The Sun.
London, England, 1827-11-15 00:00:00

LAw. INTgLLIOENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF, CHANCERY.
The LORD CriANcELiox sat at 25 minutes to
11 o'clock.

. .
SOMERSETSHIRE CORONERS:
KNIGHT stated 'that he appeared for Mr.
Lang, one of the Coroners for this County, -for the •
rfemoval of wholit from' office Mr. Daniel had applied
or a" Order on a petition presented by the Magistrates
mee
-ounty; Mr. Daniel did nat know at the
oecnAde his application to the Court, that Mr.
g l*d made an affidavit which he (Mr. K.) .now
entreated Penni.sion to read...
Lrthso
h h uiP having expressed his willingness to
ear t e aft day'
Mr. suit,
Air. '"‘T read it. The affidavit stated, that.
years had filled the officeof Coroner for forty
ducted himself
the whole of which time he had eon-
"unself in a manner to merit the thanks of
ihie.ern'trY• That he was now and had been forabout
de, nine months, confined in ilchester jail for
ut; that he was preparing to return to his office,
clud that heshould be able to do 'so by the next
Gen • .
1, era! Quarter Sessions, in. January next. That
"e had written to all the petitioners, who, fie felt
satisfied, were operated. by no vindictive feeling to-
'ivards him, to intreat. them to stay- their proceedings
or his removal, and he believed, should he be able,
a‘s be expected,•to.complete his arrangements for re-'
tarn.
ring
by next January, all his constituents would.
I,)f. satisfied. That he had received replies from
.$r
ch"rn aa Lethbridge,..M.P., and Mr. Diekensont;the
-vadm," of the SessionS, saying they could not
,li?oiveeeneoerd:ierii.;,to the Clerk of the Peace to stay the
but they thOught deponent bad asked
Ci.o.r--°-"g unreasonable. That there were three
disZers for the county, two of whom were actively
.„-m—arginz their duties ; and, that under these eir7
fisitaltices he hoped for indulgence till January.
t,-s
"Rustily wished to know whether the Ma-
D-e's;:a:f.es now desired to press the prayer of their
r after Understanding that Mr. Lang had
„p'eetahly filled the office for 40 years, and had the
1-°:Pect of returning, to it so soon again.
tiAmEr. was not prepared, itt the absence of
his Qlients, to answer this question. He knew the
Petition had been presented, most reluctantly, bit
the Magistrates_ lutd suffered .great inconvenience
from the absence of Mr. Lang.
The COURT had it doubt of it; but it thought it
`vould he rather harsh to press the application after
this affidavit had been read. lt was then agreed that the • petitioners should
ye an opportunity till the Second Seal after Term
Zfi Taking farther inquiries, and 'that then they
gut mention the matter again.
Asklx V. MARTIN. •
This Was an appeal that had been heard before
d IProort;on'tliedeo(.l".'
311adgrnetit, but \VII
I
butinwhich judgment had not been
hr Patties refused to theOiisent to take Lord Eldort's
on
earthly case was first called. on,
consumption of some time.for.
purpose,
at;eciort: sum
Siigden being the leader
a one side, and Mr. Pepys on the other,) Counsel
tglrdeoend, th.at the present Chancellor should get Lord
Judgment, he having been prepared to
.pro-
tliet)tdi„ce it. which if heagreed in he should deliver, by
siapTl as his own, so that the parties, if they de-
from to appeal, p i might have no difficulty in doing so
m thly point of form.

