The Sun.
London, England, 1827-01-24 00:00:00

THE FUNDS.

CM.,--CLIIS DAY), Twelve o' Clark.
This poopi4g,c,nsoik opened. at.7Bf, both for money and ac.!
count, have since leen.done at '7Bi, buyers, and are now sellers at
that •prieei the money price.and that for the account continuing
the same,- with the 'difference of one sixteenth per Cent. A re-
port has been in Circulation of an express having arrived, to the
great fear of the Bulls, with a clip), of the Manifesto issued some
time since at Madrid, and which was communicated by telegraph
a few days since, announcing that strict orders had been given to
the Spanish Generals on the frontiers to disarm all Portuguese
who might enter the Spanish territories, if engaged in the cause of
Don Miguel. India Bonds have improved, being 46 8 ; and Ex-
chequer Bills, 26 7 pm. The only business effected in the Foreign
Funds has been in Mexican 6 per Cent. Bonds, which are 62 ;
Colombian; 32 3 ; Russian, 86 ; Portuguese, 73 4.
Shares continue to be unattended to, and no novelty can be stated
inany of their speculations.
Three per Cent. Consols, '7Bl ex. div. ; Ditto for account,
78.1 j ; India Bonds, 46 8 pm. ; Exchequer Bills, 26 7 pm.
FORICION FUNDS.----Brazilian, 38 60; Buenos Ayres, 55 7 ;
Chillan,"3s ; Danish, 584 ; Colombian, 1824, 32 ; Maxi-
I", s:per Cent., 51i 9.A; Ditto 6 per Cent., 62i 3 ; Peruvian,
30 2 ; Portuguese, '73 4 ;
_Greek, 14} 15 ; Russian, 86 ;
Spanish, 12i 13.
Aillatk—Anglo Mexican, 37i 2:I dis. ; United Mexican, 114
I°i dis: ; Brazilian, 5-4 dis. ; Real del Monte, 90 100 pm. ;
Tla/puxaltua, 50 60 -pm. ; Rolanos, 60 80 pm. ; Bolivar, 2 3
; Colombian, 14 16 per Share ; I'otosi, 46 8 per Share.

Two o' Clock.
Consols have been 79i the price, but have since retrograded to
71.2 i 79. It is reported that the great City Bull cal-
culated upon the Bears being unable to deliver Stock
Yesterday to the amount called for, but has been much disappoint-
ed at the ample supply with which Lis demands were furnished;
4 Pei' Cents. 1926, 95k.
Alexican Bonds are 63 a ex-div. ; Colombian Sq. The
discount on Brazilian Mines Las also increased to 64. •

THREW• 0' CL 0 CK.
Three per Cent. Consols for account, 78 79.
FOUR o'CLOCK—CLOSING PRICE.
Consols 78/ Danish'-Bonds 581
Do. for Ac. 78/ Greek-Do. 1825 14/
Braiilien Bonds 602 Mexican Do. 1825, 63i
Buenos Ayres Da. 55 Peruvian Do. Chilian Do. Russian Do. 86/
Columbian, 1824, 32 Spanish Do. 121

LAW INTELLIGENCE
-COURT OF CHANCERY.—(Tirse DATO ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. LORD MANSFIELD.
"The Los CnAricer.fort observed, that it would be remem-
bered, he had only given judgment in the-matter, as far as it re-
garded the Highgate-School ; several other charities had been
brought before the Court by the Information, but he did not think
any thing had been stated at the bar with regard to those other
Charitiis.
Mr. HoRNE was not prepared to speak to the matter to-day,
but he believed, that in bringing fotward those 'charities; no im-
,putation was intended to he thrown on the trustees, but that as it
Was supposed, they had raiiced monies.beloriging'to all the different
charities, by having brought them all, forward in one information
.erpenee would be saved.
his
on LoarisittP said he should be glad to be correctly informed
Monday next, whether any thing was meant to be prayed or
dot, with regard to the other charities, as it was impossible to
w up the decree until that was known.

