The Sun.
London, England, 1827-11-27 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 26.

CARDNER V. ROWE.

Mr..AGAi: appeared in supPOrt of the appeal in
this cause, from a decree of the late Vice-Chancellor
Sir John Leach. The question in the original cause
was; -whether a lease which had been granted to Mr.
Wilkinson was held by him in trust for Mr. Rowe,
or for his own benefit. It appeared.. that Mr. Rowe
was interested in some mining operations in Corn-
wall, and an opportunity offering, which he thought
advantageous, of obtaining a lease of other mines, he
applied to Mr. Wilkinson, who was related to him
by marriage, and procured him to take a lease of the
new m7nes, but for his benefit. At this period Mr.
Wilkinson- was believed to be a man of great
wealth; and it was alleged in the course of the cause
that Rowe had pretended to give him the lease of
the mines by way of present, in the conviction that
he should receive if back again at Wilkinson's death,
together with the larger part of his property. After
some time it was found that Mr. Wilkinson, instead
of being a man of wealth, was in embarrassment. He
became bankrupt, his assignees claimed the lease,
Mr. Rowe claimed it on the other side, and a suit in
Chancery was instituted to set their claims right.
The Vice-Chancellor thought it a case which could
not be decided but 'by means of an issue at law, and
he consequently directed one to be tried in Cornwall,
the question in which was, whether Wilkinson held
the lease for the benefit of Rowe or of himself. That
issue was tried, and the result was, that the .jury
thought Rowe was beneficially entitled. That verdict
was returned to the Com t of Chancery, and a decree
pronounced upon the' basis of the jury's finding.
The plaintiff concurred to a certain extent, by his
subsequent proceedings in this decree; but after-
wards had preferred an appeal to set it aside.
Mr. Rosn and Mr. MATTHEWS argued against
the decree. •

At two o'clock the further progress of the argu-
ment was postponed, in order to go on with a lu-
nacy petition which had been fixed for that hour.

RE THE REV. WILLIAM HOLMES.

Mr. HORNE stated this to be a petitiori by Mrs.
Stephenson, the daughter of the lunatic, praying
that the commission de lunatic° inquirendo might be
established, which prayer he opposed on behalf of
the wife. of Mr. Holmes, on the ground that the
finding of the jury was insufficient. The return
was, that Mr. Holmes. was not a lunatic, but that
his memory was so far impaired by paralysis and old
age, that he was unable to manage his own affairs,
and consequently of unsound mind. The Learned
Counsel, with the assistance of Mr. WRIGHT, pro-
ceeded to argue that this was not such a return as
authorized the 'Great Seal to take away from this
gentleman the superintendence of his affairs.
Mr. SUGDEN, Mr. PHILLIMORE, and Mr. CLIN-
TON, were heard on the other side.
The LORD CHANCELLOR regretted the jury did
not take the advice which he perceived was given
them by the Commissioners, and find the return in
the usual form. Notwithstanding, therefore, the
great expence which a second commission must oc-
casion to the estate, the painful nature of the inves-
tigation, and the chance of heightening the discord
which seemed at present to prevail between the
wife and daughier of this unhappy gentleman, he
felt obliged, on grounds of public policy, to direct a
new commission. He was very sorry for it, but
the great danger that might ensue in admitting such
verdicts compelled him to make this decision.
Mr. Will. PAGE WOOD, the son of Mr. Alderman
Wood, appeared to-day in Court among the new
members of the Chancery bar. He was called, we
believe, on Friday last..

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 26.

THE KING V. PYATT.

This individual, whose case we reported on a for-
mer day, was this day sentenced to, be imprisoned
and to be kept to hard labour for six calendar months
in his Majesty's gaol at Dorchester, for hoisting a
signal light'to some smugglers off Portland Island.

The defendant in this information was now brought
THE KING 21. It. n. rticnAans. •
up to receive the judgment of the Court.
An additional affidavit. of ;the defendant was then
read, containing an account of the various debts for
which he was in custody. It appeared
that previous
to the trial of this inforMation, he had the benefit of
the rules, but that immediately after it, he was con-
fined within the rules upon a commitment from Lord
Tenterden, and was not permitted to hai,e a day-rule
even during term. He swore that in consequence