Star.
London, England, 1822-11-21 00:00:00

was a valid one—if4C.ola teii:ktlew it to be a fer
and honest 'transaction —why did he .not carry it irto
la Court of common law ? The . reason. was; Utat
Mr. Coates meant to continue in practice in Hereford,
hevery 'welt lenesvithetthe, would have to repent of
defiling. tea a died'befi re. any one of. the Judges
of the country ; for they would-busily fail to anunad.
vett upon it. The Learned Coenset trusted thlt this
Cotitt, by rejecting the petitkar.and decreeing cotc,
would make Mr; Coates a little more careful for t!
future how he engaged in undertakings of this
Skit:mil; NICHOL& remarked, tharthe bringing in,
Ender the circumstances, an rot on petition, was i 4
itself rather an unusual proceeding, at least in this
stage of the case. By the deed is question, Mr.
Browne had bound himself, and two collateral secu-
rities, not only to demand his own costs of Coates]
but to pay all those of th# 'Other party. He alleged
that this deed and bond were unduly, and by false
suggestions, obtained from him ; it having been ext 2:
cnted as well as prepared in Mr. Coates's fice,wher4
Mr. Browne had not the benefit of any prntession.::
or other assistance whatever. The Court thooght it
was by no means competent to decide on the validity
of such instraments ; and it could not even form a
judgment on such transactions passing out of door,cy.
crpt on affidavits. The monition to compel payment 4
costs already decreed by a former sentence, this
Court certainly felt that it was bound
to tztant.—
To grant or withhold it was not a matter of iiscretirn
in the Court; it was a measure of rigs t, e.r dcl..itojra-
!Wee, to be rendered to the other party. Mr. U..atcs
was an Attorney in the country ; he had appeared in
this Court solely in the character of a cie •ttr- t.f the
deceased : but the creditor had no legal tight to ad-
ministration, unless where all the executors named, if
any, or residuary legatees) or next of kin, had first
voluntarily renounced. There was not a clerk of one
year's experience in the Commons who did not know
this to be the law and rule of the Court; and yet LH:
professional Gentleman, for so long a period, and by
every possible contrivance, had been trying to extort
a concession of the at4ministration fiom the party to
whom it had been decreed—the son and residuary
'legatee. This proceeding appeared to be manifestly
vexatious altogether. The Court really felt it ex-
tremely difficult to see how, consistently w ith honesty,
morality, and professional honour, a struggle (as
Coun•el had candidly called it) for administiatiya
could be carried on, by resorting to every vexat:ors
measure possible, in order to obtain that which t?-.e
patty must know he had no title whatever tu.—The
Judge finally rejected the Petition with Costs.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, NOV. co.

William Donnet came up to be examined in obe-
dience to an order of the Court, which had been
sued in consequence of an affidavit made by the as-
signee of the insolvent (who had been discharged
under the Act in June last), stating that since the in-
solvent's discharge he learned, that a few days before:
his arrest, which took place at Dover, upon his WAY
to France, in January last, he investeu 301. in t:-.0
Public Funds, in his own name and that of Charle.;
Dikzd, a young man in his employment, which re-
mained so until the day after the insolvent's dis-
' charge, when it was transferred, although no mention
was made in the insolvent's schedule of his having
any money in the Funds.
The insolvent, a native of France, who has reside,'
here for some time fitting up gas light apparatus;
stated, that the 501. in question was the sole property
of Diked, who had been in his employment for about
two years, residing in his house, and receiving wages
at the rate of 15s. a week. In the month of Sep.tem-
her last they calculated the wages due to him, and it
amounted to 501. 17s. which was then pail to hint;
and when the insolvent was going to Palk, Dik7l
prevailed upon him to accompany him to invest his
money in the Funds for security ; and the day ai.:er
his discharge Dikzd asked him to go with him to :eel
out the stock, which he did; but he positively denial
that he had any interest in the mn.ney, or had receive,:
any part of it, or anything else but a share of a pot
of beer from Dikzd.
Charles Dikzd corroborated the account giventy
the insolvent; the but on being asked by the Culla why
he demanded payment of his wages in Selitember,
when he had been so long without requning any
part of it, he replied that he was then in want of it;
and yet he swore, in answer to further questions by
the Court, that he kept it locked up in his box front
that time to the period when he invested it in tile
Funds.
The Count found it utterly impossible to place
any faith in the story told by the insolvent and
witness; and therefore ordered the former
• to be revoked, and that he should be remanded kJ
prison for nine months from that day.
_