Star.
London, England, 1825-08-12 00:00:00

LAW:IIEI4)hr: .-
COURT OF CHANCERY, AUGUST 11.

EX PARTE LUCAS IN. RE LUCAS.
The Loan CHANCELLOR Said, in the matter of Lucas,
have seen-Sir George Tuthill, and without entering
ilto the questi-n of soundness or unsoundness of mind.
am quite satisfied this is a case in which there = no
I:all upon me to grant a commission of lunacy. From
trim I learn that the reason is happy, and treated with
kindness ; and as I conceive this matter of lunacy de-
pends not only on the fact of soundness and unsound-
ness r f mind, but also on tLat of expediency as regards
the happiness of the individual, I am of opinion that
at present there is no occasion for issuing a commis-
sion rlf lunacy.
Mr. Hoare—Does not your Lordship think the petition should
be dismissed with costs?
Loan CHANCELLORMo. Mr. Horne : all I mean to say is, that
I do not consider myself called upon to issue a commission; and I
wish therefore, to say nothing about costs at present.
EX PARTE CORNETT, IN RE SIR G. P. TURNER.
The Loan CHANCELLOR decided in this case that the
Court had no authority to prevent the access of pertons
ta Sir Gregory, in order to enable him to traverse. He
directed, therefore, that Mr. Corbett should be admitted
to the lunatic, and that Mr. Corbett should inform his
Lordship in a fortnight of the result.
EX PARTE CRANE, IN RE DODS, A DANERUP?.
ALTERATION 07 A COMML.SLON. _ _

Mr. HART, previous to opening this petition, which
payed that the commission issued agiinkt the bank-
r•tpt might be superseded, stated that he had a pt eli.
smeary objection to the commission, wl,ich migh, be
s,lfficient to induce the Court to supersede it without
gong into the other grounds he had to allege. It was
admitted on both sides, that the commission had been
altered ince it had passed the Great seal.
The commission was then handed up to his Lordship
pntfet a seal cover (with en attestation that it was in
the same state as when received by the present from
t ie former solicitor under the commission); and upon
the Lord Chancellor examining it, he sent for the docket
Mr. HART said he did not know how far the altera-
tion might be material, but he thought the Court was
bound to vindicate the sacredness of the Great Seal.
The Loss Citaxccia.oa—lf there be an alteration of but bait a
letter, the commission shall not stand.
Mr. HART then read an affidavit, bringing home the
fact of the alteration to Mr. Lester, the former solicitor
under the commission. He had altered the name of
Dods to Dod, by expunging the a.
The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that the simple
question was, whether the commission had been altered
or not ? It appeared to him that it had. His Lord•
ship recommended that the case should stand over t.ll
Monday, in order that Mr. Lester might ale. an of
davit in explanation.
Air. Cum said, that as Mr. Lester could afford no further ex-
planation. it was perhaps superfluous to incur the expense of
filing affidavits.
The LORD CHANCELLOR— My wish that the case
should stand over till Monday, is out of regard to the'
Solicitor. It is impossible that the Court can suffer
such an act as this, on the part of one of its officers,
without some explanation. Delay is desirable on an.l
other account ; for if I were to make an order under
my present impression,l might deal more severely with
the case than if I had more time for consideration. Let
the petition stand over till Monday, and let Mr. Lester
in the meantime consider whether he will 61e an affidavit.
MASSEY v. BENHALL.

This was a snoti^n for an injunction to restrain the
defendant from selling, charging, incumbering, or
conveying an advowson to anybody except the plaintiff.
Mr. HORNE stated, that the plaintiff, Miss Emma
Massey, was a young Lady who had not attained the
age of 21. Under the will of her mother, who died in
1816. she was entitles to the sum of 8:50011 part of
which was outstanding upon the mortgage of real
property. Through the medium of her sister, who
was a married Lady, she became acquainted with the
defendant, the Rev. Mr. Denhall, and it appeared, ac-
cot ding to the statement in the bill, that soon after the
It iendship between them had increased into familiarity,
this Gentleman applied to the young Lady to lend him
a sum of money, for which purpose she appeared to
have sold out a part of her stock. This, however, was
not material to the present injunction. At last it was
thought convenient that the sum of 2,0002. should be
called in from the mortgage, and applied for the young
Lady's bei;etit ; and this Gentleman advised her, as
the best thing she could do after she had called it in,
to lay it out in the purchase of an advowson. Accord-
ingly, when the money was called in, it was, with the
consent of the young. Lady, paid into the Gentleman's
hands for the purpose of being so laid out, it being
agreed that the conveyance was to be made by the
Lady's Solicitor. It appeared that ti e Rev. Gentle-
man had laid out a part of the money in the purchase
of an advowson, but that he had employed some other
Solicitor, and had token, for his convenience, the con.'
veyance of. this advowson to himself ; he had also ob-1
taiaed a lease from the present incumbent, and was
now in quiet possession. The young Lady then became
alarmed that she had taken the advice of the Clergy-
man, and went to him to inquire into the case. lle ad-
mitted that the conveyance ought to have been taken
in her name, and stated that by mistake the advowson
had been conveyed to himself ; but on being pressed to
give up the deeds, he hesitated. The Solicitor of the
Lady then went to him, upon which he seemed anxious
to make a condition that they sh-uld present him to
the next avoidance. Tt,ese facts were supported by the
affidavit of the plaintiff and a clergyman of the name
of Boray.—Order issued.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, AUGUSTii.
HUME AND OTHERS V. THE ASSIGNEES Or MARSH,
STRACEY, AND CO.
_ _ _

Mr.Honsx said he appeared on the part of the plain-
tiff in this case, which had bi en part heard, and was
ordered to stand over to enable his Honour to refer to
the books of the Partnership. The question which the
Court was called upon to decide was, whether any mo-
ney had been paid into the banking-house of the late
Mr. Fauntleroy, on account of the trustees of Colonel
Bells?
His .Hostoun said, he had attentively examined the
cash-book and the teceiving day-book, but he found
it impossible to trace the some mid to have been paid
in on account of the trucees. He found the entsics, but
bethink further. It was impossible, therefoie, to de-
termme whether any cash had actually been paid into
the hank.
Mr. Molina; sail that the entries had been made in such an in
tricate simmer by Mr. Pauntkroy, that it would be impossible for
the ninst acute r.cenuntant to unravel them.
ilk flotsam said that he was quite incompetent to the tisk. • He
therefore directed an issue, to try whether any and what sums had
'nevi paid into the banking-huww on farina of the trustees of
CP:onel Pals : the issue to be tried in the sittings after blichad-
` .:trfne