Star.
London, England, 1824-11-15 00:00:00

LAW REPORT.

SPECIAL GAOL. DELIVERY, DEC. 1824.
Before Sir loom BURIIOIION, Knt. one of the Justices of our
Lord the King of •hia Court of Common Pleas; and Sir Wii.stass
GARROW, Knt. one of the Barons of our said Lord the King of
his Court of Exchequer.
Ilmurroansitsas
Klux
KZNT
SUSSZI -
Smuts' -

- Thursday, Dec. 2, it Hertford.
- Monday, Dec. 6, at Chelmsford.
- Monday, Dec. 13, at Maidaibne.
- Monday, Dec. 20, at Lewes:
- Monday, Dec. 27, at Kingston.

COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER 13.

SIMS v. RIDGE.
The plaintiff had filed a bill upon a bond executed
jointly by the deceased husband of the defendant, to-
gether with the Marquis and Marchioness of Hastings,
tor paying off, with intermediate interest, an annuity
granted by that Nobleman to the plaintiff. The de-
fendant was .tiled in the character of administrattix ; and
the money, by the effict of proceedings in another cause
of Ridge v. Ridge, had found its way into the hands of
the Accountant General ; the bill was dismissed by the
Matter of the Rolls. The consequence of which would
naturally follow in an older to transfer the money from
the office of the Accountant-General.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL made :in applitation to the
Court to enjoin the parties from ternoving the fund,
because an appeal was pending, having been al-
ready signed.
Mr. TRESLOVE opposed the motion, because no decree
had yet been drawn.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that the simple ques-
tion for him to consider was, whether, upon a reason-
able time, the payment of this money ought to be re-
strained ? It was true, undoubtedly, that no appeal
could be brought until the decree upon which the ap-
peal was founded had been drawn up. He had learnt
this in the House of Lords, he might say from hard ex-
perience, for be had sometimes gone through the merits
of a very difficult and complicated case, and after hav-
ing spent days and days in considering it, it was disco-
vered that the decree had not been drawn up. The
consequence was, that the whole case was to be heard
over again. If, with respect to the present case, Coun-
sel would pledge themselves to appeal (and it was due
to tl,e Learned Counsel who practised in this Court tO'
go that length), notice should be given that the trans-
ference should not be made until a certain day after the
appeal was brought.
Tne motion, the' efore, was allowed, and the payment
of the money rest' ained until a fortnight after the ap-
peal was lodged.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, NOV. 13.
NOEL V. LOUD WALSINGIIAM.
The VICE-CIIANCE.LI.OR delivered the judgment of
the Court, directing the declaration according. to the
prayer of the bile. The object of the bill was, to declare
Mrs. Noel and Mrs. Plumptree entitled to divide be-
tween them a sum of 15,000/. which was originally in-
tended to he apportioned in equal parts to his three
daughters, two of whom were these Ladies ; but the
third daughter, Lady Edward (Alien, had, in consi-
deration of her marriage portian of 10.000/. assigned
back to her father her contingent share in the .13.0001.
which was originally to have been divided between the.
three Ladies. The v 111, however, under which they
were to inhet it this property, has iog been made before
the marriage of Lady E. O'Brien, and the codicil after-
wards attached to the will being ob,curely constructed,
the question arose, whether, notwithstanding the mar-
riage portion of her Ladyship, she was..not still entitled
to her third part of 15.0001. upon her father's death ?
lie was of opinion, from an examination of the will,
the codicil, and the assignment, that the father did not
intend Lady O'Brien to par tic; pate in the division of the
15,0001. after he had paid her the marriage portion ;
and the conclusion which he drew was, of course, that
the other two ladies,. Mrs. Noel and Mrs. Plumptree,
ought, according to the`oprayer of the present bill, di-
vide the 15,000/. between them.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOV. 13.
THE KING V. TIIR MAGISTRATES OF TILE DISTRICT OF
EAST BRIXTON. _

Mr. SCARLETT moved for a rule, calling on the Ma‘
gistrates of the East Half-Hundred of Brixton, to shew
cause why they should not hear an application of a per-
son named Clarke, for the license of a public-house in
Lambeth, which he had purchased from a man named
Balton. The Magistrates had refused the license, not
from any objection to the applicant, but horn an erro-
neous opinion that they had no jurisdiction.
The CounT jute' rupted the Learned Counsel, by ex-
pressing a doubt whether the Magistrates could now se-
hear the application with effect; as it seemed by 26
Ceo. 11. c. 21, that they were only empowered to grant
licenses at a Sessions holden in Septeniber, or within
twenty days afterwards ; and if no license could now be
granted, the Court would not grant a mandamus to com-1
pel Magistrate, to do that which would he of no avail.
Mr. SCARLET? said he would consider the statute,
and renew his motion on a future day.
TIIE KING V. SIR W. bIIDDLETON, BART.
This was a rule, calling on Sir W. 'Middleton to shew
cause why an information, in the nature of a quo war-
rant°, should not be exhibited against him for illegally
assuming to be one of the Portmen of Ipswich, on the
ground that he was not elected by a majority of the
select body of burgesses?
Mr. ADAM now shew ed cause, on the ground that by
the charter and custom of Ipswich, though not by the
general law, the defendant was tightly elected.
The COURT thought that the question involved points
of law and fact which ought to be tried, and accord-
ingly made the rule absolute.
THZ KING V. TRIPIIOOK AND OTHERS.
Mr. STORKS moved for a rule, calling on two per-
sons, named Triphook, to shew cause why they should
not be committed for .asstiming to practice as attornies;
and why an attorney .of the Court, whose name he for-
bore to mention, should not be struck off the rolls for
allowing them to practice in hi; name. The two
Triphoidcs. were father and son ; the father was a school-
master residing near Uttoxeter ; the son, an attorney's
clerk, bpt not himself an attorney. A person named
Holbrooke, who resided near Triphook, senior, applied
to hirn for advice on finding himself sued for a debt of
141. 14s. Triphook replied, that he had a son in Lon-
don,' who would settle• the • business without further
trouble, if-he would advance.lsl. Upon this represen-
tation,.Holbrooke advanced the money, and considered
the matter a's settled ; but to his surprise was afterwards
informed that there must be a trial, and the attorney,
who had never appeared till now, came down to lend
his name to proceedings which had really been con-
ducted by Triphook,jun. It was now discovered that
there was no groUnd of defence, and accordingly • the
plaintiff obtained judgment for. 711. debt and costs, and