The Sun.
London, England, 1818-03-09 00:00:00

JOHN GIFFORD, Esa,

On the 6th instant died, at 13m:uteri, in Kent,
aged 60, JOHN Gtrvotto, E. rwthy yeas one
of the. Police Magistr'ates at the Ofli,e iu IVor-
ship-street, and lately removed to the. Office_iu
Marlborough-sheet.' Mr. GIFF txo WaS rtist if) -
gUiSilO •in private life by the most ardent,.coojti-
gal awl paternal atleclioo, alzd by the IVAtuitik
and steadiness of his triendships. As a public
character, his loss will he deeply deplined by all
who have the true interests of, ,rq:iety at "heart.--
Ile was a firm an strenuous supporter of the ge-
nuine principles of the Constitution in Church and
State. Tire independence of his mind concurred
with his real patriotism to rendkrthim superior to,
t'he influence of political attehments, and in his
views of, men and measures 'he was governed
solely by his solicitude (Or the public good. As'
a Magistrate, he was characterized by sagacity and
penetration, by activity and promptitude„while,
by his energy, decision, anti iirrepidity, he was
eminently fitted for the magisterial station iii
disturbed and perilous times. Ina word, by the.
death of Mr. GiFFthib the ,King has loSt‘a most
loyal subject, the Constitution a most zealous
friend, and the Country a most useful Magistrate.
Mr. GIFFoRD has left 'a widow and seven children
to deplore his loss.

APPREHENSION OF F:NNEY.-We 'mentioned on
Saturday that Charles Finney, tite person swpecLeti
of having
,entrapped the -two boys, Kelly and
Spicer, vas . taken into'custody. It. appears that
on leaving London he went to Shrewsbury, where
he had'a brother, a journeyman plasterer, and he
there obtained employment at Willey Park, the
seat of C.W.Furrester, Esq. M.P, In tiri's situa-
tion he continued until Thursday, th-e 26:h ult.,
when he received a let(er front L.Ondon, and' inpne-
diltely absconded. This..circumstanee'cOming to
,the knowledge of Mr. Parker, the-Overseer of the
.works at Willey Park, he determined if 'Possible
-to discover where Finney had gone. In a day or
two, a letter came addressed to a journeyntin
plasterer, with whom he Was intinlat•e, and the
hand-writing being suspected as his, .it4was openest„
and found to be from hint, saving he was ar Welch
Pool, and was passing under the name of W;Jii,tiTt
Stnit h. Accordingly, on Monday last, Mr. Parsons,
accompanied by a constable,.went to Welco Point,
and there apprehended` he was conveyed to
Shrewsbury, where be underwent nn examination,
and then brought in cilSlody to London, where
he• arrived on Wednesday 'night, and Was Itidgell
in the .14011 Se of Comeedon, Coldhath.fields, It
• is tnderstona, that he is 1.4) unclzrgo all examine.-
(inn on Friday next. Oil- SaintiLy, the Boit.
Mr. lietiner and Mr. Al.lerttratt Wood Went to
the House of Correction, and had a long examin-
ation of Finney.

We observe, that a nett, and improved Editioh
has lately been published- of that little exert!ent
Work," The Ail. or ;peso:Ting the Sight.'"—This ix
Treatise from which many very nsetul hints ;nay
be derived upon a subject which most be always
interesting to the Scholar anti the Man of hosi-
'less, Lie will find a few plain and practical rules
which cannot fail in most cases of aicitiniog titeic
object.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COPRT OF CHANOEII7,NYARCII 7.

THU PRINC7Ss,,oF WALLS V. THE PAHL OF LIVERPOOL.

AND COUNT MUNSTER, EXECUTORS UNDER TUE

NvILL OF THE DUKE uF fuiNswicK.

