The Sun.
London, England, 1827-11-12 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE..--(TAIS DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
OPERA-HOUSE.

Mr. HoRNE moved that a petition respecting the
Opera•house might be allowed to stand for an early
day ; it pressed considerably, as it regarded the letting
of the house for the season.

His LORDSHIP said, he would look into the state
of his paper, and then intimate what he could do.

MONTAGU V. RILL.

His L9upsHlP delivered judgment in this case.
The application made to him was to dissolve an in-
junction. As far back as the year 1799, Peter Hill
and Mr. Montagu executed a bond to each other re-
spectively for 2,0001.; some time afterwards Hill as-
signed over the bond he held to a Mr. Pritchati.l.
Upon the death of Pritchard his right in the bond
devolved to his widow, and subsequently to a gen-
tleman named Smith, one of the defendants in this
case, and executor of the widow. In 1813 an action
was brought upon that bill in the name of Hill; seve-
ral pleas were then pleaded,and upon some of the issues
a verdict was found for the plaintiff. A bill in
Chancery was then filed by Montagu against Hill,
the widow of Pritchard, and other persons, praying
that they might be restrained from further proceed-
ings upon the action brought in the name of Hill ;
the defendants did not put in their answer in proper
time, and the plaintiff obtained an Injunction, not
in the terms of the prayer, but against Hill person.
ally, and until he should Put in his answer. The ef-
fect of the Injunction, however, was to restrain all pro-
ceedings. The. answerof Hill and the other defend-
ants put in; and upon reading those answers it ap-
peared to the Court there was no ground whatever
for continuing the Injunction against Smith. It
appeared that the action was not that of Hill. His
Lordship consequently dissolved the Injunction as
far as it restrained • Smith and Hill, which left the
parties at liberty to proceed at law upon the bond,
the amount of which was not disputed to be due.

FRAWELAND V. THE BANE: OF ENGLAND.
Mr. Sergeant BOSANQUET appeared on behalf
of the Bank of England in this case, which
occupied a great part of Saturday, and
which invpilved a question of immense importance.
By the will of Mr. Frankland, lie specifically be-
queathed to two • trustees three per cent. consols,
amounting to 16,0001.; the will was duly entered at
the Bank. - The executor applied for permission to
transfer this sum for the purpose of paying debts and
legacies ; the Bank declined to allow the transfer
to be made on this ground, but said if the executor
would apply for it to pay debts, and give them rea-
sonable grounds for believing those debts were due,
the transfer should be permitted. The executor re-
fused to make the application on this ground,
and filed his bill to compel the transfer on the ground
on which he applied. The case was argued before
Lord Gifford, as Master of the Rolls, and he made
an order in favour of the petitioner, calling upon the
Bank to transfer ; hence the present appeal. The
appeal was argued before Lord Eldon, who, though
he did not give judgment upon it, intimated
an opinion that a Court of Law ought to de-
cide the question. The Bank contended it was
a pure question of law, exclusively for the ju-
risdiction of that Conrt, and that the question
ought by no means to rest on the decision of the late
Master of the Rolls, inasmuch as it was a decision
which, if it were to stand, was to bind the Bank, the
East Jndia Company, the South Sea Companies,
and all Corporate Bodies respecting their pecuniary
dealings.
The LORD CHANCELLOR interrupted the Learned
Sergeant, for the purpose of stating that he entirely
agreed with Lord Eldon, that in consequence of the
unlimited importance of this question, and that it
turned solely upon Acts' of Parliament, in their
meanings' considerably obscure, the case ought
to be decided by a Court of Law. His Lord-
ship therefore ordered the parties to agree upon
a case out of Court for the decision of the Court of
King's Bench._ ,

The Lord Chancellor rose at two o'clock to at-
tend in the Exchequer.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.

His HONOUR rose to-day at half-past eleven
o'clock, having by that time gone through the paper,
which contained fifteen causes. None of them,
however, were of the slightest general interest.

COURT OF KINGS BENCH.
(Sittings in Banco.) .

POCOCKE V.

This was an action for arrest and false imprison-
ment, brought by the plaintiff against the Commis-
sioners of Bankruptcy. The plea was the general
issue. It appeared that a Commission of Bankruptcy
was opened at Norwich on Saturday, 15th April,
1826, and that a summons was then issued to the
plaintiff to attend at Norwich on the following
Tuesday to give evidence in some investigation be-'
fore the Commissioners relative to the bankrupt's
effects. Tue summons was deliVered to the plain-
tiff, 'who resided in London, on Monday evening,
and-he was told that he must be in Norivich-on.Tues-
day, by ten. A viaticum of 51. was at the same time
tendered to him, to the insufficiency of which he
objected. Upon his non-appearance, on Tuesday,
at Norwich, the Commissioners issued a warrant
and the plaintiff' was apprehended on the following
Thursday, and brought his action to recover da-
mages for false imprisonment, but was nonsuited.
Mr. CAMPBELL now moved to set aside the non-
suit on three separate grounds. That the plaintiff
was not served within the meaninc, of the Act of
Parliament, that the Commissioners had no right to
issue a summons without an affidavit of service, and
that the tender of money was insufficient.
The Court granted a rule to show cause.
RIOTS AT GLOUCESTER.

Mr. PIULPOTTS moved the Court t 0,.. grant a
Habeas Corpus directed to the Sheriff of Glouces-
ter, calling on him to, bring up the bodies of four
persons who were confined in Gloucester Gaol for
a riot, and whom the Magistrates refused to admit
to bail, although these persons had been already in-
carcerated for seven weeks.

Mr. CAMPBELL appeared on behalf of the Magis-
trates of Gloucester, who he said, were only de-
sirous to have the opinion of the Conn on' the sub-
ject. The facts of the case were, that under
an Act of Parliament, certain Trustees had
erected a bridge in Gloucester, and a toll-gate
at which they were empowered to levy a toll. The
inhabitants otGloucester having conceived that this
toll was illegal, assembled on the 15th of September,
to the number of above 2,000 in a most riotous man-
' &ter, and with stones and other weapons, demolished
the toll-bar and a house in which the toll-collectors
resided, who were obliged to fly for their
lives. A number of special constables were
sworn in by the Magistrates, but even this force was
insufficient to keep down the rioters, who paraded
the streets with flags flying, and it was not until
after dispatches were sent to the Secretary of State
and the Lord Lieutenant of the County, and an ad-
ditional military- force had arrived, that the riot was
suppressed. The four persons, in whose behalf the
present application was made, were apprehended by
the Magistrates as ringleaders, and considering the
disposition which prevailed in the town, the Ma-
gistrates did not think- it advisable to let out the pri-
soners on bail, without the sanction of the Court of
King's Bench.
We understood Lord TENTERDEN to say, that the
Court would intimate to the Magistrates of Glou-
cester, its opinion as to the course which it was
most advisable to adopt. •

THE SING V. TAYLOR.

Mr. BROUGHAM said, that in this case he was in-
structed to move for a new trial. He confessed lie
felt some difficulty in performing this duty, not so
much from the nature of the case, for as to any
thing which should fall from him on that subject, he
hoped for the candid interpretation of the Court,
but from the peculiar circumstances under which he
was called upon to make the present application.
He was not Counsel on the trial, and was now called
upon to move the Court, not, as was usual, upon his