Star.
London, England, 1817-05-12 00:00:00

LADY HEItItERT 'v. LORD ITEIIDERT.

The Proctor for Lady Herbert stated, that a c;tn-
tiun having been ordered by the Court against Lori
Herbert, in a snit of nullity of marriage, he (the Proc-
tor) had served notice of the Same on the Nobk Lord's
Solicitor. Helsad also posted the notice on his Lord-
ship's house and the church-door ; and as no appear-
arsce was mad:, be prayed the Court to pronounce
Lerd Herbert contumacious, in order that the suit
migllt proceed.
_ _

Sir \*. SCOTT postponed his decision on the appli-
eaticr..

IV: WOWS COURT, GUILDHALL.

THE LORD NIAYOR, ALDERMLN, AND COHMON3 OF THE

CITY OF LONDON V. ABti'►.
116 seas a case of purchase and compensation,
arising under an Act of Parliament, passed in the
35th year of his present Maje.ty, entitled, ,4 An I! ct
for enlarging and improving the West end of Cheap-
side, in the City of London, also St. Martin's-le-
(=rand, Aliersgate-street, St. Anne's•lane, and Pos-
te, lane, and for providing a site for a new Post-Ot-
fice between St. Martin'►•le•Grand and Foster•lane,"
&c. The defendant, who was As, claimant in th;s
case, is the proprietor of twenty-two houses in St.
Martin's-le•Grand. An offer has been made to him
by the Commissioners of the Post-Office, for these ,
houses, which were divided into lots, and which stood!
upon the appointed site of the new Post•O(Tice. The
remuneration proposed, upon the part of the city,
was a€3,5'00; Mr. Abutl demanded X 10,660. There
is a clause in the Act which authorises the Sheriff, in
case of refusal upon the part of the claimant, to treat
or agree upon the subject of resigning the required
premises, for a just recompcoce, to einpannel and re.
turn a Jury with power to view :he premises, and to
assess and give a verdict for mel► sum as shall appear
to them adeqbate compensation.
Counsel were heard on both sides.

The Rec./mom, who presided, did not snm lip the
case, neither did he make any observation upon it,
but that the Jury understood it better than he did,
and therefore would proceed to consider their verdict.
The Jury retired, and in about fifteen minutes, re-
turned a verdict for the claimant—A9,s2l.
couaT OF EXCHEQUER, MAY io.

THX ICING IN AID OF SIR C. PUICS AND CO. st. BARKER,

Mr. DAUNCEY sheaved cause against a rule ob-
tained in the last Term, calling upon the Crcwn to
thew cause why an extent issued against the defen-
dant in this case, for €750, should not be set aside.

