Star.
London, England, 1817-11-29 00:00:00

LAW INTIILLICEMCB.

COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER N.

WILLIAMS V. THE CiMMIISSIONERS 01' TIE LAND-TAX.

The LAND CIiANOELLAR-.-1 think it proper to in-
timate that I have considered all the points in this
case, which are of greater importance in some re•
spects than I was at first led to believe, and 1 am
prepared to give jutigenent. I have also deliberately
considered all the cases which have been stated with
so much ability by the Counsel on both sides, and as
I think you may wish to kkow my reasons for }pd.%
the decision I have come tn. very, fully. I shall on
Tuesday enter minutely into them. I think it pro.
per to delay my judgment till then, th'ki as this is
the Last day of Term, I may afford all the time that
I possibly can to motions.
The Someroa-Genintat. said, that the Commis-
sioners had taken the opinion of the Law Officers of
thy. Crown, who had advise,' them to demur to the
bill filed by the plaintiff. b.rt he begged leave most
solemnly in their name to disclaim any wish whatever
to keep Mr. Williams out of his property, if indeed
he had any proper claim to it.
The Loin CDANCLLLett—Let the case be peremp-
torily fixel for judgment on Tuesday.

THE ATTGRNEY-bENEHAL 4. BROWN.
This else we ttrmerly repotted, and on the mo-
tion of Sir Arthur P;ggott, it was ordered to be
heard the tint day after the next Seal.

CASE OF °PPR/MAO:4.

MAR* HUG-11-13-11; MATTER 0? ItlektMOND.

Sir SAMUICI. RoMILLY stated this was an applica-
tion to commit Cobb. Wells, and others, to his Ma-
jesty's prison of the Fleet, for a gross contempt of
his L-rdship's order, and also to order them to make
such restitution to Mrs. Hughes for the injury they
had door her furr.iture, and other property, as to his
Lordship should seem reasonable. A Commission
of Bankruptcy was issued on the 2J of Match, 181.5,
against Richmond, who was the sonin-law of Mrs.
Hughes, in consequence of which her property was
seized. and she applied for protection to the Court,
when it was referred to the Commissioners. Mean-
time while this was doing. Richmond raised an me-
!ion against the petitioning creditors, when the Jury
bound that the Commission could not stand, and it
was of course nullified. A Petition was presented
atter this to the Vice-Chancellor. and Mrs. Hughes
petitioned his Lordship that the property might be re-
stored to her as the lawful owner. An order was
mad, by his Honour the Vice-Chancellor in her ab-
sence, and without her knowledge, in consequence
of which the Assignees resumed possession of the
property, though it was evident that as the verdict
of the lay had nullified the Commission, they had
no right to seize a single article; and had his Ho-
nour been informed of this verdict, there was no
doubt he would have instantly refused the order.—
kie had. however, been kept in total ignorance of it,
and had thereby made an order which he never
would hare done. She raised an action of trespass
against them, on the 91st of .Inly, 1815, but was
nonsuited, and the Assignees then mid. that they
would institute a new action against Richmond, to
try his act of Bankruptcy, but this they never
On the 18th of August, 1815, his Lordship, in con-
sequence of an application made to him, granted an
injunction to prevent the furniture being sold, but
this had not been attended to; for though Walk, the
auctioneer, had due notice of the injunction being
granted, yet he had after that swept away every
thing, and left the farm in a most desolated descrip-
tion. An aged female as Mrs. Hughes was, and
loaded with infirmities, was turned out of her bed,
and with her grand-children forced to lie on straw. I
Provisions were wasted, the crops destroyed, and
every thing which could not be carried off Nasally
broken to pieces. Never had there been a family
more the victims of oppression and tyranny than thss
had been. The goods, the implements of husban-
dry. *c. were sold conditionally by Mr. Wells, who
well knew lie was in doing so acting improperly.—
Never had he (Sir Samuel) known a cane moreag-
gtavated in every point of vie*. In MOW. Mt.
Wells said, he was the Agent of Cobb, and acted
by his instructions. If this doctrine were once allow-
ed, there would be a final end to all rule, for if
Agents were to be employed by Principals, to defeat
his Lordship's purposes and order; there was no fur-
thee occasion becoming to the Court. But the con-
trary principle was so well laid down, and so ably.
that it required no further dame-Aim from him.—
Un these grounds he prayed his Lordship to grant
his motion.

Mr. Mouvatio followed on the same aide, and
commented in very strong terms on the conduct dis-
played on this occasion.
Mr. LUCH. in defence of Mr. Wells, contended
that the application against him was not made till the
contempt of Court was alledged. The conduct of
.this Gentleman had, perhaps, not been-so prudent as
it should have been, but he acted under instructions,
and he candidly avowed bow he got those instruc-
tions. He showed the utmost fairness .by receiv-1
ing no deposits from the persons who were bidders
on the occasion.
The* Lona Cataucet.t.oa--You are charged with
breaking the house open, and using her so badly,
that she was forced to seek protection from Lady
Congreve, while the children were obliged to he
on straw.

Mr. Liacu contended that the sale had proceeded
by public auction.
Sir S. ROMILLY denied this, and said that it had
proceeded by private bargain.
' Mr. LIAMe denied that the provisions had been
wasted by the persons employed by Mr. Wells, as
they bat!, on the aontrary, been consumed by the' !s-
-howers. He saw no grounds whatever fur involving
Wells in the fomplainr.
Mr. HAIM on the part of the Assignees, comes.
des!, thm if they had done wrong, they had dune so
unintentionally. Mr. Cobb left London in August
181$, and was not to blame for what war done, as
it was without his knowledge that the order had been
,granted by his Lordship. (Mr. Hart then, at very
great length, went over the affidavits put in in the
case.). He contended Mrs. Hughes had no claim to
the property, inasmuch as she was known by the reel
name of Bowyer, and not by that of Hughes, And
'she had lived several /ears with her son in St.
Gcorge's.fields, and went there under that amt.--
The Assignees believed the property to be °ahem-
lourably hers, for when she was asked before the
Commissioners what Means she had to support' the