• M• wituastexy onicx OF BEAUFORT.
r. HEALD resumed this case to-day, as one of Mr. Wellea-
leY's enuneel. 'The itatienOv tit said, with which the Lord
_chancellor. bad. heard ,this case, -had been productive of .imfinite
benefit to Mr. 'Wellesley; ind fOr Whichhis"Connsertendered his
414st.grateful acknowledgements. No- other judge :would
:.;exercised any thing like such patience ; the very counsel
iu the Case were side' and fatigued with -hearing flue
Yery name of it, but they could not help,as well as the Court, being
rn perfect possession of all-the facts ; and for his (Mr. H.'s) own
Part."-be considered Mr. W. one of the most oppressed teen that
419er lived. He was a man, who, since his return to this
country, had never been able to take a walk from his house into-
tut garden, and from his garden back into his house, with-
having. had it put on affidavit ; a man, who had never
been able
be' ' •
to see any individual, male or female, without such an
individual: having been put under surveillance as well as himself;
man who had never been able to walk the streets without having
been watched by 'police-officem and watchmen, and his steps
baying been noted down ou affidavit and detailed to the
.• Public ; a man who had been thus treated, was, of course,
Placed in the most afflicting situation. - It was shocking to
think of it! Throw a man or woman down,_ and a mill-.
titude Would immediately be 'colfected to keep that per-
. towdown,.but who ever stopped to hear the praise of any one?
From the Learned Couasel's most diligent research, he felt the ut-
, moat confidence, that Otte single point could not-be laid hold of in
;. this case, on-which the order of this Court could rest, provided that
,„• this case,
was to be against Mr. W. It was true, the mindief COun-
',lle' might be unablertO perceive things in their true light, from the
iVerest they;felt for their client; but the Court could not be so
preiudiced ; and if it did see any thing in -a contrary light to that
- in which it appeared to him (Mr._ H.) he should think he bad been
- :decidedly wrong. It seemed to him that the sunaman of the
--,;defence to Mr.. W.'s claim to have his children was, that Mr.
ivas not worthy of belief ; that not being worthy of belief,
`l4i Court was to reject hie affidavits and explanation ; that Dr.
iltakeley's affidavit was to have every credit given to it ; that
-Wellesley'. was- to be considered to all, intents and
purposes
.perjured, and that being altogether regardless
au- oath, he was to' be considered unable to bring up hii
children in-the paths of virtue and morality. But from whathad
intased 'in this Court already, with re aid to this case, no
• hruin living had the slightest ground tor apprehending that
Waula or could be deprived of what t.he,law of nature. entitled
• duct
to, namely, the custody of his children, unless the con-
;41" of that' man was - such,' that if his children were
hi*: hands, ail the world, by acclamation, would take them
from him. Mr. Heald had felt great difficulty, for a time, to
j",!Tv.,wbaf part of the case particularly to apply himself to; but
To;-oao finally thought that the main stress of the case against Mr.
be found on the front of the very first page of Dr.
-
l'eleY'a- first affidavit ; that affidavit the Learned Counsel looked
I taL'au, taking -the whole of it together, as an affidavit containing
ternente the most contradictory, the most improbable, the most
untrue, and marking feelings the most dishonourable.
HEALD then proceeded to expatiate, at great length, on the
merent tart Of this gentleman's affidavit.

.

_ -
'CE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.—(Tnis DAy.)

