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

. . _ .
1 .
died i 1 N'orieict) Abts,:latf altAlabid'Utitt made!
mission..and inquisition of -htnacy bad been in the 10-1
natic's father's life-time, and that the lunatic was re• .on the partof the executor, bat there were bona. no- 1
ocinized then as next of kin to his father. ' •
nter
g I tobilia suitcteni in tooth., cltfteles,".nini efediti'withht
the province of Caturi, to fistind 'the jUritd* tion
. -The Loan CHANCELLOR said, that was evidence of
reputation. , .
.1 of this Coutt. In the: meantime the ettentinu had
; been subjected to varitini expenses consequent on the
Mr. Serjeant BOSANQurr admitted that it was, and
i caveat of the inferior Court. Tht I.eartted Counsel'
had been so argued on at the trial; fOr thEcommission
' submitted that the A'rclideacon onfOrtvlch.onght to
and inquisition had been produced, and therefore the
be condemned in the Costs of all the proceedints con-
affidavn of grelin Cotton could be of no use. The 1
sequent on the eitirj, of the caveat, which he had since

expressed his w !review° withdraw.
Dr. LUSHINGTON, who was instructed to appear
on behalf of the Archdeacon, trusted 'that the Court
mould not make such i'dectee, when it considirtd.
the difficulty whicitthe lades of infetiOtlitrisdictibtis'
experienced in discriminating, in cases like the pre=
sent, between those which were within their own cog-
nizance legally, and those whiCii' appettaihed to
higher Courts.
Dr. JESNER contended, that if every country juris-
diction was permitted with impunity to obstruct, byi
the entry of caveats, probates from passing the seal
of this Court, upon frivolous or erroneous pretences,
the vexations and charges which would accrue to ex-
ecutors .s:vould be enormous.
Sir JoHN Nicnot.s. said, that he should not take
up the matter with any regard to the question of ex-
penses incurred by reason of the Archdeacon's assum-
ing that his Court had jurisdiction. All that the
executor had to do in that case was, to appear and
make affidavit that there were bona omtabilia in this
province. . The great ground of objection was, that
the At chdeacon had entered his caveat in this Court.
If this were passed over, every administration might
be liable to be obstructed by the inferior jurisdictions
from passing the seal of the superior Court. Lest
such a case should grow into a precedent, the Court
felt itself bound to decree the expenses as against the
Archdeacon of Norwich.
BROWNE AGAINST gOATES.
The facts-of this case, and out of which the pre-
sent application arises, are briefly these:—Some time
since, a Mr. Browne, of Hereford, died, leaving be-
hind him a will, in which his son, Mr. F. H. Browne,
party in this cause, was nominated residuary legatee.
The will being in the possession of Mr. Coates, an
attorney of Hereford, a suit was commenced in this
Court by Mr. F. H. Browne's suing for a monition,
calling on Mr. Coates to bring the will into the Re-
gistry. The will being brought in (and the surviving
executor having renounced), Mr. Coates applied for
the administration, with the will annexed, as a cre-
ditor of the deceased. On behalf of Mr. Browne, it
was proved, that besides being residuary legatee, he
was also a creditor of bis late father both by specialty
and on bond ; and this Court decreed admiuistration
to be granted to him, with costs, as against Mr.
Coates. Those costs not having been paid, applica-
tion has• been made for a new monition against Mr.
Castes, On the ground of their non-payment.
Dr. J. ADAMS stated, that in this case the Conn, in
the exercise of its jurisdiction, had thought fit to con-
demn Mr. Coates in costs. He was very far from
complaining of that determination ; but in the act on
petition which had been brought in, the Court would
find, that subsequently to irs decree, Mr. Browne had
entered into a deed of covenant with Mr. Coates, by
which he specifically engaged not to go for his costs;
to hold Mr. Coates harmless from all claim of the
cost on his own part, under a penalty of £5OO. Now,
though the law, therefore, in this case might be
against Mr. Coates, yet the equity was with him ; and
by the present application the Court was prayed, not
certainly to condemn Browne in costs, but not to
'pronounce (since Browne, notwithstanding the deed,
had chosen to go for them) that Mr. Coates was in
contempt for not paying his costs.
