The Sun.
London, England, 1827-07-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JULY 3.
THE KING OF SPAIN P. HULLET AND OTHERS.
The Court was occupied throughout the day with
hearing the arguments of Counsel on a demurrer
tiled in this cause. At the conclusion, the Lord
Chancellor requested to be furnished with some of
the cases, and postponed his decision until a fu-
ture day.-

WARD OF THE COURT.

Mr. LYNCH, at the rising of the Court, requested
that his Lordship would look over and approve of a
draught of a deed of settlement, prepared on the
marriage of a ward of the Court. The Master had
seen and approved of the draught, but his Lord-
ship's sanction was also necessary in this case; and
as the parties did not wish to make the circumstances
or the names public, he had to request his Lordship
would hear it in his private room.
His Lordship assented, and was followed out of
Court by Mr. Lynch.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 3.
THE KING V. RIGBY WASON.

Mr. BROUGHAM and Mr. ERSKINE showed cause
against a rule nisi for a criminal information ob-
tained by the Attorney-General, in consequence of
a letter the defendant wrote to Mr. Dawson, an at-
torney, abusing him, and challenging him to fight.
Mr. Dawson, in his professional character, had called
upon the defendant to make inquiries concerning the
amount and particulars of his property, that he
might afford correct information to a gentleman who
was the father of a young lady to whom Mr. Wason
was paying his addresses. Mr. Wason now stated
that he had been engaged to this lady for five years,
and that her father had, after this long courtship,
refused him, upon an objection made to his fortune;
and he could not help thinking that he had not been
fairly dealt with by Mr. Dawson, for that his for-
tune amounted to 1,2001. a year, anti he had pro-
fessed his willingness to make a settlement to that
amount upon the lady. The defendant also felt
hurt at a letter which Mr. Dawson wrote to him,
implying a doubt of his title to some land ; and un-
der the impression that he was not fairly dealt with,
he had written the letter complained of. The
Learned Counsel would not attempt to justify that
letter, but they thought that Mr. Dawson was not
entitled to the extraordinary interference of the
Court, but should be left to the ordinary remedy.
Lord TENTERDEN.—If satisfaction is not made,
the rule for the information is to be considered tobe
granted.

THE KING V. 'MICHAEL STORKS, ESQ.
Mr. ALDERSON moved for a rule to show cause
why a criminal information should not be filed against
Michael Storks, Esq., a magistrate of Yorkshire.
Rule refused.
THE KING AGAINST THE CORPORATION OF QUEEN-

BOROUGH.
Mr. Sergeant MEREWETHER moved to make abso-
_
an information, in the nature of a..9u0
"vv..

wan

the otlieeorMayor of Queenborough,
tember, 1825, to September, 1824.

from Sep-

Lord TENTERDEN.—The rule must be enlarged;
and if the prosecution in the quo warrant° against
the defendant, as jurat, proves successful, then an
information must be granted against him as Mayor.

THE ICING D. RICHARD DOWNING RICHARDS.
Mr. ADOLPHUS moved the judgment of the Court
upon the defendant.
Lord TENTERDEN.—This must be put off till to-
morrow. Why should it not be put off till next
term ?—Mr. BROUGHAM.—I have an affidavit to
support an application for its standing over until
next term.

Lord TENTERDEN.—The defendant is in custody?
—Mr. BROUGHAM.—He is in custody for a very
large sum of money, and also on Crown process.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, he felt some
anxiety for the several persons who are exposed
weekly to his attacks. He should give some
security.
Lord TENTERDEN—What can we do ? We are
only to pass a judgment upon him.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL expected that judg-
ment would be of some severity.
!;74:1 TENTERDEN—That may be. Is he in Court
no

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL hoped that his Lord-
ship would see that imprisonment alone was not a
aafficient punishment.
Mr. BROUGHADI—He will give security not to
Publish any thing in the interval against the prose-
cutors.

Lord TENTERDEN—If the prosecutors are satis-
fied with that.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—My Lord, I have not
the least doubt he can give very good security.
Here the matter ended. We understood that the
defendant is to come up again to-morrow.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS...-JULY 3.
HENDERSON V. LEMAN.

Mr. Sergeant WILDE applied to the Court to re-
strict the plaintiff's right of costs in this case. The
defendant's attorney had taken out a summons to
stay the proceedings on payment of the debt and
tests; but the plaintiff's attorney, or some other
person for him, refused to agree to the summons,
stating that the plaintiff claimed and was entitled to
a larger sum than was proposed to be paid by the
defendant. The defendant then paid the money he
had offered into Court, when the plaintiff filed a de-
claration, which he afterwards took out.
Under these circumstances, the Court decided
that the plaintiff could not recover costs to any
amount beyond those incurred up to the time that
the summons to stay proceedings was taken out.—
Their Lordships were glad that they had this op-
portunity of expressing theirlopinion upon the prac-
tice which had been adopted in this case, and which
was now become too general. It frequently occurred
that when summonses of this kind were taken out,
and the parties appeared before the Judge at cham-
bers, some young person who had very probably
been little more than a year in office, would come
from the plaintiff, and succeed in discharging the
summons, by merely laying claim to a larger sum
than was offered by the defendant. A Judge, !hands
were then effectually tied; he could only advise the
defendant to pay the money into Court, and when
this was done, it frequently happened that it was
taken out again, and the defendant was probably
saddled with the very amount of costs which the
sole object of his summons was toget rid of. The
practice was gaining ground, but it must be stopped.

THWAITES v. FOSTER.
In this case a rule was obtained a few days since,
calling on the plaintiff's attorney to show cause why
the judgment given in the action should not be set
aside, on the ground that he had not given the de-
fendant proper notice of trial.

Mr. Sergeant WILDE this morning showed cause
against the rule and produced the affidavits of the
attorney and his clerk.
Upon the strength of these affidavits, the Court
discharged the rule.