WOOD r. COIIRT.
in th. -.IAYENSIVENESS OF CHANCERY SUITS._
is case, which came before the Court this morning, a very
"iuint4ekrieustrting disrnssion took place,_as to the propriety of Solicitors
thertolendePir of the abstract of titles—a. practice which has hi-
•to add considerably to
the costs in cases where estates
are sold.
cr,
. the present occasion a motion was made on the part of a
4veilit_do,r, 'to compel the production of the abstract submitted by
" ,0 a purchaser, with the observations made-by the purchaser's
Ceti ne.l
- Ly
t4e----r,eonndoth,e several parts of it, together with the replies made
Mr. I; ART a.Counsel to these obseriations.
01,8t,„..4,iAns
wopposed the motion, and stated that many of the
elies`4l.%unsretitten on the margin of the abstract by the pm--Teet the eye of %weer. of
a private nature, and never intended to
enlty might be
_, vfndor. He thought, however, that the dif-
-1/c. suct:izvii,atea, if a copy were taken of the abstract.
tested strongly against: appeared in support of the motion, pro-
and 'Dever resorted to :uch a practice. It was totally unnecessary,
was shameful that sohciTeanY solicitor high in the profession. It
on their diesrs should, by making copies of abstracts
heap expense.
money into their ow, ros
s/lake advisedly on it.for the -mere purpose of *putting
had well considered, and h, now '
•
This was a subject which he
. Mr. HART—If a party gel
sel to write his private obeeratien abstract, and allows his coun-
:: be improper that these observati,,, nth
the. margin,
.would it not ° Party? .he was sorry for differing
i,cirl be seen by the other
upon Which he was omnipotent. Mr. Sugden en a point
The `'SCE-CerANcELena--If an ahstra li,• delivered to a pur-
tiins of his counsel, to
chaser, and he returns it with the oh3ciir‘vetant
the vendor, in order that the vender's
reply to these
ea
tri''.lgahyt to compel the
- observations, it is clear that the vendor has
Production of all that passed between thern in
one of the parties afterwards submits the abstr this way ; o
btainvinrigv:hte :eo
.i;ioons
and if
ry
a counsel to his counsel, W act anil
ith.the view of o
' • for his own private information, , and allows this p ain ,
to be written on the margin of the abstract, he, in mu pinion
~Opinion,

puts into the heap vihat., clearly Wionged to himself. It iq, is
fact, making common, what was private property.
Mr. HART—We did put it into the heap, hut surely we can
sever our own property front that of a stranger!.
The VrcE CilAN('ELLOß—liiiw can you. sever it ' -
Mr. HART--By obliteration.:. : - - =
Mr. lioaNE followed ou the same side.

Mr. SUUDEN wished to make; few observations with reference
to the practice which bad beer► called in question. It was im-
portant that it should be clearly understood whether or not So-
licitors were justified in making copies of abstracts, and thereby ac-
cumulating eapence. For his part, he did not think it at
all necessary, for in case the abstract delivered to the pur-
chaser was lost, the original one remaining
.in the hands of
the vendor would still be in existence—but where was the ne-
cessity of sending backwards and forward the abstract itself when
a sheet of paper would answer the purpose just as well. Might
it not be managed iu this way, when the purchaser obtains"the
opinion of his counsel in any part of the abstract, and wishes for
explanation upon that point, instead of sending back the abstract
itself, might he not get at the required explanations by referring
to the abstract in this way—" Folio '4, when did John die?"—
" Folio 7, was John deadat the time the sale took place ?"—The
Learned Gentleman said, he was induced to make these observa-
tions, because-he thought it the duty -of all persons to reduce as
much as lay in their power, the great expence.attentlaut on pro-
ceedings in that Court.

Mr. 11...RT.—1 must give my friend credit for his public spirit.
Mr. SUGDEN.—I have no wish for popular applause; but most
certainly will continue to act as I have done without reference to
any observations that may fa!! from Mr. Hart or any other person.
The Vicx-Citaxczu.ort.—The vendor must get the abstract of
the title, with all the observations written on it when it was last
sent back to him by the purchaser, and alt subsequently written
on it, except the opinions of Counsel proctired by the purchaser,
not for the purpose of communicating them to the vendor, but
for his own private guidance. Let the purchaser erase from the
abstract all those opinions taken for his own private guidance, and
let the erasure be made on hia affidavit.

Mr. St:Gotm was afraid that the purchaser coUll be easily per
ittaded to make such an affidavit as would defeat the rorder-of 41U:
Court. A solicitor would byte no difficulty in so -shapitig:tht:
affidavit as to induce his client to withidibe to The' better
course would be to let the 'Master say what was - 7
The Vic e-CHA N6Ki.LOR consented to this litter artaniemeht.

COURT OF KING'S.BENCH, .W.Esvdissrait,—(TitHLPAY,)
We are sorry to state that Mr. Justice.lioLuctrn was•n9t able
to attend through illness. . _
-

TRIAL AT BAR.
.ROB V. BRZWPQN.

