The Sun.
London, England, 1827-04-27 00:00:00

nArras COITUS.

Afr. KNIGHT said he had a ci,;Aion to make, under
circumstances which left him ►+o ?-I.,froative but to
nuke it before hit Lordship. It was for a writ of
iaberzs corpus to bring up a bankrupt from NA',r-
wick jail.
The Lotto CrtAxezut.oa could not refuse it ; but
his Lordship put it to Mr. Knight's client, if he
would take the order irom him when he col :id nor
ier►r the case afterwards.

Mr. KNIGHT ha bad no' opportmity to
with 4:lient on the i-,:ibject.
The LORD CHANCELLOR-1f you press fcr it
must grant it, for the statute obliges ma to to so.
At to my refusal disqualifyinq me front hdding:
,office, I should not much care «boot that nov
laugh)—but I own to you that I should not :nueb
'lke to pay the penalty of ;;ft-i. too.
His LORDSHIP pro raised to giro judgmen-. in
" Browne o. De Taste.," and several other osses,
to-morrow.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, AP:m,
Großca EaQ. V. CITANDos Ev.i. A

C.3`7Hlrg•s:.

When this rause watz called on to be argued,
Mr. HORE, who
appe:uefl for the de;'eadatits,
odd, th,lt he was cornpktely taken by surpiise, ai;Ll
fad no brief to put him in posseeiseri of the case.
The attorney for the defendant was in the country,
And had forwarded an stating that he was
not aware that this cause had been set dolvn for
hearing, and praying that it might stand over.
Mr. Coa, who appeared also for the ticks:id:ants,
said that he was in the same pedicameet as his
Learned Friend Mr. Horne, as he had no brief to
instruct him u to the merits of the case, a circum-
stance entirely owing to the fact that the attorney for
the defendants had not received due notice that this
cause was in his Honour's paper. in consequence
of impediments which had occurred, and for which
the other side could best account, this cause had
been delayed for a period of three years to the great
hardship of the defendants. He, therefore, hoped
that his Honour would fiuffer the hearing to stand
over for the reason stated.

Mr. SUGDEN, who appeared for the plaintiff, hoped
that his Honour would grant no such indulgence.
Neither of the Learned Counsel at the other side were
provided with a brief, and they, therefore, had no
right to address the Court at all. It was idle for
this attorney to state that he had no notice that the
plea was intended to be ergued, and still more idle
for him to allege that the plaintiff had caused the
hearing to be delayed. The Attorney himself was
guilty of culpable neglect in not attending to the case.
The Vicx-ClueecreaDe. observed, that delays in
Chancery had been so justly complained of, that it
became the bounden duty of the Court to oppose
itself with firmness to ally measures tending to retard
the proceedings of the Court, and as far as he (the
Vice-Chancellor) was concerned,he was determined
to discountenance any wilful neglect on the part of
solicitors or those by whom they were engaged. It
was well known that pleas and demurrers were al-
ways disposed of at the sittings when they were set
down for hearing, and, therefore, the solicitor in this
cause could not excuse himself by stating that the
plea had stood over for three years. His Honour
then intimated that he should overrule this plea.
Mr. HORNE hoped that the Court would hear the
strong affidavit of the attorney, who was a most re-
spectable man. The learned gentleman observed,
that this was a most important cause, involving pro-
perty to a considerable amount, and also a title, that
of Lord Leigh, which was now the subject of pro-
ceedings in the House of Lords.
The VICE-CIIANCELLOR.--I shall overrule this
plea, with liberty, however, to the attorney to pro-
duce another affidavit ; and if he can show that he
has not been guilty of gross neglect and negligence,
his excuse nsay then be admitted. I must again re-
peat, however, and I beg that it may be attended to,
hat it is my intention at all times to discountenance
delay, whether occasioned by parties themselves or
by their agents.
In the course of the day, Mr. HO NF, Mr. SHAD-
WELL, and Mr. CIE, appeared for the defendants,
having in the inter im received their In iefs, and the
cause was again celled on.
Mr. HORNE, having apologised to the Court for
the delay which was occasioned, said that he had
only just received his brief, and if he failed to state
the case of his clients as fully and clearly as he ought
to do, he hoped the Court would excuse him.
Mr. Con: then opened the pleadings. It appeared
that the plaintiff in this case, George Leigh, Esq.,
claimed to be the lineal descendant of the Right
Hon. Edward Lord Leigh, of Streelegh, in Al ar-
wickshire ; and he sought, by a bill of discovery, to
obtain possession of such documents, and other evi-
dence, as would enable him to pursue an a 2tion of
ejectment in a Court of Law, which he had wrought
tgainst Chandos Leigh, Esq., son and heir of James
Leigh, Esq., who helri possession of extensive estates
in Warwickshire, Staffordshire, Cheitei, and North-
umberland, under the will of Mrs. Mary Leige,sister
of the before-mentioned Lord Leigh.
_

Mr. HORNS then stated the effect of the answer
which had been put in. The defendant mak: tained
that the claim of the plaintiff was barred at kw, in
consequence of the fine and recovery suffe-ed in
1806, after the death of Mr. Thomas Leigh, either
of Mr. Chandos Leigh, the gentleman now in pos-
session of the estates.

Mr. SUGDEti replier' and contended, on the au ho.
rite of several cases which he cited, that the plea
was untenablr, both in form and substance.
Mr. TRESLOVE followed on the same aide; after
which

Mr. HORNE replied, contending that the cases
Ns hich the Co,:usel at the other side bad produced
did not support their case.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said he should look over
the cases to which Counsel had referred, and deliver
his judgment on a future day.

It was enacted by the Long Parliament, that
every person should retrench one meal a week,
and pay the money thereby saved into the public
treasury. This whimsical tax produced 608,400'.
in six years, during which it continued.