Star.
London, England, 1824-11-26 00:00:00

LAW REPORT.

+_.

COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER 25.
FEM I..LE ADVOCATE.
At the sittings of rho Court, a Lady handed up a let-
ter, or wt it ten paper, to the Lot d Chancellor, who read
it
over, and then asked her if she had prepared it herself?
The Lady answered Yes."
The Lotto CHANCELLOR said he was glad of it, be-
cause he knew that there were many persons sufficiently
aware of the practice of the Court to he mischievous,
who prepared papers which wete handed to the Court
by suitots which could have no effect, or if any, only
those of vexation and trouble. He was convinced, that,
:,song the many honourable men practising at the bar,'
tht. Lady would have nn difficulty in getting one of
111,,nr to take her papers and bring her case regularly
before the Court, even If she were incapable of remu-
nerating them.
mr. SVGDEN, in corroboration of his Lordship's assertion, cheer-
fully undertook to manage her affairs, as any of his Learned Friends
about hint would gladly do, without any.desire fur remuneration.
BLAKRMORE V. GLASIORCANSHIRE CANAL.
Mr. HEALD tesumed his argument for committing
the tnitnag. ers to the Fleet for contempt of Court and
breach of an injunction issued against Ahem in August
last, to prevent their widening and deepening the bed of
the canal, to the detriment of the plaintiffs property.
The answer was, that the defendants had only height-I
cued the bank, and not deepened the water, and that
the effect of their work was only to cleanse the basin.
He examined the conflicting affidavits on this point,
and contended that they had, in the most flagrant and
contemptsous manna, violated the express order of the
Court, which offence was Int titer aggravated by their
previous failure in endeavouring to obtain the sanction
of an Act of l'atliament. He noticed the mischievou,
consequences of a provision in a recent general Act of
Parliament, whi,:h enacted, that AS SOMI as the profits of
a canal should exceed a dividend of 8i per cent. that the
duties should be lowered. 'fire effect of this was, that
no sooner did the profits reach a statutable rate, than
the canal companies set themselves to woik to squander
away money, so as to avoid a surplus, of which they
wete not allowed to make any use, inflicting the most
unwarrantable injuries on persons whose property lay
in cr mexion with their own.
51.. IiALT and Mr. PltrYS, Mr. HORNIC and Mr. WAKEFIELD,
and &Ir. SHADWKLL and Mr. Scourger, were heard so behalf of the
several defendants.—Further hearing postponed.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, NOVEMBER 25.
WILLIAM V. GOODCIIILD.
This came, with which the Court was occupied yes-,
terday and this day, remains still for further argument.
It possesses little public interest, and turns upon the
construction of certain grants enacted in the time of
Henry the Eighth, of lands in the parish cf Hendon.
The plaintiff, who claims to be entitled to the tithes of
the parish of Ilendon, filed his bill in full payment
from the defendant, who is a landholder in the same
parish. The voluminous evidence was in part gone
through to-dav, and the cause adjourned for a further
argument on Saturday.

coma OF EXCHEQUER, NOV. 25.
THE KING V. MARSH, STRACEY, AND CO.
Mr. JERVIS moved for a rule to shew cause why all
matters of difference connected with an extent in aid
for 686/. which had issued against the defendants,
should not be referred to the Remembrancer, to deter-
mine what sums were due from the bankrupts estate.
The extent had issued on the 15th of Septembet,i
to obtain the sum in .question, being the produce oil
t.ixes which had been lodged in the bankrupts hands.
Arplication had been made to the solicitor under the
coininission, and, in consequence of no information.
being given, the prevent rule was mmed tor, which it
was hoped their Lords'lips would not refuse, the object
being to prevent any extraordiaat y expense to the bank-
/yrs estate.
Mr. Justice GRAHAM—Tau may take a rule, but it must be to
show cause.

THE KING V. COOKE.
Mr. TYNDALL moved for a rule to strew cause why a
sum of 5001. levied on the defendant's goods, in conse-
quence of an outlawry which had issued against him
on a wt it of s'endilioni expoimg, should not be placed
out at interest for the benefit of a person named Itayer,
the applicant in the cause. The defendant was an un-
- cei idicated bankrupt, and the applicant a cie.!itor untier
the commission. It sas by means of the applicant that
the wi iz of venditioni expvnas was obtained, but julst as
it was about to be executed, it was found that a sink of
fir? i ihtias had been dii ected to the Shet iff of the county
of bcvon, and property was seized by him to the
amoonc.of 5001. The outlawry took place in October,
and, the writ oijierifacius had been sent down in No-
-Itemiser. The question therefore was, whether a credi-
tor claiming under proceedings on. the part of the Cr own,
by which properly had been vested in the Crown, had not
a prefeiabl. claim to persons founding their right on an
interim audios ity tuhsequently obtained?—Rule grained.

NEIL T. SM I TH.
Mr. NowroN moved for a liule to spew cause why
the defendant and his wife should not be obliged to
come into the Charter-house, in the Manor of Kenning-
ton, that being the usual lilac:: for holding the Court
Baron, and there surrender a c•vhold, of which he
was then seised. Some dispute had arisen on a former
occasion as to the amount of the customary rent due
from the defendant to the Lot d of the Manor on the
above copyhold, and therefore a reference had hoen'
nu-le to the Master to MTH e into the circum-
stances of the case. He reported a sum of (263/. to be
half the annual rent, and accordingly all order was
made for the payment of that sum into the hands of
the proper officer, being then due. This had not been
done, and the estate being therefore forfeited, the ob-
ject of the present was to oblige the defend-
ant to appear at the Manor Court, and surrender the
estate into the hands of the Lord's Steward.—The
Rule granted.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER 25.
Mr. ScA itLErr slimed cause agair4 a rule calling
on Mr. (item to shew came why :t writ of gnu warrant°
should not issue, calling on Inns to slit's,• by
what
aut!iority he claims to be a capital bow gess of
the bu-
- rough of East Lon. That borough is goveined by the
charter of Queen Elizabeth, and there are to be but nine
capital burgesses. It was said at the time Mr. Green
was elected, there were eleven capital buigesses. It was
also said, that a statute of James the Second allowed
twelve burgesses, bitt the parties who moved for the
guo warrant° said, the charter of James was bad, and,
that the bornuOr was to be tegulated by the chatter of
Elizabeth, which had never been legally WI 'yodeled to
the Crowr. Another objection arose upon the form of
election. Nine persons were fir Mr. Green, and two
against him. It was alleged that eight of the votes