The Sun.
London, England, 1829-11-19 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.

JUDGMENT.-lIANBY V. HARRISON.
The Court gave judgment this morning in this 004
which was argued yesterday upon demurrer. The Vali°
in the cause were originally partners ; upon the slissoloti°!,
of the partnership an agreement was entered into, 111
which it was agreed to refer all matters in dispute to (AP
taro arbitrators ; they drew up their award, and the p15',..,11‘
tiff filed his bill for the purpose of setting it aside, or,.
the ground of fraud, and concert on the part of the OP'
trators, and also that the award was not made in tittle.
,1
His Honour discovered, that upon looking at the plearPro
he thought himself bound to allow the demurrer; by 1.0-1,
agreement for a reference, it was provided that the site
should be made on or before the 25th day of Deogg°27
neat, or at any other period the arbitrator might ap1031;
tl e allegation on the bill was that the award was made, heir.,7
date the sth of October, 1824 ; that being so, the Cci„,`",
thought it must take the award to have been made on
day it bore date. There were no averment* in the pler",„;
ings that the award was void in consequence of not be
made in time. It did not appear to his Honour *Attll ji.
was any rule in equity which said that because an Ittlig.
was not made in time it was necessarily void. The °hit
ground for sustaining the present proceeding was,
though the award was not void in consequence of not be.,
made in time, yet that the plaintiff had a right, look",
at all the circumstances under which it was made, to ks%
it cancelled. It did not appear to his Honour that tit
was any ground in the present case to justify the Courtin'
taking such a step; the Court would therefore alloy/ 10
demurrer; but, if Mr. Girdlestone, who appeared Wito
plaintiffs, wished to make any application with referee t
to the amendments of the bill, the Court would be tit(
happy to hear him. His Honour wished to know wlitio
in point of fact the agreement had ever been made
of Court?
n d '-
rtl
: Air. (for the defendant.) observed it -e
o
had.

MORGAN V. SYLV/STra.—CONTEzirT.
Mr. &toll yesterday applied in this case for the t"..-6
charge of the defendant from the custody of the %V
of the Fleet, where he had been incarcerated for conical?'
on the ground that the plaintiff had taken steps in Or'
cause whereby the contempt was waved. His Honoll
did not think himself justified in making the order with
out notice, that notice had been given, and the Learo;
Gentleman this morning moved that the prisoner rnie
be brought up for the purpose of obtaining his diseher;
and be permitted to call at the Master's office, to make $ •
affidavit in his road to the Court. Leave given.
The Court took motions to-day.

ROLLS COURT. ofc
DUTY OF SOLICITORS, NEGLECT OF THE OFFICIO,-

TILE COURT.—MILES V. LANGLEY.
OI
When this ease was called on, the Master of the - R
asked whether the solicitor was in attendance, as no PsPe
had been delivered ?
Mr. BArtaxs stated that he saw him a short tip* le
but did not observe him at the present moment.
The MASTER of the Rou.s—l shall strike out tkil rest;
it is the duty of solicitors to attend to the orders of
.ert
Court; neither in the last or present cause have ant Psr it
been delivered; I will not permit this case tog° °lio' Ot
must be understood I will not allow any case t°
unless the ancient rule of the Court is attended to. the
Mr. TINNEY appeared for the defendant, and S'ltc"j
costs of the day. atteir
The Marren of the ROLLS—There is a total "",cient
a
tion on the part of solicitors to one of the me°l,l-let tb
rules of the Court. Let this case stand over, Ow or the
solicitor en the other side pay personally the co° -
day.
Sir C. WETRERELL requested permission for the
10
tor to explain when he came into Court. est
The Manta of the Rou.s—l will not permit tber'
to go on ; I must bold solicitors rigidly to the rule;, the
is no attention at all paid to it ; the solicitors 11164 rni
costs
M personally. eodsP"
Mr. BARBEE observed the solicitor was in ott
the whole of the day before yesterday. to d°
The MASTER of the RoLLs—That has 2200%°fficer
with it; it is his duty to deliver the papers to th° &Iv °'
the Court. The case must stand over till the ne%'the
dr
cause, the solicitor paying personally the co" to
fendants. .eotkl3
the court - ,0
Sir CHARLES Wentasittz trusted
permit the solicitor to explain, as he could testify le
punctuality and attention. 130'
The MASTER of the Rou.s—l will not pernut
because that would encourage negligence. te"
The solicitor afterwards came into Court, and etasunolil
was detained by a client for a few moments, or be '-
have been here punctually at eleven o'clock. aer."(
The Kum], of the Rous.—Why did you not
the papers? 110
to
The Solicitor—l delivered the papers mysell
elder gentleman, who now sits under your Honour. t
it
The Officer of the Court said the papers were n°
down to Westminster among the petitions. fficil°
The Masrza of the ROLLS considered this aBO •
explanation, and allowed the cause to proceed.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
THE KING V. JOHN AND TIION•S DLINCO3IISI'
Mr. GURNEY prayed the judgment of the Courts
these defendants. He stated that a prosecution 10,41
proceeded in against them by the Society fur the Sloi, Oa
sion of Vise, for selling obscene works at their %
Little Queen-street, Holborn. When a proseenti; 01
been threatened, the defendants promised to detfr"
selling the works in question, which, for the sake, -„
sic morality, be should not name the titles of. l?",,,i)eri pt
ceedings being stayed, however, the def•nilant con dot}
eV
offend by still selling them ; and it then became the Th
the Society to prosecute the charge against their. 6,,mli!iel
suffered judgment to go by default. The SorietYv
that their show of penitence was insincere, nritjt
the sentence of the law upon them, that they t"''
they could not offend against the morals of somqe 0
impunity.
defe°,lo(
Mr. ADOLTDC3 addressed the Court for to', the far
in mitigation of punishment. He stated uhS ,/1C ,10,
defendant had kert a shop for time sale of netirs:rl~~l put
several years, he at length got into the sale of t l'e
and these in question crept in among others. `s, O
te pt
mean to defend the practice of telling such wor,ms"
submitted to the Court that their were ditierei"