Star.
London, England, 1829-11-18 00:00:00

twanged, and says that his debts will be arranpd wit his -
ditors without in the slightest degree compromg his honocreur ;
impresses upon him the necessity of complying with the wishes of
his friends, and the anxiety, on the part of Sir H. Taylor, to effect
the arrangement satisfactorily to all parties ; but he denies having
written this letter with the authority or assent of Sir H. Taylor.
He further adds, that since the deposit of the box, and in fur-
therance of the agreement, certain debts of the complainant have
been liquidated by Mr. Charles Frederiet Williams and himself,
particularly £6O to Mr. Robins, £9 15s. to Mr. Young, £316 Ss.
to Mr. Lumley, and £561 to Mr. Nixon, which payments were
made with the sanction of the complainant. He also says that the
agreement he has stated—which differs from the terms set forth in
the hill—was entered into by him as the Agent of the complainant,
and denies that it was dose without complainant's authority or
contrary .o his wishes; but that he concurred in it, and confirmed
it, and even partly complied *with it by depositing the box • and he
declares that but for the complainant having surreptitiously caused
copies of some of the papers to be made, and his having in various
places made disclosures relating to the contents of said box or some
part of its contents, and having, by himself or his agents, in some
degree and to some extent published the same, he believes that the
agreement would have been performed on the part of Sir Herbert
Taylor. He detries that the complainant did at any time revoke
the authority given to him to act as his agent. although he believes
that complainant wrote to Sir H. Taylor to that effect, and he de-
nies that be does, or ever did, threaten or intend to join Sir H.
Taylor in demanding the said box, or that het l
any receipt for
the box, as alleged in the bill to have been given to him, and
therefore that he has not refused to deliver it up, nor has ever been
required so to do. That be acted in no other right but as the
friend and agent of complainant, until some time previous to the
26th December last. when he ceased to act, in consequence of
having discovered that the complainant had violated the stipula-
tions of the agreement; and when he found it impossible, from the
complainant's conduct, to carry its stipulations into effect. He
states that he does not know it to he true, that Sir John D. Paul
intends to give up the box to whoever presents the two receipts
mentioned in the bill; nor does he know of the existence of any
other receipt than that be has alluded to That he does not believe it
to be true that Sir H. Taylor does intend to demand the box; but
be has been informed that Sir H. Taylor does intend, under the
circumstances, to prevent the complainant from regaining posses-
sion of the box and its contents. He declares that he does not be-
lieve that the documents and papers in the box are of great or any
value or importance to the complainant, or that the loss thereof
would be injurious to him. He denies all unlawful combination
and confederacy, u charged against him in the bill, and prays to
be dismissed, with his reasonable costs and charges.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF Ci—TaFfiitY, Nov. 17.

ZIL.PARTZ /It TASTAT, IN TIER MATTEL 07 •••, A BANICROPT.
Mr. Pitseaswron stated, that a Petition bad been presented in
this matter respecting directions upon the trial of an issue. The
order was made by Lord Eldon, but it was not obtained till after
the period limited for the trial to have taken place. Under these
circumstances, another Petition bad been presented, for the sub-
stitution of a renewed order, and the present application was, that
that Petition miglr be ordered to be advanced.
The LORD CHANCELLOR directed it to stand at the bead of the
bankrupt paper.
Mr. Pzantiayon had not given notice of the application.
His LORDSHIP observed, that it should stand as he had directed,
subject to any well-founded objection subsequently to be made by
the apposite party.
DUES OF ST. ALBANS V. 0110IIESS or ST. ALBANS.
This case, which was pat tly heard yesterday, came on again for
further hearing this morning. It was an appeal from a decree of
the Vice-Chancellor. The question arose out of a singularly com-
plicated point of conveyancing, in which the Solicitor-General and
Mr. Preston are opposed. The point had its origin in the peculiar
wording of a clause in the will of Lord Vere, which was made up-
wards of 50 years since. By that instrument, the testator be-
queathed all his plate to trustees for his wife during her life, and to
her sen at her death, and after the death of the survivor of them,
then to go to the person who should bear the title of Lord Vere.—
The plate was accordingly enjoyed by the widow, then by her son,
and afterwards by two Dukes of St. Albans in succession, each of
whom, it appeared, were in existence at the time of the bequest, or
within 21 years after. The question which now arose was, whe-
ther the third Duke. an infant, who died in ISIS, did not possess
that pl.te absolutely ; and whether, after his death, it did not go
to his personal representatives?
The SoLtctroa-GEwcsAL and Mr. Ronius, for the defendant,
were heard yesterday, and considerable discussion arose as to the
rulca of law respecting perpetuity. At toe sitting of the Court this

