The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-13 00:00:00

AW INTELLiGENCE.

COURT OF CgANCERY, June 11.
The LORD CUANCELLOR sat in Lincoln's Inn &L tug
day, and tnok 213pea1 motions.

•LI3O3IENT—TRELAWNEV IsOEERTS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR RtNe jUdgment to-day in this
case, which was argued short time since. His Lord-
ship observed that he had read the pleadings in the
cause, and the Niaster's report, and had considered them
with as much care as he was able to bestow titan them,
and after having done so, it was his Lordship's decided
opinion that it the case had come before him upon bill
and answer, and upon the evidence that had been adduced
before the Master, and he had been called upon to pro-
nounce a decree, he should have felt that he would not
have been able to have done satisfactory justice bet Ween
the parties without tirecting an issue for Lire purpose of
trying whether the !loud was given 'Kr the purpose of
securing money advanced by fir, itoberts to Mr. Tre-
lawney, or whether it wnt given for the purpose of
enabling Mr. li.,berts to borrow money fur Mr, Tye,
lawnq's rice. 'rite letters that had preceded the t!tecu-
don ot the bond, and the whole of the l'.orto.pondence by
e, hick tfT execution of the hood oll'Olved, and the com-
munication between the polis all led his Lordship to
this conclusion. 0 t Ole Whole, therefore, although the
case had con.ti before him upon appeal from the decision
of the Vice-Chatteilor of E g tud, as exceptions to the
Ata-ittA i•eo.'Ort, he did not think he could do justice to
tkeliarttes without directing•the issue befoul mentioned.
Tfts.t issue must therefore be tried, and the exception
to the Master's Report ..nn ist stand over till the result of
that issue was known. That would be in effect affirming
the decisiion of the Vice-Chancellor. The cost of the
vesebt appeal must also stand over till after the trial
of the issue.

C03113E V. THE CORPORATION OF LONDON.
On the application o: Nir. RICHARDS, the appeal motion
in this case from the decisiOn of the Vice-Chancellor
Knight Brme, ordering the prthlaction of curtain papers
in tle possession of the City of London, Was ordered to
stand in his Lordship's appeal paper un Monday, the
21st inst.

The Court then proceeded with appeal motions.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, -lune 11.
IN RE THE POOR-LAW COMMISSIONERS.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL showed cause against the rule
obtairtcd in this case. A ru•e was obtained calling o❑ the
Poor-law Commi•sioners to bring up two orders relating to the
parish of St. Paul, Deptford, ,hat; they may be set aside. The
parish, it appeared, is divid,•d into iv.° portions. one of them
in the county of Kent, and the ether in the county of Surrey
and the orders havi, g de-ci ibed the pari h as of the county of
Kent, it was contended that they did not apply to the parish of
st. Paul, in the county of surrey. The Attorney-General
argued that the addition of the county of Kent. 'lid or exclude
that portion of the parish in the county of Surrey fr
operation of the orders The add Lion of the cou.ity of Kent
might be taken to distinguish it from any other parish in the world,
tslr. Erie and Mr. Plait appeared in support of the rule,
The Coo RP were of opinion that the descript ion was &good one,

• IN RE JOHN LONG.
Mr. ANDREWS applied to the Conant* behalf of John Long,
a prisoner rontine.i in the Cambridge gaol, that he may he
transferred from the second into the first. class of gaols. . The
application was f,unded on the 3d and 4th Wcteria; which
makes a distinction in the place of confinement betty {t
sons Ciund guilty of a misdemeanour ancrsentenC4 ‘‘,O hard
labour, and those who were not sentenced to Ithctk Mour. In
the present case, the prisoner was not so s4ittlenced, hut the
order of committal not having specified in which class of gaols
the prisoner was to be placed, he rails confined, by the regula-
tions of the gaol in Cambridge, in the second class, where he
had only the gaol diet and clothing, and was now living on
bread and water.
Lord DENMAN—The Court thinks it right to make the order
for placing him in the first class of prisons.

BAIL COURT, ilevne 11.
Several gentlemen were sworn in as attorneys of the Court.
Mr. HINTON said that he had an application of a somewhat
peculiar nature to make, and he entertaived some doubt vvhother
it ought. to be made before his Lordship or the full Court. The
application was made against the examiners appointed by the
Court of Queen's Bench relative to thr admission of persons
who applit.d to be attorne3s of the Court, The gentleman on
whose behalf the application was made was desirous-of appealing
from the decision of the examiners, •
Mr. Justice WIG LITMAN—That must be moved before the
full Court.

IQUEEN V. GOMPERTZ.
Mr, CHALMERS applied that a person 'who bad att.,trded to
give evidence in this cause be discharged From tare eus.ody of
the Sheriff. He apilied upon the affidavit 'ef the individual,
who stated that he had been arrested 'oh 1113 way to the Court,
while coming to give evidence.
Air. Justice WIGHTMA 14-4. him be discharged.
The officer who made tire berets wished to know whether the
individual was to be discharged in all the writs which had been
issued against him fonm the office of the Sheriff of Aliddiesex,
as there were several.
Mr. Justice W/GHTmAN_Let him be discharged generally.
INSOLVENT DEB7--"—',().o/?7',. June 11.
The Court was occupied during tho day in hearing bail cases,
of which there were eighteen t,,wri and seven country cases.
Most of the bail tendered was received without opposition.

. .
POLICE I N TEL L IGENCE.
MANSIO,:v HOUSE.
A mercantile man, named Bailey. was charged before the
Lord Mxvor with having used langu ge calculated to lead to a
breach of the pecee towards Mr. Anichini, an elderly man, who
was formerly his partner.
Mr. Anichini statelthat on the Royal Exchange, a few days
ago. Mr. Bailey to ,k the opportunity to walk up to him, and
call him a liar, a coward, a thief, a calumniator, and a swindler.
The Loan MAYOR—Did he add anything else? Mr. Ani-
chini thought that list sufficiently long, but Mr. Ba ley ex-
tended it by other epithets of a similar ind. He said, " You
call your elf a soldier, hilt you a-e a coward, and dare not lace
me." Several time: had such c nduct been repra ed by Mr.
Bailey, who knew that it con d not be resented in the manner it
deserved. as he (Mr. Anichini) was an old ma i. The objeet
of the present charge was to compel the defendant to find bail,
as some protection against his violence, which a person so
threatened had reason to apprehend.
The LORD MAYOR asked Mr. Anichini whether he had any
witnesses ?
Mr. Anichini's son said he was present when Mr. Bailey
used the offensive exp, esions. He coif(' swear to. the use of
the words slanderer, thh f. ruffia.e, and liar.
Mr. Bailey said he would .not deny having called iMr. Ani-
chini a liar and a slanderer. and he also admit ed that he said
Mr. Ani .hini had act. d in a cowardly and ungentlemanly
manner, although he called himself a soldier. The reason he
had bestowed such epithets upon the complainant was, that Mr.
Anichini had attempted to blast, his character in the most rem.
lute manner to some mercantile men, by representing that he
had been guilty of dishonourable dealing as a merchant.
Mr. Anichini solemnly declared that he had never uttered a