Star.
London, England, 1824-07-22 00:00:00

COURT OP CHANCkRYTHIS

THE LATE DOKE 01 QUEICNSEZERff WILL:
21r. TRESLOVE this day again attended his Lordship
in 'his private room, for the purpose of inducing his
Lordship to draw up an order, so as to meet the terms
of his motion for raising certain sums of money, by the
sale of 473,0001. Three per Cents. standing in the name
of the Accountant-General to the credit of this Court.
Our Readers are aware that yesterday his Lordship re-
fused to send the whole into the market at once. to pre•
vent any injurious effect on the Funds. Mr. Treslove
having again strongly urged the necessity of paying off
the respective legacies,
The Lotto CHANCELLOR said, he would draw up an
order, in effect, that the sale of the stock in question
should take place in different lots, perhaps eight or tem,
and that the money so raised should be appropriated to
the payment of the legatees consenting.

SENDING LETTERS TO THE LORD CHANCELLOR.

His Loaasnxe, on the case of Mr. Smith, the Solicitor, who bad
been struck off the rolls, being called on, took occasion to express
his serious displeasure at the conduct of Mr. Smith, who had sent
him several letters. Mr. Smith, he observed, ought to know better,
and it must also be well known, that his Lordship had declared he
would not attend to such communications.

TOM PAINE'S BONES, THE NAVY, AND THE BAR.
HALSTED AND COLETHORP.

Mr. SHADIVELL stated the circumstances of this case.
Sir Laurence Halsted purchased from the plaintiff the
land-tax of an estate for 2901. and received the legal
title deeds. A dispute arose as to the right of paying
the expenses of the conveyance, amounting to '7l. each
party contending that he ought not to pay it. The mat-
ter was brought into Chancery. His Honour, the Vice-
Chancellor, decided that the plaintiff should pay the 71.
aad made a decree directing Sir L. Halsted to pay the
purchase money and the interest on it, accumulated
since he had received possession of the purchased pro-
perty. The gallant Admiral appealed to his Lordship,
who confirmed his Honour's decree, and ordered the
Admiral to pay the purchase money and the interest.
The Admiral left the country in the interim, having
been ordered in his Majesty's ship Isis to the West India
station. The object of the present motion was, that a
notice of the order served on the Admiral's legal agent,
might be allowed by his Lordship to stand as a valid
service on the Admiral himself. Mr. Shadwell's clients
had made, though flushed with •ictory, the fairest and
most moderate offers to the gallant Admiral. They
proposed, in the spit it of conciliation, that he should
either pay them the purchase money and subsequent in-,
terest without proceeding to further litigation, or sur-
render the purchased property back to them. He
would do neither.