The Learned Counsel stated that thii rule had been
obtained upon two affidavits, the first of which was,:
that of Mrs Smith. This affidavit stated, that in the
month of September last theAdeponent was in copart-
nership with his mouser at Stockton, in the business
of bankers, and their correspondeete in Londe n were
Sir Charles Price and Co:_nt Mansion-house-street.
That on the IGth of the said month in consequence
el emote diffieulties into which deponent and his mo-
ther were thrown, Sir Wm. Kay and the younger Mt.
Price, partners in thelionse of Sir Chas. Price and Co.
came down to Stockton, and entered into an investiga-
tion of their concerns, when it turned out that they were
indebted to the firm in Landon, in the sum of 418,000,
and to persons at Stockton, in the sum of ar7,500.
ThAt in consequence of the candour with which the
statement of their affairs was made, Sir W. Kay
agreed to take money and .securities to the amount
of aCtto,9oo in part of their debt, allowing six months
for the payment of the remainder, and permitting
the deponent to retain in his hands re 7,500 for the
payment of Stockton creditors, among whom was
the present defendant, and who having been paid his
debt of ,C 750- led to the issuing of the extent to re-
cover it back. The affidavit then went on to state,
that the opponent having suggested the advantage of
lobtaining an extent in aid against Messrs. J. Thomein
and Son, of Newcastle, who were considerably his
dehtors, to Mr. R. Price, that °endorsers declAred that
his father always avoided entering jail:thy bonds with
Crevernment, and consequently had no means of Ap-
plying lor Au extent. Such was the substance of heir.
Smith's atli !Alit, and the emotion for setting aside the
meet against Mr. 11 irker was finitiJed upon two
grounds—first, the supposed breach of the agreeternt
entered into by Sir W. Kay : and next, that as Mr. It.
Price had declared that his lather had not the means
of issuing an extent on the 16tIs September, be necessa-
rily must have obtained such means sulesequent to that
day, and with a view to defraud the other creditors.
The second affidavit was from Mr. Sanderson, an
Attorney, who stated, that on the 17th of September
he called at the 11Aisking-t,ouse of Sic C. Price and.
Ca. and on asking Sir Charles Price whether an es,.
tent could not be obtained against Thompson and
Son ? he was informed by the said Sir Ca Price, that
it was not int/self ;weer to procure an extent, because
they had not any money transactions, directly or in-
directly, with Government.
In reply to these affidavits, Mr. DAUNCEY now
produced the affidavits of Sir C. Price, Sir W. Kay,
Mr. Coleman, and Mr. R. Price ; from wlwnce it
appeared, that in consequence of the increasing ern-
leurassineins of Smith and Co. it became necessary
to send down to examine into their affairs; that Su
W. Kay and Mr. R. Price accordingly went down,
and upon an investigation of Mr. Smith's accounts,
who in the first instance told them that he would
make it appear that Ise letsl sufficient assets to pay all
Iris debts, and to leave a considerable balance be-
hind, it was found that he was greatly minus. In
consequence of the fairness of his explanation,
however, it was agreed that they should accept
the motley and securities tendered them by him,
and leave in his hands, in order to support his credit,
rfe7soo. It was utterly denied, however, that there
WAS any idea of leaving the above-mentioned sum 131
the liquidation of his other debts, and Sir C. Price de-
clared, that he was utterly unaware that he was in a
situation to apply for an extent until lie bad subse-
quently consulted Coutisel. He also dolled that he
had evkr told Mr. laAndt.reon that he hid no money

ttansacdobs deny kind. directly of ind;rectly, with
the Government ; because he was in the constant ha•
bit of receivinilarge sums on the account of Govern•
merit, and had been so for a iong time previous to
the 16th of September. It was in consequerce of •

Counsel's opinion alone that he applied 1-i.e an ex-
tent against Smith and Co. Mr. Daiincey, in sup-
port of this ME aJdressed the Court at _some
length, contending fnr the improba!liiiiy of Sir V/.
Kay entering into an agreement, on the part of
his firm,. to pay Smith and Cl.'s dehtc in foll, but

that of his Own lionse, which was so eitc,•mons
The thing was selkevi Je:itly improbable and wi.h
regard to issuing the extent, it was cle.rr t.;,at the ohr
servations both of Sir C. Price and Mr. R. Price were
founded upon their ignorance of the power which, -/s
receivers for the Crown, they possessed. Uneser
t'..e circumstances, he submitt:l! that t'te rule tor se -
titir aside the extent should be discharged.
IttettanDsota and Mr. TYNrALL replied to
Dauncey, and rupported the rule, conteorling,
from the ackuouledgment on the p rt of Sir C. Prise
and his son, (Ida they bad no power to apply for att
extent in aid, it might fairly be inferred um posers
did not exist until atter the Ifith of September, alien
the agreement with Smith and Co. 114.1 been matl/41.
The CO.J3T desired that the matter nrigl,t st sod
over until a stTplemental aVarit WAS lrr ,d..ICLY. on
the part of Sir C. Price and Co. st lung, that these
was a subsisting debt, due by them t,4 the Crown.an-
tecedent to the date of the first craiversation on th*
sake( of an er.ent With Mr. It. Price.