morning,
Mr. Potheavoli was heard at great length in reply.
The judgment, however, was deferred.
VICE.CH ANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 17.
atmometa--aftowes e. CLAXTON AND ANOTUIDL.
The question in this case turned upon the construction of the
will of Lady Browne, whu died so late back as 1772. By that
will she devised the greater part of her property to Sir Humphrey
Morris. who was also constituted her residuary legatee. The De-
fendant', Claxton and Bennett, are the lineal descendants of Sir
liumphrey. Shortly after Lady lirowne's decease, a bill was filed
against her executors for the purpose of recovering certain kga-
des, amounting to £lOO,OOO. In the early progress of that bill,
Sir Humphrey died, and his executors. the .present Defendants,
were by reviver made parties. The matter was referred to the
Master, before whom, however, the committee of the Plantiff, who
is a lunatic, neglected to go and put in a claim respecting the le-
gacy. Under all the circumstances of the case, the Vice.Cban-
cellor, after referring to several orders made in the case by Lord
Thurlow, said that he should he acting with great harshness to the
Defendants if he called upon them now to account for the residen-
dary property of Sir Humphrey Morris, and that he therefore dis-
missed the bill, and ordered the committeee to pay the costs.
MALL In DAVIS AND OTHIRS.
Mr. Nimmons, jun. applied to the Court for an injunction
to restrain the Defendants from transferring £6,000 three per
Cent. Consols and £l.OOO Bank Annuities, now standing in their
names. The Plaintiff was under 21 years of age, and was entitled
to the whole of the estate of his deceased father, amounting to •
considerable SUM The Defendants were the executors; the first
was a cooper, much involved, and the other a common bargeman.
After the death of the applicant's father the Defendants appeared
as having become men of property, and purchased houses to a large
extent. The parties being aware of their condition, entertained
suspidous, and on enquiry at the batik ascertained that the De-
fendants (the cooper and the bargeman) had been making free with
the property of the deceased, having sold out £5,000 stock. This
application, therefore, was to oblige the Defendants to transfer the
residue of the property, amounting to £7,000, into the Accountant-
General's name.—lnjunction granted.
In consequence of the absence of Counsel, several cases were
struck out
COURT Oof the pa perF
KING'S. and his Him
BENCH , ont rose atNov. 1 eleven
7. o'clock.
A CUSIOUSCOGNOVIT,WRIGNT N. /MILL
Mr. Attestant° moved to set aside a cognovit on the ground that
it bad been obtained by a false representation. The person who
signed the obligation bad given it on receiving information that an
action had been brought, but it turned out that 110 action bad been
commenced against him.
This was considered a very extraordinary proceeding, and the
Learned Counsel was allowed to take a rule to chew cause.
COURT OF DELEGATES, Nov. 17.
sterneirrost V. WHIM

In this ease Dr. PHILLIMORI appeared to pray the Court to allow
the defendant who was monished to bring into Court the limited
letters of administration of the unadministered effects of Thomas
Nubbert, the party in this cause, deceased, granted under the seal
of the Prerogative Court, but which had been revoked by decree
of the Court of Delegates, to have such revocation inserted in the
letters of administration. The case has reference to property of
considerable value purchased by Wm. Thompson, Esq. late Lord
Mayor of London, and Robert Farren, Esq. situate in the parish of
St. Maty Magdalen, Bermondsey. Dr. P. prayed that the caw
may come before the whole Commission.
The Cause was of opinion that the letters of admininistration,
revoked by the Court in July. which had been ordered, must be
delivered, and the Court would we its orders fulfilled.
In answer to a remark of Dr. Punt:mons, as to his being
misunderstood,
Sir H. J said the Court must not be contradicted. If
the Proctor for the parties did not undertake to bring in the letters
of administration, the party would be pronounced in contempt.
After some discussion, the Solicitor for the Defendant was pro-
nounced in contempt, hut with the understanding that the cern&
cavtt should not issue for seven days, and that the case should be
beard before the whole Commission.
VIM V. 3111110011111.

Dr. Faze applied to the Court for an order instructing the Re-
gistrar of the Arches t ours to allow him to copy his (Dr Free's)
private papers which had been delivered in under the title of Re-
ceptive Allegation. He had been asked 415 for having such co-
pies, and he thought it eltrentely bard that, after having been
drained of £1,200 in the cause, be should have to pay for copying
his own papers. It was as much as to say he should not have
justice, as the papers were important to his case. Ile hoped the
iodulgence would be granted.
Dr. Putitistoaa said the Court most proceed in this case as in
all others.
The Registrar of the Arches Court said Dr. Free bad demanded
copies. This the Doctor, however, denied,
Tile COURT could make no order on the subject, and Dr. Free
again loudly complained of the hardship.. The Court then adjourned.