The Sun.
London, England, 1818-11-25 00:00:00

MARLBOROUGH.

Mr. SIDEBOTHAm, in this case, moved the Court
to allow the parties to amend their Bill, by intro
Arming the name of a Mr. Ellis, without prejudice
to the injunction that bad been granted by the
Lord Chancellor.
Mr. HANSoN trusted his Honour would not al-
low the present motion. He opposed it on the
ground that the Lord Chancellor had refused, in
the case of Moore and Cottrell, in which the
plaintiff and the Rector had obtained an injunc-
tion to restrain the defendants from cutting down
trees in the church•yard, a similar application,
He adverted to the observation of his Lordship on
that occasion ; namely, that he would resist, on
every occasion, the slightest variation in rases in_
which an injunction had been granted under simi-
lar circumstances.

Mr. BELL, in opposing the motion, argued
that the opposite parties had been extretnely'ciire-
less, and that the motion ought not to he granted.
Mr. SIDEBOTHAM said, that that assertion cCiuld
not be correct, tor the Lord Chance Hot had but
very lately granted the injunction, to which a de-
murrer had been entered as soon as the bill had
been filed.

The VICR-CHANCRI.LOR inquired in what situa-
tion Mr. Ellis stood to the other parties to the

suit.
Mr. SIDEBOTHAM said, Mr. Ellis was the "
site entail " and the Doke was the " tenant en-
tail." The only question in his opinion was,
could the tenint entail cut down ornamental
timber ?
The VICE-CHANCELLOR observed, that Lord
Churchill was the uncle of the- Marquis of Bland-
and had seven sons who were cousins of the
Marquis of Blandford, and they of course had a
right to he made parties to the suit as well as Mr.
Ellis. His Honour doubted whether the present
. motion was bona fide made, or whether it was
merely for the purpose of delay.
Mr.HANON said, the injunction had been
granted without the proper parties being before
the Court.
His Honour the VICE-CHANCELLOR was Of opi-
nion he Might "for once" grant the motion, but
he would not allow more that) two days to the
parties to amend their bill.
Mr. HANsoN submitted' that they bill might be.
amended by to-morrow, and as his Client ex-
pected the case tube argued then, he thought no
farther time ought in justice-to be allowed. '
Mr. SIDEBOTHAM said, no expectation of that
kind could have been entertained, fOr an amicable
adjustment between the parties was now under
consideration.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR.---" Well, take the
Order ; but 1 assure you I grant 'k with some he-
sitatiou.":

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 24.

This bein,i4 Special Paper Day, the Court beird
arguments of Counsel on reserve►l points of law.

LOBO CHoLMONDELEY V. LORD CLINTON.

. _
This long litigated suit, which has made so
much noise in the Courts of Equity, came on this
day to be argued before the Judges of the King's
Bench, in the form of a special case, directed by.
ills Honour the Vice-Chancellor, who is 4lesiroui
of obtaining the opinion of the Judges. The
question trailed on the construction of a deed, by
which estates of considerable value will go either
to Lord Cholmondeley and
.Mrs. Darner, or to
the Clinton family. The points were ably argued
byNr. PaisToN and Mr. RICHARDSON ; the Court
gave no decision: Their 'opinion will-be certified
to the Vice-Chancellor.