This , Si.RAINGER V. HAWKEY.
ft,,th case was to be discussed on the subject of
ghi er directions and costs.' It got into his Lord-
it rilegs Pliariaper, histead of the Vice-Chancellor's, where
stat-ILly ought to have gone, from the circum-
wo le, that if it had gone into the Court below, it
TOertj„,l,lave gone before Sir A. Hart, who had for-
If "teen Counsel in the cause.
hels LoitosillP considered, as the case was in the
l'„er f"r " further directions,". as the „wise for its
thi -6
brought to this branch of the Cottrt instead of
he°tiler was new removed, and as there were many
'atlls, Which it was of the greatest importance to
1;n48 speedily as practile, he ordered the case
taken before the prescaebnt Vice-Chancellor.
3,1 r. HART V. HART.
filincile'd EMI:), before the Court rose yesterday, re-
'his Lordship of this case, that stood before
ft,d2r judgment, upon the motion-made by the de-
aga7", t to dissolve the injunction. that had issued
wq)st him. Mr. Heald said, it was most important
:It the opinion of the Court should he obtained
iiit,liOnt further delay, because he had a motion to
•:4e for the committal of the defendant for violet-
tg. the injunction, but which would be rendered
•by the Court's refusing the last application
the t I'M been made to it, for then a receiver upon
of partnership 'property would follow as matter
14;;11se- The plaintiff was anxious to avoid, if
owst.,L,:, the making of the motion tootonalit his
dissorotliei:, but unless judgment.on the•motion to
qssit:ve'Nere now given; it wouldbe absolutely. ne-
feNlaii', t° make that. motion, inasmuch as'the de-
barb, 'lad only yesterday left London for Notting-
Piirtnej°l;
,the express purpose of interfering in the
'rraii,e-d.sil,p concerns, from which he had been re-
-1-I‘N
4,Ost itii"°ltbSti IP said he should give judgment al-
at
11;41,ediately On the motion he had heard, and
ailido:".snoald have done: so 'etre noW, but that the
ingly lot,, he had had to read through. were excee(i
•
•

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT. ,
This JOHNSON v CHIPPENDALL.
Lase ,vas in part beard yesterday, and the
tion ellts were resumed this morning. The ques-
t
4"lie is One of considerable importance-
4ize,,Y, whether ("Loses in action were liable to be
1144 '1 Under a writ of sequestration. The argument.
tiot concluded when our paper went to press.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
(Sittings in Banco.)
11LBOURNi .V., COD!) AND HARPER.
41,,,,1" plaintiff in this action was an attorney, and
ft member of the Carrier Company. The de-
:Chts were Directors of that Company, and the
ft,l°4 was brought to recover the amount of a bill
flefe'ts, >IR in defending-an action against the
fcalte "(lams as Directors. _ n illiams on a
v~didaY obtained a rule to show eaussheoullliyi:,at
be vt, which was- taken for the plaintiff, the ground
thatettbhslde and a new trial !Jawed, on
Corn -e
plaintiff, being a menTher Of
an
Cops
himself, was not. competent to bringen-
the Carrier
d:1°,111 at IaNV against his cOpartners for services r
t° the Company of which he was a member.d
againhset, tehe°mrusra
Port of it, ' St4tirEANT having been hear
ep. a9d
,Mr. JOHN WILLIAbiS in sup-
t_ Lord- TENTRRE,E;_uid,
he was clearly of opinion
.I!at the plaintia Could not recover at law, for he
was bound,
ibute to
hwyaib.aesconcern, to
mg a partner in, the
costs of de-
d ",ulng the M7Olllll atehteimplar oreniti otlfietilaec.tion was not
-eletale
d, the plaintiff
with others Was jointly bound
the Bcatisfy the claim. Under those circumstances
al,ttiti-t:ittliratblievas of opinion, that the action was not
oe at law, although the plaintiff might
le good claim in equity for contribution.
conet;rrJu,stice B.AYLEY and Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE
rule
1. ea with the LORD CIIIEP JUSTICE, and the
'as made absolute.
h xxtir:.G V. ABRAIIA3I DELEFOY. -
re°nvietehelntieorATT.rozi,'
N _GENERAL moved for the Jung
the court.oti Abraham 'Deleroy, who was
eted
--aroo at the last Aseizcs for Durham, before
qfhe "Quiloek, for attempting to bribe a revenue
Atter to Permit the smuggling of illicit spirits.
,° TheeY-Gerieral said, that there was reason to
I,°t
e that the revenue was injured to a great cx-
arid the practice of Offering bribes to the dicer:,
°f th'vueil a case.was made out where the servants
his Ne revenue were inaccessible to the seduction,
qfehl fijestes Government was desirous to bring the
The
before the Court.
414 defendant was then brought up, and put in
a
mticridavit in mitigation, stating that he was
on
hipt ewer, with six children entirely dependent
°l' -support. _
nt
pf the
Justice BAYLEY, in delivering the
taut
was Court, observed, that the defendant wm not