The Sun.
London, England, 1827-11-08 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCM„

COURT OR CHANCERY, NOT. 7.
BALER V. RENDIASON.
Mr. WAKEFIELD, at the sitting of the Court made
an applicatiOn Which he confessed was some% hat
singular, and, he believed, altogether novel. The
Court knew that it was the practice in the courts of
common law to permit the persons confined in the
several prisons of those courts to have day rules, by
which they were permitted to go out of confine-
ment for the purpose of attending to their affairs
during the term. He now applied for the defen-
dant in this suit, who had been committed to the
Fleet prison for a contempt of Court in not paying
a sum of money which he had been ordered to pay,
that he might have a similar privilege extended to
him.
The LORD CHANCELLOR asked if a similar appli-
cation had been before made ?
Mr. WAKEFIELD believed not.
His LORDSHIP said, he would enquire into ale
foundation of the practice of the court, and mention
the matter at some future day.
THE LUDLOW AND LEOMINSTER BANKS.
Mr. Rosa applied to have the petitions in these
cases advanced in the paper of bankrupt petitions,
which was ordered accordingly.

HART V. HART.

The arguments in this case were resumed by Mr.
HORNE, who was followed by Mr. ROUPELL, on be-
half of the defendant.
Mr. HEALD, Mr. BICKERSTETII, and Mr. ANDER-
SON, were heard for the plaintiff, and Mr. HORNE in
reply.
The Court having sat till five o'clock, then rose,
and the judgment was postponed.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 7.

JAMIESON V. DRIVER..

This was a case in which the plaintiff filed a bill
for an account against his partner, the defendant, and
the latter was, ordered to bring into Court a waste-
book, ledger, and certain other hooks, in order to
elucidate the real state of the partnership accounts.
In conformity with this order, books of the above
description were brought into Court. Then there
Nag an affidavit -made by a Mrs. Best, daughter of
the plaintiff, in which it was sworn that the books
brought into Court by the defendant were not
genuine. They contained many erasures and inter
lineations, which she was enabled to detect from
having been the person who kept her father's books.
The affidavit also stated that one of the books, or a
part of it, was composed of paper the water-mark of
'which bore the date of 1824, while, ;n fact, all the
concerns of the partnership ceased in 1821 and 1822.
Upon this affidavit itn attachment issued against the
defendant.

Mr. SUGDEN now moved that the attachment
should be removed. He had a formal objection to
take, which he had no doubt the Court would con-
sider fatal to the continuance of the attachment.
Mrs. Best's affidavit was sworn on the 13th of Oc-
tober; and in this affidavit she swore that the exa-
mination which she made of the books took place
on the 31st of October--that was to say, that she
affidavit,
xim d
ainvi et, dt .the
therefore,
books after
e aafsteupr she had made her affidavit
respectingandoncothnetefnateseoofftihteumn.trueT.he
M. HEALDi on the other side, contended that no
court of equity would allow such an advantage to
be taken of an evident mistak,e—an error, probably,
of the transcriber of Mrs'. Best's affidavit
The VICE-CHANCELLOR thought the objection
fatal. The jealousy with which anrinfringement on
the liberty of the subject had always.been contern-
plated by all courts, both of law and equity, was no-
torious. For his own part, he should certainly never
have issued an attachment, and he therefore found
himself compelled to remove it. He did not mean
to insinuate any thing like moral guilt against Mrs:
Best. The fact on which the objection had been
taken might, and probably was, a mistake ; but
when so serious a consequence as an attachment re-
sulted from an affidavit, the person making such affi-
davit ought to be very careful what he deposed, and
ought. not to be protected if he made any mistakes.