The Sun.
London, England, 1827-04-12 00:00:00

dismiss the charge ; and if his Lordship think differently,
he may indict him at the sessions. I think you (addressing
the prisoner) have been treated unjustly ; the law is open
to you, and you can proceed against his Lordship for
damages if you please.
Ac he was about to leave the office, Mr. Saneom re-
quested of Mr. Rawlinson that the case might net appear
in the papers ; to which Mr. Rawlinson replied—" It is
a matter in which I never interfere. If gentlemen will come
here on such occasions, they must take the consequences."
After they were gone, the constable of the night said the
gentlemen were all tipsy when they came to the watch-
house.

" I wish," answered Mr. RAWLINSON, " you had said
so when they were here, and I would have fined theca ss.

each."

William Gadsby, a chimney-sweeping boy, was com-
mitted to Newgate for trial, on the charge of stealing mo-
ney from a till.
Mrs. Boyne, a shopkeeper, at _No. 12, Great James-street,
Lisson-grove, saw him noon his hands and knees at nine
o'clock on Tuesday night behind her counter. The shop
was indifferently lighted ; and supposing him to be a dog,
she said, " Get out," when, to her astonishment, he in-
stantly became erect. She screamed, and he was taken
into custody. The till was found half open, one shilling
and a quantity of copper coin were gone, but only three
halfpence were found in his pockets.
He was committed under similar circumstances a very
few weeks back, and acquitted.
William Walbourn, a dancing-master, perhaps better
known to the public as Dusty Bob, in Tom and Jerry,
at the Adelphi Theatre, was held to bail, himself in 1001.,
and -zwo sureties of 50/. each, for having disturbed the
King's peace, and obstructed sums peace-officers in the per-
formance of their duty.

THAMES POLICE.—CHARGE or MURDER OX
HICII SEAS.—Joseph Bragy, Master of the brig Valiant,
lying in the East India Dock, was on Tuesday charged with
the murder of Francis Williams, a black, who was cook on
board the Valiant.—Robert Harris, the principal witness,
in whose testimony others of the ,:niw concurred, stated
that he had frequently observed acts of the utmost cruelty
practised on the deceased by the prisoner; that without any
apparent provocation he used to tie deceased with cords,
dragging him about the deck, knocking him down the
hatchway, beating arid kicking him most severely, and
even in one instance applying a red hot poker to his back.
These events happened during their voyage to the Isle of
France.—The prisoner was remanded, in orr:er that other
witnesses might be- brought Ns and examined.