This was an aetiotrof trover, -brought by the plaintiff against
the defendant, to try his--right to copper ore, situated in the manor
of Turington. It was-tried at Exeter. in 182-5, and,the effect of
the-verdict was to wafer on.the plaintiff a right In the copper-
mine in dispute: A ,rnle for-* new trial having been made absolute,
Thelerroaxxv-GzszttaL made application to the Court this
day,-for an order to- haveittried at the Bar, on the grounds that
the Crown had an interest in the result. - The manor of Turing.
ton was one of the 17 „manors which belonged to the Duchy of
Cornwall, of which his Majesty, as Duke of Cornwall, was Lord
of-the Manor: The plaintiff got a lease of-the premises in.ques-
tion in 1810, and 14 years of it remained as --yet unexpired,
-the defendant, Mr. Brenton, claimed a right to all the mines in
these premises, as the representative of a Mining. Company whc
had leased all the mines that were situated, in the Duchy, from
the Crown. The question was, whether this Copper Mine, held
under a eonventionary tenement, belonged to the tenant, or the
Lord of the Manor, who was the King. Under these -circum-
stances he (the Attorney-Geueral), as the Officer of the Crown,
applied to the Court for an Order for a Trial at Bar.

Mr. Justice BAILKY—Is this application at the expence of
he Crown?

The ATLORNEY-GINIERAL—I undertake it .at the expence of
the Crown, but though the Attorney-General was Counsel at the
trial at Exeter, -yet it was On behalf of the defendant, not of
the Crown.

THE COURT—You may take a rule to show cause.
The Aroaletrir-GrxicttAL-,---1- mini take. it et your Lordships
think proper to give it,. but .1 submit that am twitted, to ba.ve,it
made absolute in the first instance. •

Mr. Justice BwiLir Ts ihere-ani- instance- of- inch ini:erder
being granted as a matter of. court*, ..where the, CruFA4l/44:410
been a party on the record.. -

The ATTOF!.NEY-GINEII-4L (footed several, but not directly iu
point.- After some observations -(on -the same` bide) from Mr.
Scaat,ETT and.the *.zictraa-GxNEßAr.,,the Court deferred giv-
ing their opinion until to...morrow.

APPLICATION TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY STRUCK

OFF THE ROLLS.

WEBB V. SMALLCO)IB.

A rule to show cause why the defendant (an attorney, residing
at Bath) should not be struck off the Rolls for _intercepting the
administration of justice by-concealing one Ann Raikes, the ser-
vant of the plaintiff (who also resided at Bath) and preventing her
from giving evidence in a.suit for a divorce instituted by .tho
plaintiff in the Spiritual Court against his wife, for a criminal con-
versation with a• Mr. Hooper, having been obtabied in the last
term,

. .
Mr. CAMPBELL, with whom was Mr. Russell, appeared this
day to show cause against the ride. They stated, on the affidavit
of the defendant, that he was only 27 years of age, and had un-
fortunately formed an illicit connection with tkie Ann Raikes,
while she was in the service of the pleinmtif, privacy
tyli for at-
her,she h
where
adfre-
quently requested of him to procure some
she might be delivered, as she was in -dread' of being obliged to af-
filiate the child; and that he, in consequence thereof, had her re-
moved, in the month of April, 1525, to a village a considerable
distance from Bath, where she was secreted from her
friends - nntit August, when she was - delivered'; that
be had no interest in the suit, in question, not being profes-
sionally or otherwise concerned, and that his sole object in
:cancelling her was to prevent publicity being given to her state
of pregnancy ; that the plaintiff had brought an action for abduc-
tion against him, and received 100/. daMages, (defendant having
suffered judgment to go by default). The affidavit embraced seve-
ral other circumstances, but of minor importance. The Learned
• Counsel submitted, that as the secrecy of Ann Raikes by the defendant
was done with a view of concealing his own misconduct, not of
preventing the ends of justice, and as he had already aufficieutly
suffered for such misconduct, in the damages which he was called
on to pay, the Court ought to discharge the rule for striking his
name off the Rolls.
Mr. SCAltniTr and Mr. FRIEIJXHICX WILLIAMS spoke in sup-
port of the rule.
sstoro ncliejasgrrouns
The Loan Culer JITSTICY said, that in looking at the affidavits
oevnidbeontheesiodfeso, werenottihlterewas.
cause him to he struck off the ro. against of
thesu pdieefieonnd a; nitm ast
.—Rule discharged.