It will.be recollected, that a few days ago an
appliCation was made to the Court on the pint of
the defendants, that her Royal' highness might
he-ordered to firoduce,an,asubmit to their 'hispec-
two ieittuments purporting to be two pry.
missory notes, drawn in
.Augnsf, 1816, by the
Lite Dike Brnokswielt, in fa,our,of her Royal.
Highness, the one for the snni of 15,0001. pay-
ni)!e in English money, and the other payable in
_French rnoney to the amount of 15,000 loni,
d'ors.„ A re-hearing of the parties in the suit was
fixed for this day.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was beard at much
length in support of the motion of the defendants
for the inspection of
,these instruments. iHe
founded his motion on the affidavit of Count
Munster, stating that her Royal,. Highness the
Princess of Wales had filed. her bill in this Court
against him and the Earl of Liverpool, as ex-
ecutors of the Duke of Brunswick, to recover the
amount of. the money contained in the instru-
ments in question ; and further stating, that
having, been called upon to put in his answer to
the kill, he could not safely do so, or prepare a
defence to the suit of her Royal Highness, unless.
hebad a, previous inspection of the instruments
.all,ged to have been Liven by the late,Duke to
her Royal Highness. The principle upon which.
this application was made—by motion upon affi-
davits, rathei.than by a cross bill for a discovery
.—was, that if the defendants filed a cross bill,
they uould in the due and ordinary course of
practice be compelled to put in their answer to
the hill of her Royal Highness before they could
have the benefit of her Royal Highnesa's answer
to their hill. -The Learned Solicitor adverted, to
several cases at law, for the purpose of showing
by analogy, that the'. principle upon which he
sought 'to have the present discovery on motion,
had been adopted and acted upon by the Judges
of Courts of Law on a variety of occasions, and
particularly referred to an opinion of Lord Chief
Justice Mansfield upon this point. He urged that
the inspection of these instruments was of the
utmost consequence to the defendants, previous to
filing the answer to the bill of her Royal High-
ness. 'there was Much. obscurity in the transac-.
t ion : the whole affair wasinvolvedin notch mystery.
There were two promissory 'notes given by the.
Noble Duke, both bearing interest; both nearly
for the same sum, and both drawn,and dated in •
the'month of August,. 1816 : and it was impor-

tant for the defendants to know whether the in-
strumehts had been drawn in, Paris, Vienna,, or
`London. Jr was now admitted that two instru-
ments were in existence ; but "what would be the
consequence it the defendants were driven to
their cross bill ? The plaintiff might then, if it
were found to he her interest, tot Elly, abandon
one of the instruments, or it might not be in.ex-
istence : and 'Where was the remedy of the ex-
ecutors) He submitted, therefore, that this mo-
tion, under 'the peculiar circumstances of the,
case, ought to he 'entertained- by the Court.
Sir A PrOOOTT folloWed on the same side.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY, 00 behalf of her [loyal
HighnesS the Princess of Wales-, shortly answered
the arguments of the Solicitor-General. Such an
applica!ion as the present.„ he said, had repeatedly
been made; Ittrt none, as far as his reeollectOm
served, with success. The same topics hail twenty
times been repeated. He Mt billy persuaded that
110 circumstance but the high dignity of the par-
ties v. ho were defendants in this suit could have
induced his Learned Friendsro have risketbsuch'a

lie was assured his'Lordship would in
this case divest his mind .ot every consideration
founded upon the illustrious rank of the contend-
ing parties, and would decide upon the same prin-
ciples as if, instea4l of the plaintiff being her
Royal Highness the Princess of ‘ll7ales, she had
been Sarah Smith, br any other obseure
indivi-
dnal. IA is Learned Friends must have been aware
that where a defendant, in a suit of equity, want-
ed' the inspection of a document, in older to enable
him to put in his answer, and that such document
was in the possession of the plaintiff, the-uniform
course was to file a cross bill, calling upon the
‘plaintiff to produce ii. His experience had not
furnished hint with an, instance where .a different

mode of obtaining a sight. of a doeurtLent required
Try a defendant had been successfully reiotted to;
and it such an application could prevail, it would
b a violation of the established practice of the
Court for ages : the precedent, he considered,
would be dangerous in the extreme; and therefore
he was well persuaded his "Lordship would
tate a long while before he gave it his sanction.—
__

Fie was at a loss to conceive What difficulty the
,Earl of Liverpot.l could have to putting in an an-
t swer ; he had not tbinight proper to file any affi-
davit alleging a reason ; it was the other defen-
dant, Count Munster, only, who hut filed an af-
fid-avit.. He could not suppose that the conscience
of a Prime Ministel was more than that of another
man, and his Lordship could hare no sufficient
reason for desitiug,to see the securities which,, in
his capacity of executor, he. was called upon to dis-
tt.arge... The application being of a novel and
nti‘,reeedented nature; .would? be trusted, be re-
jec.ed by his Lordship. . •
MARTIN, lIPLL, and Me. SHAMVELL,
followed on the same side. This was simply the
'case of a bill filed by a plaintiff', sruting himself
to be a creditor of the testator, from whose exe—
cutors she sought to recover payment of the debt
due to her, and she set forth the securities on
what the demand was founded. The Learned
Counsel conceived it to be of little consequence to
the defendants to know precisely at what place
these instruments were drawn. The knowledge
of this fact could not affect their validity ; and all
that conkd possibly be•requited was to have it as-
certained, that 'a. valuable consideration was given
by her Roy:11 Highness ; of.thiS fact, in due time,
ample proof would be laid before the Court: The
more important this case was by reason of
.the il-
lustrious personages concerned, So Much the
greater circumspection oughtio be, used by his
Lordship; in taking care that the regirlar.pract ice
of the Court was observed, The defendants thigbi

