The Sun.
London, England, 1827-04-05 00:00:00

ELECTION COMMITTEES.-(TIIIS DAY.)

THE GALWAY ELECTION.

The scrutiny proceeds very rapidly, 200 of Mr. Martin's
votes have already been disallowed, it having appeared, by
the evidence of two witnesses, that so many persons had
voted twice, and several of them three or four times, at the
election ; and what is shocking to state, it appeared that all
these voters had, on each occasion, sworn that they had not
voted before at that election. Surely some remedy should be
applied to such a mass of depravity. It has been proposed, on
behalf of Mr. Martin, that Mr. Lambert should be allowed
the benefit of having the majority of legal votes, provided
the Committee would adjourn to Tuesday, in order to give
Mr. Martin an opportunity of producing evidence to show
such corrupt practices on behalf of Mr. Lambert, as would
disqualify him for a seat in the House; but this proposal
was objected to, and the Committee proceed in the scrutiny.
They strike off votes by half dozens.
THE WESTMEATH ELECTION.

Sir Thomas Chapman's Steward was examined to• day
with a view to proveth etch e Baronet's tenants were bribed
by the Catholic priests to vote for Mr. Tuite. It ap-
peared from his evidence that 114 of his tenants had voted
for Mr. Tuite, and that they all owed two years' rent,
which amounted to 3841. Ejectments were brought
against them all, but were afterwards withdrawn through
the interposition of Mr. Shiel, on condition that the rent
should be paid and two Catholic Priests afterwards paid the
entire sum. It also appeared that 50 of the freeholders held
no more than a quarter of an acre of land, for which they
were to pay one penny a-year, and fifty more held no more
than half an acre, for which they were to pay sixpence
a-year, and ejectments were brought for arrears of twopence,
and in other instances of a shilling ; so much for the lenity
of Irish landlords, and for the respectability of freeholders.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
GRANT V. GRANT.--+NE EIEAT REGNO.
IMPORTANT QUESTION.

Mr. Mawr again applied for judgment in this case.
His LORDSHIP really could not say, that the suit could
be absolutely discharged.
Mr. HART then supposed it would have to remain for
the 13,0001., the sum that had been at first named.
•His LORDSHIP did not mean to say so ; on the contrary,
it had been admitted, that it could not be sustained for
13,0001. but 8,000/. ; and therefore the sum to he mark-
ed on the writ would have to be reduced to 8,0001.

Mr. HART taking this to be the present opinion of the
Court, hoped his Lordship would afford him the oppor-
tunity hereafter of addressing to it a few words, upon what
he considered to be one of the most important questions to
the public that had ever been agitated in a Court of Justice,
raised in this case, and which was, whether it was fit that
a defendant at law could come to th 4 Court, obtain a writ
of ne exeat rcgno to a very large amount against a plaintiff,
hold him in prison for that sum, stated only on his own
affidavit, and then be permitted to recede from that sum,
but still continue to hold the individual in durance for a
less amount?

His LORDSHIP observed, that if Mr. Hart would apply
himself to this question on Saturday morning, it would be
impossible for him ever to do any thing more gratifying
to the Court.

Mr. HART protested, that if this writ should be left in
the hands of the Court, in the way now proposed, he felt
the utmost confidence that it would constitute a precedent
of the most oppressive and injarious kind.
his LORDSHIP agreed that it would form a precedent of
a most important nature, and therefore he was perfectly
ready, not only to be driven out of the opinion he had now
delivered, but to slide gently out of it should the Learned
Counsel satisfy him that he was wrong.
Mr. HART conceived that the question to be spoken to
would be this, whether a defendant at law could come into
Equity, demand bailable process upon his own oath, ob-
tain it, and though it turned out afterwards, that be could
not sustain it to any thing like the extent to which he
had demanded it, the process did not wholly fall to the
ground ?

his LORDSHIP begged to explain himself a. little. He
was sure that no man living had ever felt more anxious to
discharge persons from -durance than he bad uniformly
done. He looked upon it that equitable bail in this Court,
might he had upon a party's applying fur it, and swearing to
his belief. Whether this should have been originally esta-
blished or not, was another question ; but his Lordship
felt bound upon the point by precedent. He had, in his
own mind, assimilated this to what used to pass in the
Court of Common Pleas, and not in the Court of King's
Bench, though he believed the latter Court altered its prac-
tice by making it like that of the former, which was, that
when a man was held to bail upon a positive
affidavit, for instance, to the amount of 10,0004, the Court
would examine into the question, whether the amount for
which the bail had been obtained was for a larger amount,
if it was matter of account, than was likely to be due upon
the taking of the account, then the Court took the bail for
the probable amount; and his Lordship doubted, that
when a man had sworn to the amount of his debt as he
verily believed it to be, this Court, by analogy to what
passed in Courts of Law when a case was, as he might say,
amended, would discharge the equitable bail altogether,
because the sum had been reduced, or whether it would not
rather reduce the equitable bail to the amount to which it
was shewn it ought to have been given.
A Gentleman behind the bar observed, that Mr. Hart
had made a misrepresentation, in stating that the party
who had obtained the bail here had sworn to a certain
amount as being due to him, and had subsequently receded
from that demand. The fact was, he had sworn that in
one way of taking the accounts 15,000/. would be due to
him ; that in another way of taking them there would be
12,0001, and a fraction due to him; and that in a third
way there would be 8,000/.
His LORDSHIP hoped Mr. Hart would consider the point
till Saturday, and then let the Court hear him upon it.
Mr. HART promised to do so, confessing at the same
time that he had a very strong feeling on the subject.