The LORD CHANCELLOR.—They may as well have
asked the Admiral to surrender a seventy-four gun ship
to them without firing a single shot.
Mr. AGAR, for Admiral Halsted, contended that the
proceedings had not reached that point of consumma-
tion stated on the other side. His client had given no-
tice of a motion to discharge his Lordship's confirmatory
order on the ground of its irregularity. That motion
was not yet disposed of; the matter of litigation was
still pending ; he trusted therefore that his Lordship
would not make any conclusive order until that motion
should have been decided. As to the boasted spirit of
conciliation, the adverse party :hewed no such thing;
in fact, they were actuated through all this cause by a
spirit of decided hostility, and that arising from no com-
mon circumstance, viz. the importation of Tom Paine's
bones. The admirers of that person's politics appointed
a public procession on the occasion of his arrival. Among
the other processional ornaments, they wanted banners
and flags. Sir Laurence had won several from the enemy
in the course of his naval battles, and hung them up in
Alton church, situated near his mansion. The Painites
took the liberty of pulling them down, and carrying them
among the other funeral decorations in the procession.
In the course of their route they advanced even so far
as Sir Laurence's Lodge, who having learned the uses
to which the trophies of his hard-earned victories were
perverted, ordered them to be removed from the pro-
cession, and restored to their sacred depository. Some
of the legal advisers of the present proceedings were
friends to the memory of Paine, and of course unfriendly
to the Admiral for his conduct on the occasion of the
procession ;—from this arose the present hostility. Mr.
Agar concluded a train of ingenious reasoning by wishing
his Lordship to dismiss his motion.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the motion to dis-
charge the order was not disposed of yet. The sum of
money which was the bone of contention in this case
was not very large, but probably it would appear larger
in the eyes of an Admiral of the White, lted, or Blue,
than an Admiral of the Black (silk). His Lordship
regretted the feelings of hostility in this case ; but
Admirals would sometimes lose their good humour
towards the Bar, and sometimes with good reason.—
They did not generally hold very high opinions of the
Bar. His Lordship remembered an Admiral, and one
of high character too, who 'candidly told his Lordship,
that he did not think he could do greater service to the
country than by hanging up 200 lawyers. When his
Lordship expressed his surprise at the opinion, and asked
the gallant Admiral what were, in his estimation, the
constituents ofalawyer? he said e considered every man
who could read or write to be a lawyer. The quarrel
on the present occasion was about 71. His Lordship
thought, some time ago, that he should hear no
more of the business; but if people would quarrel
about nothing, his Lordship could not prevent it. He
remembered Lord Thurlow to have said, in Westmin-
ster Hall, that he would rather hear a dispute about a
penny than about five hundred pounds: it would be
more amusing, and less injurious. Since the parties here
'wished to come into conflict, his Lordship should hel'
them to do it, but by a judgment which one, of them
would not like.—Motion refused.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 21.
CURIOUS CASE.-YOUNG U. WHITE.

Mr. SCARLETT stated that this action was brought to
recover 4311.65. 3d. paid as purchase-money and auc-
tion duty, to the defendant, an auctioneer. A person
named John Franks, late of Dorking, Surrey, left by
will a freehold estate to his son. The son and testator
both died, and the trustees put up the property to sale.
The plantiff being desirous of bidding, attended the auc-
tion at Dorking, and became a purchaser. He paid the
defendant 4311. It then appeared that a difficulty oc•
curred in getting a conveyance. Tw•o of the trustees
had died, and the third was a lunatic. Mr. Young con-
sulted n conveyancer, and on looking at the will, they
found the Property by the beque.t was for the benefit
of children alive at the death of the testator. Three
were living, and it was stated that they might join in
making a conveyance, but a new difficulty arose. A
foerth child was born two days after the grandfather
was buried and about a week after his death. This

child Was.held to be alive at the death of the testator,l
and according to a well known decision in the House of
Lords, as well as the Statute of William, in favour of
posthumous children, was considered entitled to share
the estate. This infant could not execute a conveyance,
and the plaintiff could get no title to the property. Under
these eircurnstances he sought to recover back his diposit.
The 4ill of sale and defendant's receipt for the money were put
in and, ptoved.
The Solicitor to the Trusties under the will of Mr. John Franks
proved the order for sale, the death of two of the trustees, and
lunacy of the third. •
The Commission of Lunacy taken out in Middlesex against the
said trustee, was also given in evidence.
The will of John Franks was produced.
Mr. MARRYATT, in behalf of the defendant, took se.
veral objections. He admitted that the House of Lords
had decided that a child born in due time after the
death of the parent would take under a .will. The
10th and 11th of William 111. also gave that right to
pOsthumous children, but he did not consider the case
before the Court one to which the above decision would
apply. The will gave the property to such children as
might be living at the death of the testator, but the tes-
tator did not contemplate a child unborn. Had it been
a clear case of a posthumous child claiming an estate
after the death of the father, it would have been a dif-
fel ent question. The Learned Counsel also contended
that the venue was wrong. It ought to have been in
Surrey, where the sale took place, and the cause of
action arose.
The objections having been overruled, the Jury found
a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 4311.65. 3d.