Dr. LUSHINGTON protested that, as far as he knew,
the present application was without any precedent
whatever. Here, on the one hand, was Mr. Coates,
a solicitor, and alleging himself to be a creditor of
the deceased ; on the other, Mr. Browne, the son of
the deceased, the residuary legatee, and a creditor
also both by specialty and in bond. The Court had
already decided, as the known law on the subject
must have induced it to do, that Mr. Browne had
the preferable claim to-take the administration. The
deceased died in February, 18'20; and, for some
reason or other, best known to Mr. Coates, Browne
never got possession of the will till September follow.
ing. This Court issued a monition for its produc-
tion ; but Mr. Coates, instead of giving it up, took
out a new monition in the Court of Hereford. On
the 18th of July, 1821, however, this Court made a
decree that there were bona notabilia within the pro-
vince, and for payment of costs. An appeal to the
Delegates was entered from this Court, in January,
18'22 (and the Learned Counsel implored the Court to
watch these transactions narrowly, as proving the
most fraudulent conduct on Mr. Coates's part, in re-
spect of the deed); a deed of agreement, drawn up
as between these parties, and prepared in Coates s
office by his own clerk, was executed by Mr. Browne,
he being a farmerohe other a solicitor. In Feb. 1522
Browne appeared before the Delegates to the cita-
tion and inhibition; the appeal was dismissed, and the
Delegates were on the point of decreeing costs, when
they were stayed by an intimation that an act on pe-
tition in this Court had been agreed to, andvras now
pending in this Court. But supposing for a moment
that the Court could by possibility pronounce on a
deed of covenant like the one produced, in order to
prove the compromise, could the Court for one mo-
ment be deceived by so palpably frauduletti a compact?
Advantage had been taken of Mr. Browne's ignorance,
in a way the most disgraceful to • the chat acter of a
professional man; and he (Dr. Lushington) seeing,
how this act had been written and re-written to, and
how vexatious had been the proceedings of the other
side, must express his wonder that any practitioner
in the Commons could consent to give his support,
ov, countenance, or sanction, to a case that he must,
know to be unjust, and to statements that he must be
aware were nut founded ie. strictness or truth. This,
deed began by a recital that was false as-to the ante.,
rior proceedings in this Court, and it purported to
be between, on the one part, Mr. Coates, and on the
other, Mr. Browne, and two sureties in the penalty
of £500; the latter engaging, without even the men-
tion of a single good or valuable considerition as
pais" to himself, to give up, in fact, his claim on
Coates for the costs. Mr. Browne now alleged that
this deed was obtained ft orn him ou alsesuggestions ;
and, in fact, who ivould deny that there was. fraud
on the face of it ? But the Court, he must well know,
could have nothing to do with such a doed. IL. it

real estates must have come `by a deed of settlement
to the Rev. E. R. Cotton, so that no escheat of real
property could take place. The head and front of
Mr. Ward's offending was, that he had not informed
against his.mother and his aubts.
The LORD CII'OItELLOR, at the rising of the Court,
intimated that he world heat Motions to-morrow,
and could not' ow flit a day for the further hearing
of this cause.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, NOVEMBER 20.
MOONS V. BERNALES.
