* statement of the de-
fendant to be published in the Newspapers, in
such terms as would be most injurious to the
plaintiff's character. It was also proved, that
he had published advertisements in an Evening
Newspaper, intimating to his customers that the
plaintiff had left his employ, and warning them
not to pay him any money on his (the defen-
dant's) account. This was the case for the plain-
tiff, who claimed very large danages at the hands
of the Jury.

, Mr. Serfeant ONSLOW addressed the Jury with
very considerable ability, on behalf of the defen-
dant, in reply to the plaintiff's case, and contend-
ed, that if he shelved by evidence that the de-
fendant had reasonable and probable cause for
the proceeding against the plaintiff, his client
Would be entitled to a Verdict.

The following facts were proved in support of
the question of the reasonable and probable
cause :—On the 21th of January, 1818, the plain-
tiff received the sum of 41. 15s. of Mr. Joseph
Ball, a perfumer, of Northampton, for blacking,
on account of the defendant, which sum was ne-
ver credited in his accounts. On the 19th Sept.
he received the sum of 21. ss. of Mr. Peter Gar-
diner, of Gravesend, on a like account, and this
sum was never brought to book, or paid to the
defendant. .On the Bth of August, 1817, he re-
ceived the sum of 13s. of Mr. Williarn.Stewart,
a shoemaker, of Maiden in Essex, on, a like ac-
count, and that sum was never accounted for to
the defendant; and on the 3d of February,lBl7,
'he received of the executors of a Mrs. Carey, of
Shepton Mallett, in Somersetshire, the sum of
31. Gs. Gd. and only accounted for 11. 10s. 6d.
The CHIEF JUSTICE interposed and said, it
seemed to him, upon this evidence, that there
was probable cause for the prosecution instituted
by the defendant against the plaintiff, although,
in the result, that prosecution had failed. If, un-
der such circumstances, a man were liable to
have an action brought against him, because the
prosecution had failed, the course of public jus-
tice would be obstructed, and no man would
proceed against a servant whose conduct he sus-
pected. The case opened against the defendant
was strong, and his Lordship would have called
upon the plaintiff, in the first instance, to nega-
tive any ground of s,:spicion against his conduct,
had it not been for the evidence given, spewing
the defendant's anxiety to publish the case in the
Sewspapers ; but under the circumstances now
proved, his Lordship was clearly of opinion, in
point of law, that probable cause was sufficiently
established.

Mr. Gu!tXEy•offered now to go into evidence,
to explain, in_ the most satisfactory manner, all
the transactions brought forward by the defen-
dant ;- hut

The CHIEF JUSTICE said, be thought such evi-
dence was not admissible, upon the question of
probable cause, because the plaintiff was not now
upon his trial. The issue was, whether the de-
fendant had reasonable ground for the proceed-
ing he bad adopted.
Mr. GURNEY elected to be nonsuited.

KEENE V. WIGHTWICK, ESQ.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff,
a farmer, residini, at Chertsey, in this county, to
recoer from th:defendant, a Magistrate of that
District, a -compensatiOn in damages, for a pro-
secution instituted against the. plaintiff, for a nui-
sance, the proceedings under which prosecution
were alleged to have been founded in malice.
The case submitted to the Jury, on the part
of the plaintiff, was in substance as follows :—ln
the parish of Chertsey, and by the high road
side, was a stream of water called Deep Ditch,
which, frOm its depth and peculiar situation, was
catcUlated to endanger the lives of his Majesty's
subjects) as well-as to risk the safety of their

