Star.
London, England, 1827-08-13 00:00:00

IN RE SIN O.P. TURNER.

A Petition was pteseatrd, in this case, from the Corn-
micee of the lunatic, praying that the Petition or a
person who had been gardener to Sir G. P. Turner
might be refused, for scandal and impertinence. The-
Petition of the gardener prayed that a certain slim,
which he claimed f.r his serwices, might he paid litm
out of the fun 'tic's estate: but it also contiined impu-
ations on the cha-acter and conduct of the Committee
of the lunatic, sal iih weieaileged to be scandal. And it
entered into the n.erits of. the commission, and pra) ed
that the same might be superseded, which constituted
the impertinence comt•Lnoed of.

Mt. errit.o rat support of the gardener's
Pe:i i..n.

The Loup CHAscet.t.nrt gr 'wed the prayer of the
C nimittee's Petmon, Ansi thltnisbed that of the Bar-
d ner, with costs.
IN RE 01LLowAY, A LUNATIC.

Mr. HEALD wished to t ike the earliest opportunity of
mentioning this case to his Lordship, because it was
really one of very considerable importance. His Lord•
ship had d übtless read the affidavits which had been
til d, and he (Mr. Heald) war sure his Lordship must
have observed that they were of so conflicting a nature
as to lesve it, to say the least of it, very doubtful whe-
ther the alleged lunatic was or was riot of sound mind.
Where affidivi s were of this nature in lunacy, it had
been the practice of Lord Eon to proceed very tau•
tiously, and not to grant a commission until he was
fully satisfied of the necessity of it. In the present case,
the issuing of a commission would Ise the ruin of the
person supposed to be a lunatic, even if it should turn
out that he was of sound mind. The Learned Counsel
said he had thought it right to make these observations
upon a case, not then regularly before his Lordship,
because it did. appear to him to he one in which there
was great danger of an injustice being done if a corn-
mission were allowed to istue from the present evidence.'
The LORD CHANCIRLLOR said, he had read 111 the'
affidavits, but they were of so cobflcting a nature—!
even those of the medical men on each side—that-be
telt himself unable to come to any opinion on the sub-
ject. Upon inquiry, he found that it had been the cu•-
torn of Lord Eldon, under similar circumstances, to ap-
point physicians of his own to visit the supposed lunatic,
and, not choosing to depart from this practice of his
predecessor, which appeared to him to be so excellent,
he had directed two physicians, Dr Sutherland and Dr.
Carmichael, both Gentlemen of eminence in their pro.
fession, to visit the lunatic, and report to him upon his
concl.tion. As soon as these Gentlemen had made their
report, he sh,ruld confer with them, and then take some
steps in the matter.

Mr. Haat.° was not aware that his Lordship had
taken that course.

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Auci. 11.

EX FARCE JONES, IN THE MATTER OF CLAUGHTON.

The facts of this case were these:—Two persons,
named Neel and Horne, were concerned together in
certain merca►rtile speculations. Horne traded without
capital, and Neel accepted a bill for Wrne's accommo-
dation, amounting to 6001. In addition to this, Horne
owed Neel, on some commercial transaction, 9401.; and
by way of security for this debt, and to indemnify Neel
from all liability on account of this bill for 6001. Horne
deposited with Neel 100 cases of Burgundy, and a bill
of a pe.son named Claughton, for 1,2014 .ss. Neel
sobsequzntly became a bankrupt, and so did Claught..n;
and the que.tion was, whether this bill of 1,2041. ss.
could be proved as a debt by Neel's assignees under
Caughton s commission. The Commissioners had re-
fused to allow it to be proved.
Mr. MONTAGU, for Neel's as►i;lnee, contended that
they were entitled to prove the bill. The Commissioners,
acting under a mistake very common in country come
missions, had decided that no one could prove under
an accommodation bill.

The Vice CHANCELLOR—Is that a mistake?

Mr. M NTAGU apprehended that it was a complete
mistake. In this case, however, Mr. Neel knew nothing
about the bill being merely an acc-mmodation bill. He
knew nothing about Mr. Claughton, except that he was
a Member of Parliament, and he held the bill as a se-
curity. Mr. Ned, in his atii3avit, stated that he was
authorized and employed by his assignees to get in the
debts due to him, and that thcrefore ail books, papers,
&c. were left in his possession. He recollected perfectly
having received an authority, in writing, from Horn;
fur anybody to endorse the said bill by procuration;
but after a diligent search among Lis papers, he could
nowhere find the said authority, and he verily believed
th it it was mislaid. His Honour would rec Meet that
Ned, in his original affidavit, had stated that the bill
was not endorsed by Horne, but that Horne had given
the deponent a written authority, enabling any other,
person to endorse it.
Mr. SPENCE, on the other side, said that this else
came before the rate Vice Chancellor on a lot mer occa-
sion, and that his Honour was of opinion that this
written authority to endorse the bill ought to he pro-
duced. The case had stood over for that purpose. This
written authority might have contained, rind in all pro-
' bability it did contain, sonic conditions. Sipposing such
written le.ve to have existed—which from the acct unt
given by the bankrupt himself-of how he came by the
WI, was a m ,tter inv dyed in great doubt and swill-
eion—yet it was hardly possible to conceive than the
P• ern i,sion to endorse the bill should have been given
unconditionally. The bankrupt confe,•sei that he had
received the bill merely as a deposit, and he (Mr.
Spence) therefore submitted that ne•ither the bankrupt
nor his assignees could take any benefit from it but as
a deposit.—The bid was then produced, and
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, he was decidedly of
opinion that there could be no valid objection to its
(being proved under Claughton's commission.