easily obtain the discovery they wanted, without
the violation of any principle. If they filed a moss
bill, they might pat any crestion to her Royal
Ilit.;line-ss on the subject of her securities, and the
consideratiqn she gave for them, which the ferti-
lity of f:anc•y e0,,1.1 invent

Mr. SOLICITOB-CiENERAL:III reply,i said he was
quire .
sf,re that, in the present case, nstiev. would
be impaiti4lly administered ; and the Princess of
‘Vales. being plaiff!ia., and the Prime Minister de-
fendant, would Weigh little his Lordship's
Mind. 1-laoply they were litigating in.a.cOuntry"
where justice was admiuistered, wilhout regard to
the rank of'the p'arties. This Ka d been treated,as
a novel application ; ktod yet it had been observed
hy Sir Samnyl Romillv, in the course of his argu-
ment, that he had heard the,satne topics twenty
times repeated; if he had heard them so often re-
'pealed, it was at iens:t proof that the..application
could not be very novel in its nature.

Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY said, he had heard them
twenty titt►es repeated, but never with success.
SOLICITOR:GgeNERAL con,te►tded- that the
principle on which had made the motion was a
very plain one ;, it was situp)), that the inspection
of the instruments might atrord the defendants
those Means of defence which they could not have
without it. Ile had presented the case to his
Lordship, and-was fully confident would be d.,;
cided upon the same just anti unerr►ng principles
as it it involved the interests ()idle most obscure
persons in the country, instead of persons of the
most elevated rank.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that he hoped in
this case, as well as in every other, he should de
cide .with strict and impartial justice,- He had
nothing to do. with those who came tutu that
Court but to- consider them as plaintiff and
de-
-te► This was at:bill .filled. by the Princess of
Wales against two persons tvlio were executors of
the Onke of Bruns wiek..and it was filed to obtain
payment out of the assets of the Doke of Bruns-
wick, of two bills which hail been Oven by him
to her Royal •Highness, .The defendants stated,
they had advised that it was material to them tb
insist on her Royal Highness's 'demand being
made out in the first instance by the -produc-
tion of the bills. He'held,it his duty to dispense
the same meaure of justice as -he should do be-
tween othet parties. It was a case of very great im-
portance with reference to (he practice of, thcCourt,
as well as to the parties themselves. lie should say
butlittle on the subject now, as it was. his inten-
tion to give a final judgment on a tuttrre day. His
Lordship remarked, that in courts of law it had
been the practice of ages to insist • upon having:a
protest of a specialty. Speaking with deference to
the opinion of such a man as Lord Mansfield, he
said that that learned Judge did not appear to him
to have recollected what a Court of Equity would
have done upon the questions to which he had
referred ; and his Lordship added, that- the cases
at law did not, as he - apprehended, apply to the
present case, • The present case could be decided
only
.tvith reference to the practice of that Court.
There might be particular exceptions to gene-
ral rules of practice ; but then. care 'must" be
•taken that the Court should be satisfied the ex.-
ception "did actually exist. It became him,
therefore, With reference to all those rules by
tillicb the production of instruments was etiforced,,
to. recollect What it was those rides required. The
bill stated that a double security had been given
forahe same sum. It- would. •be necessary-here-
after, when the answer was filed, to look at the
bill, in order to see what the bill said ; but as the
auswer was not put in,and as the defendants-alleged
they could not put it in without the previous pro-
duction of the instruments,- he must look at the
affidavit on which flit present motion was ground-%
ed, to see that it stated a cause forming an excep-.
lion to the general rule of practice. He should
read the papers, eip d look at some of the notes lie ,
had taken as the argument had proceeded, and
would deriver himself orr this .subject on Tuesday
next. The Court was extremely crowded to bear
this motion.