cattle and carriageS on the road ; and the plaintiff
erected a large bank, projecting. on the roadside_
a considerable distance, for the alleged purpnsie
of preventing these effects. The defendant feel,
ing a local interest with respect to the spot, au,us
harbouring animosity, as was alleged, toward
the plaintiff, 'exerted' the functions of his !nag':
sterial 'office to remove this bank, alleging it tolr
a nuisance, presenting it as such, and twice Pr?:
ceeding against it at his Own expence, but final',
shrinking from the trial of the indictment, iron:
consciousness, that he could not succeed. Tl',,
plaintiff's ease went on to shew that he had bee
vexatiously put to considerable expence in bei
.obliged to defend the
.proceedings instituted,
against him, for which he now sought a compel'
sation in damages.
On the part of the defendant it We. clearll
estalAished that the bank in question had beel;
repeatedly presented at successive Sessions by
High Constable of the Hundred as a nuisancej
that,manY. tither-Magistiates of the district had
considered it as such, and felt that their autb°''
rity was trifled with when it had not been r.‘-
moved after repeated presentations;- that Mr:
Wiglitwick,acting in obedience to a conselentioa
feeling, that .the bank in question was a nuisancel,
and perceiving that it was likely those who nai
dertook the prosecution founded on the fepe.2tt4
presentaticns were likely. to suffer, he gra tui tons'ij
offered•to guarantee the solicitors from loss; oat
it in fact appeared, that the. prosecution was n°
followed up to its fullest extent, from_ the ace:,,
dental absence of the High Constable of Cheri
sey from the Assizes there this time two yea,"
;
having mistaken the period at which the As9s
was to take place:
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE expressed hou-e
clearly of opinion that the bank in question
an obstruction to part of the high watt-; and rule
in point of law that the strips of waste land 1.11,
the sides of roads were'clearly parts of the
way. Such being his opinion. in point of 13,1%';,
while on the one hand he could. not think
bank_in question other than an obstruction t 0
highway ; he was of opinion that Mr. Wig-110%1'1
had acted in strict conformity to his Mag-ister!,3ll
duties, and had been actuated by no other `c!--
than a desire to discharge the functions of
office with fidelity and impartiality. At tl
same time he suggested to the defendant the Pr(
priety of his consenting to a 'Juror being witi:,
a
drawn, to prevent the plaintiff (who was a P°
man) from being probably saddled with costs
both sides, should the verdict be against Bite'
Mr. Wightwick, who was in Court and
whom the appeal of the Learned Judge was re‘,
sonally.made, instantly acquiesced in the 56
gestion.

A Juror was accordingly withdrawn.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE expressed his otPhe
nion, after the Jury had been discharged,
following. manner :----" I think Mr. Wightio
has acted' most honourably in acceding to ibt
'recommendation, because I could have no cicds
of what the result of this case must have bet
had it gone on."
The subject of dispute was then left to the are
titration of Mr. Barnewall. the Barrister.

Thursday night, as Colonel Bc.vnGT:s/
Gloucester-place, Portman-square, and his ,
were returning, to London in their travelling cier
riage, in consequence of the heat of the we3t.je,
the Colonel suffered the servants to get iti,':;(gr ,
whilst he and his Lady rode outside. -'4-he
Blackheath some villains contrived to cut 'el
straps which fastened an imperial on the top be
the carriage, without attracting the notice of tit
Colonel, and succeeded in carrying it off• e 7?
contained contained some valuable jewellery, 601. in nOl
and a great quantity of wearing apparel.

ft
BIRTHS.
muttldor'
On the Ist instant, at Bath, the Lady of Dr.
4
of a (laughter.
On Tuesday last, at Northteet, in Ken!, the wilt 0. 00
Pitcher, Esq. of a daughter.

MARRIED. fed'
el, ft,
On Thursday week, at Tinton) church, County 0f
of riiiiba

the Key. William Frazer, Rector of the Union -
ter
in the Diocese of Waterford, to Helen, eldest (ag') pc,
Rev. W. Archdall, of Seaview„ o.or°
ouTlitusday last, at I lammersmith, the Rev. • f the •
of liontingford, Herts, to Mary, eldest daughter
Mr. John Salter, of Hannuersioit h.

rr
DIED. Toa
e
On Monday, the 7th instant, at his house at t 37,
John Urquhai t, Esq., of the Ordnance Office, arSd sotrePpi'
On Tuesday last, at his seat at Coombe-bOO% f the
the G4th year of his aze, Beoston Long, Esti"
rectors or the Bank of England. r f r
n O Thursday morning last, in the 14th
Elizabeth,daughter of James Fisher, Esq. 1)„,,"1","
On the 2d instant kl ,at Swinhurne Castle, oc;.;;;;tri
General Leonard Shafto Orde, Magistrate and
tenant for the County of Northuniberland•

;$
° r
LONDON: Printed hyJ. B. CARSTAIKS, of O. IV by sr,
m
Orond-street, Queen-square: and publishe
SCRIPPS, of No. 7, So nt h Mo en ltr-street, at 1t" 00
Ottice, Nn. 112, strand ; where A dreitisereP
Letters, &c. (post-paid) must be aldrcsiew