Mr. KNIGHT, for the plaintiff, stated that this was'
a bill filed against the defendant for the production
ler accounts. The following facts were stated Vy the
Learned Gentleman:—ln the year 1793, Servals
Kaison, a woollen manufacturer at Verviers, in the
territory of Liege, in Fhinders, established a corres-
pondence in trade with Saturnino Domine, a Spanish
merchant at Seville, relative to the shipment of
Spanish Wool to the former country. On the 13th of
September, Saturnino Domine shipped 35 bales of
wool on board of a Genoese vessel called the Caul)°,
lican, then at Cadiz, bound for Ostend, in order that
it (the wool) might be consigned to his correspondent
Kaison. Saturnino Domine immediately wrote to
Kaison to inform him of the shipment. and Kaison,
upon the receipt of the letter, sent back the price of
the rods. In consequence of the Genoese Govern-
ment being at that time at war with the Algerine,,
the vessel was detained at Cadiz until the month of
February, 1794, when, in order to avoid molestation,
it sailed under the Spanish instead of the Genoese
sag. The vessel was compelled to put into Corunna
for repairs, after which she again set sail for Ostend ;,
but on her voyage, she received information that that
place was in possession of Ole French ; in conse-
quence of which she put into the harbour of Cowes,
in the Isle of Wight, on the 21st of July, 1794, in
great distress. Information of the arrival of the ship
at Cowes was sent to the owners of the ship and her
cargo, and they empowered Messrs.lves, Echalay,
and Basely. merchants of London, and Jose Cayetano
de 13ernales, the defendant, also a merchant of Lon-
don, to proceed as they should think proper with respect
to the ship and her cargo. Disputes arose between
Messrs. Ives and Co. and the defendant, and the de-
fendant of his own accord, and without the consent
of Messrs. Ives and Co. caused the ship to be sold,
the cargo having been previously landed, and re-
ceived the proceeds of the sale. The defenda.nt af-
terwards, that is, in March, 1796, acting as agent for
the owners of the cargo, caused it to be sold by pub-
lic auction at Garraway's Coffee-house, and received
the profits of the sale, which were to a very large
amount, which he has ever since retained in his pos-
session. In consequence of the war, and his con-
, tinned residence in Flanders, Servais Kaison had not•
the means of compelling the defendant to account
for so much of the cargo as belonged to him. Kaison
died intestate at Verviers, in 1818, and the plaintiff,,,
Francois Moons, as his legal personal representative,
called upon the defendant to account for the sale of
the cargo of the ship. Not having been able to pre.,
wail upon the defendant to do this, he had filed the'
present bill, which prayed that the defendant might
be directed to account to the plaintiff for the pro-
ceeds of the sale of the wool which belonged to Ser-
vais Kaison, principal and interest. -
Mr. Bell, for the defendant, stated that his client
demurred to the bill on three grounds-Ist, that he
(the defendant) was a mere wrung-doer, and could
not be considered as having acted as an agent in what
he had done with respect to the ship and her cargo ;
2d, that the plaintiff was not entitled to assert his
claim now, alter it had been allowed to lie dormant
during a period of 25 years ; 3d, that there was a
want of parties in the suit. .
The VICE-CHANCELLOR over-ruled the demurrer,
and ordered the account to be taken.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER to.
The COURT were engaged till nearly one o'clock
in hearing Mr. ROBINSON and Mr. MARRYAT on the,
motion for a new trial in the tithe cause of Batt v.
Wiseman. Before one, the LORD CHIEF JUSTICR,
left the Court to sit at Guildhall, and the other Judges
took only ordinary motions, and shortly rose.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOVEMBER 20.
POST-HORSE DUTY.--DOWSE V. GA rt BATT.
The COURT was occupied for some time this morn-
ing in hearing the arguments of Counsel in this,
which was a special case. The point to be deter-
mined was, whether a pair of leaders, put in addi-
tion to the usual number of horses, to assist in draw-
ing a stage coach up a bill, rendered the coachmas-
ter liable to the duty as for post-horses, under the
previsions of the Post-horse Duty Act?
Mr. Serjeant LENS maintained the affirmative of
the question.
Mr. Serjeant LAWES supported the negative.
The COURT deferred its judgment to a future day.
The COURT rose at a quarter past two o'clock.
PREROGATIVE COURT, NOVEMBER 20.
LAURENCE, ATTORNEY OP THOMAS, AGAINST MAUND
AND ANOTHER.
Dr: LUSHINGTON begged to announce to the Court,
that the parties in whose hands certain papers had
mnained at the last hearing of the cause, and which
papers the Court had then declared to be necessary
as exhibits, had, upon the Court's wishes being inti-
mated to them, consented to' deliver them up, in or-
d'r to be annexed to the proceedings as exhibits.
The Learned Counsel felt it necessary to bring this
matter under the notice of the Court, in order that
the allegation might be altered accordingly before
the Court rose.
The Court permitted the annexation of these papers.
CHASE AGAINST YOUNG.
Dr. .fetoran stated that the Archdeacon of Nor-
wich was now ready to withdraw the caveat that be
had entered against the probate of this Court passing
to the will of a party deceased within the City of
Norwich. The Court would recollect that the Arch-
deacon, conceiving that the granting probate in this
case was a Matter within his own jutisdiction, had
entered the cavoat in question. The groubd of• this
proceeding was, that the deceased had resided and

47