COURT OF 'COMMON PLEAS:-:—(Tltts
The Conti wits occupied in hearing mOtioni of no interest, till
one -o'clock, whin trials at Nisi. Prius commenced before. the
Chief hatiee.

• 'PREROGATIVE COURT--(This
• (Before Sir J. Ntruot.t..,- Rnt.) -
This being the first sitti►tg of the Court in the present term,
letters of administration were granted to several individuals, no-
minated by his Majesty, in cases where parties died intestate,
bastards and'without lawful heir's. • .

IN THE MATTER OF THE GOODS OF THOMAS GAME.

This cafe having been fully argued during the last term, now
came on for judgment.
. Sir J. NI.CHOLL proceeded._ briefly to recapitulate the facts
of the case, which were as follows :-.7-The testator, Thomas Game,
was a large farmer, living near Winibourn, in Gloucestershire,
and died in April, 1824., leaving fOur brothers. He left a will,
bearing date the 20th May, 1821, which was regularly executed
and attested, and on the validity of which no question arose.
There was also a codicil propounded, dated only two days before
the testator's death, and the validity of which was now disputed,
and the Court called upon to decide whether it was a genuine in-
strument or a fabricated paper. The codicil was in the form of a
letter, addressed to Mr. Fyer, one of the executors of the will. It
set out, by , stating that the writer in looking
.over the will
had discovered a material mistake, which he was most anxi-
ous to
.have corrected. He then described the alteration lie
intended to make, and by which the final disposition of
his property - would be materially affected. The hand-writing
of the deceased, his disposition towards his brothers, and his in-
tention at the period of the execution of the will, were subjects
which necessarily camc..nnder the careful consideration of the
Court. Upon referring to the, last point, the Court took occasion
to advert very strongly to the conduct of the Solicitor, who
was,employed by the deceased to draw, up his will, and from
whose evidence it appeared that he had made QM the draft of the
bill from instructions so loose and unprofessional, that it was 41417
possible for the Court to arrive at any decided opinion as to the
testator's real intention at the period the will was executed, After
a minute and
.careful, consieleration.of all.the facts bearing on the
case, the Court could
,not declare that the papers propounded
did not truly deecribV the intentions of the deceased. The Court

therefore pronounced against the application made to set aside the
codicil, and thereby decided in favour of its validity. _
Some conversation then took place between the Counsel with
regard to the costs of the suit; which had been instituted by the
Executors, who were alleged to have no personal interest in the
decision.

The Court, however, refused to make any order as to costs.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.—(Tins DAY.)
Mark Sherrett was opposed by I'dr. POLLOCK, MI behalf of
Means. Wyatt, the ale brewers.

The. insolvent, in his 'cross-examination, stated, that he had
formerly borrowed of a Mr. O'Hara the sum of SOU, which
enabled him to take a public-house in King-street, Drury-
lane. Some time afterwards he gave Mr. O'Hara a 'warrant of
attorney. On the 2d of last November, a few days before he
went to prison, he disposed of his house for '754/. Messrs. Tru-
man and Hanbury were paid .504/. oat of this sum, and about
250/.. was handed over to the defendant, who paid Mr. O'Hara
2001. in liquidation of hi 4 debt, but it appeared that Messrs.
Wyatt were not paid any thing, and they now opposed him in
consequence. The insolvent stated, that be gave that preference
to Mr. O'Hara, because it was borrowed money.
Air. HEATH, for the insolvent, contended that it was a very na-
tural and justifiable act, by a man who had enabled him to take
the house. The only question for the Court was, whether the
insolvent had given an undue preference; and, sander these cir-
cumstances, he hoped they would consider that he bad not.
Mr. Pot.toct replied, and observed, that he saw no reason why
a creditor who supported .a man in a public-house, by supplying
him with ale, &C. should not have an equal right to he paid with
another who had enabled him to take it. He could not think it
just that the latter should wait till the former had been paid, and
then, as in the present case, not get any of his debt. Under this
view, he believed the Court would either remand, or order the
insolvent to make some more equal distribution of his property.
The case was remanded, in order to have the attendance of Mr.
O'Hara.