LAW INTELLIGENCE, APath 11.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
PRACTICE OF COUNSEL.
When the petition, "Ex-parte Wait in the mat-
ter of Bergh," was called on to be heard,
Mr. HART, who appeared for one of the parties,
stated that Mr. Montagu, wbo was concerned for
the other side, had left the Court on purpose, be-
cause the leading Counsel with whom he was en-
gazed happened to be elsewhere. He, therefore,
hoped that his Honour would dismiss the petition
with costs. The practice of Counsel leaving the
Court under such circumstances was highly discre-
ditable to the Court itself, and it was right that
some definite understanding should be come to in
order to prevent a repetition of such proceedings.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR immediately directed that
the petition should be dismissed with costs.
Mr. HART observed, that he hoped Mr. Mon-
tagu would learn by this decision to act with rsore
consideration in future.
Mr. SUGDEN—But the misery is, that the poor
suitors must bear all the expence of such negligence.
Mr. lIRALD, whose absence in the Court of Chan-
cery prevented him from opening the case as lead-
ing Counsel, addressed the Court in a subsequent
part of the day, and said that as the sittings were
nearly over for the present, he wished to -ask his
Honour's opinion on a circumstance which had taken
place in the course of the day, in which the practice
of Counsel was concerned. It so happened that he
and Mr. Montagu were concerned in the case of a
bankrupt petition, which his Honour had dismissed
with costs in consequence of the absence of Coun-
sel. He (Mr. Heald) was not aware that Mr. Mon-
tagu, who was with him in the case, intended to
leave the Court, unless he were present as leading
Counsel to open it. A day or two ago, in the case
of " Heley v. Thompson," Mr. Montagu thought
proper to adopt a similar course, and left the Court
because he (Mr. Heald) as leading Counsel, was
unavoidably absent. Had Mr. Montagu expres-
sed his determination to that effect before he
put it into practice, then the inconvenience and
expence, which must be the inevitable consequence,
might have been spared. Two or three years ago
he (Mr. Heald) gave notice to all his clients that he
could not accept of a brief in bankruptcy unless a
junior Counsel were also engaged. In fact, it was
quite impossible to get on without such an arrange-
ment, because it not unfrequently happened that
four or five petitions were struck out of the paper
at once, in consequence of the parties not appearing
to defend them ; so that, suddenly, a petition of
great importance might come on during the absence
of leading Counsel. It was, therefore, absolutely
necessary that junior Counsel should be present to
conduct the case, in the event of such absence. Not
his trust, he (Mr. Heald) conceiving
being aware of the new rule which Mr. Montagu
had laid down for his guidance, he (Mr. Heald) had
given him sonic briefs, because his legal knowledge
in cases of bankruptcy was ench as to render his as-
sistance of great importance. On Saturday, in the
ease of " Heley v. Thompson," where Mr. Mon-
tagu resignedthat whatever difference of opinion there might be
between the members of the bar upon the subject,
the parties who confided their cases to the care of
Counsel had no right to be sufferers, told the parties
that he was willing to pay the .50/. or 601. expences;
but they said no, for hundreds of pounds would not
cover the loss which they would suffer from this
proceeding. However laudable, therefore, Mr.
Montagu might conceive his conduct to be, it was
not exactly lair that the interest of his client should
be sacrificed to his rule. Under these circumstances,
and feeling for the loss and inconvenience which the
parties would suffer, he (Mr. Heald) applied to his
Honour, who was pleased to hear the petition, after
it had been dismissed with costs. In this case it ap-
peared that the petition, having been called on, and
no Counsel having appeared to support. it, an order
was made that it should be dismissed with costs.—
He (Mr. Heald) had no particular objection to the
rule laid down by Mr. Montagu, for he was quite
satisfied with the share of busirees which fell to his
lot, and work or leisure were equally acceptable.—
found that a little leisure now and
Indeed, he often
then gave a pleasant relief to the labours of his pro-
fessional studies.
The less fees,
" The more ease,"
wss his motto when business grew slack. He dif-
fered from some of his learned friends, v?ho seemed
to think that there WIC nothing like a good fee. He
a hope that his Honour
for loving it too Gentleman
wel okoneucdl 1
du t lar ee dy'fee
kbeyveeryxrveeslls,inbgut was never
much.distinguished The Learned
his decision, and suffer the petition to
be heard.
The VICE-CmaNcetwit said, that under the cir-
cumstances he could have no objection to hear the
petition.
Mr. MONTAGU said, as his name had been com-
mented on rather hardly, he begged to be allowed
to address the Court with a few words. In the
first place, he could not but feel gratified that his
Honour had revoked his decision, and allowed the
petition of his client to be heard. In the second
place, he regretted to differ from his Learned Friend
(Mr. Heald), for such he hoped he might still call
him. The opinion, however, which he had formed,
was founded on mature deliberation, and without
reference to the praise or censure of any man. Mr.
Heald professed not to be aware of his (Mr. Mon-
tagu's) determination not to open a bankrupt peti-
tion in the absence of leading counsel. He was
afraid, however, that Mr. Heald could not derive
any benefit from the. plea of ignorance, because he
must have been well aware of such his determina-
tion. He considered that the practice of a King's
counsel receiving fees for discharging a certain duty,
which duty was thrown upon a junior counsel to
perform, was one which ought to be. put a stop to.
It was not fit that a junior counsel, who had gene-