Star.
London, England, 1810-08-14 00:00:00

~~, ; , ,

COURT OF CHANCERY, AUGUST 11.
Exports NETTLETON, in the Metier Of NETTLETON.
Sir S. ROMILLY stated this to be an application on
the part of the Lunatic, to have his commission su-
perseded or followed up. The Petitioner was taken
into custody in the month of June last, on the appli-
cation of a Mrs. Gnilyeard, his sister. After remain-
ing for a short time in prison under the warrant of a
MAgis.y.tte, he was committed to the Asylum for
Lunati, sat York, where he now remains. The com-
mission was taken out against the Petitioner on the
sth December last, but no proceeding had yet been
held under it.

Mr. RUSSELL, for the sisor, plaadcd the smallness
of the property of the Lunatic, consisting of three
cottages, of annual value £B, and about £6OO in
money, as being the cause why no steps had been
taken to follow up the Commission, the sister of the
Lunatic not wishing to burden his estate with an ex-
pence it could not support.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, however, could not allow
a commission to be held out in terrorem. It mast either
be proceeded on in a month, or be superseded.
Ex parte SCOTT, in the matter of Jultas, LANGI,EY, and

deratlon for the bill ; he gave it to *Cullum for a
I like valuable consideration ; and when the acceptor
became bankrupt, though be, the petitioner, had
lomitted to pia his name on the bill when he gave it
to *Cullum, he esteemed himself equally bound to
take the bill back, and repay the valuable considera-
tion be had received for it. In point of eqiiity there-
fore, as well as of law, was the present claim justly
entitled to be proved under the commission.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was of opinion that at the
period of the bankruptcy the petitioner was not at all
interested in the bankrupt funds. The name of the
petitioner was not on the bill, so that no respbnsibility
arising from it attached to him, nor could he have
been compelled to pay it. He might, while *Cul-
-1 lum was the holder, have obliged him to claim on
the bankrupt estate, and account to him for his relief
pi o canto ; but it he chose to place himself ia a worse
situation by paying the bill himself, the Court could
not assist him. The paying away of the bill with-
out the petitioner's own indorsement, the Court could
not regard as a negotiable transaction, but only as a
transaction of sale and purchase, by which the bill
was sold outright, and on account of which, therefore,
no demand could afterwards be set up against the
petitioner. If, however, the Learned Counsel (Mr.
Cook) wished it, he should allow a case to be re-
, served on the subject for trial at law.
Of this Mr. Conk accepted.
EX-PARTE JONES—IN THE MATTER OP JONES.
This was an application on the part of an unfor-
tunate bankrupt of the name of Richard Jones, who
had succeeded in getting the commission against him
superseded with Costs, to have the bill of his attor-
Iney, Mr. Richard Hill, taxed by Mr. Stanley, the
master to the former proceedings in the cause.
Mr. Hu.t., in a long affidavit filed by him, stated
a settlement and release to have taken place, but he,
by his Counsel at the same time, expressed his readi-
ness to have his bill taxed, and even to give up £5O
besides the sun) to which the master might reduce his
account, provided the petitioner would find security
to pay whatever sum, more than that he had agreed
to accept of, should be found due to him.—The bank-
rupt not being in a condition to find surety,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, here there could be
no question. This was a thing quite of course.
Mr. HART for the petitioner, stud, then surely his
client was entitled, an affidavit consisting of 50 odd
sheets having been filed in this case, which was stated
by his Lordship to be quite of course to have his costs.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, this should depend
on the result of the question of costs.
Sir S. ROMILLY, for Mr. Hill, suggested that the
taxation of the Bill should be sent to the Master in
rotation.
This was resisted on the part of the petitioner, on
the ground that Mr. Stanley had already taxed a great
part of these proceedings as between party and party.
His Lordship accordingly ordered the reference to
be made to Master Stanley.

IRISH COURT OF CHANCERY.
PERCEVAL ROCHE, ESQ. V. DENNIS O'BRIEN.
. _

This cause which excited so much interest, occu-
pied the attention of the Court for several days, and
after a re-hearing at the instance of the defendant, re-
ceived the final judgment of the Court.
It appeared that Jordan Roche, Esq. the plain-
tiff's grandfather, was seized of a valuable estate, in
the county of Kilkenny, for life, with remainder to
Thomas Roche, Esq. the plaintiis father.
Thomas was an extravagant man, devoted to
pleasure and excesses, and a fit subject for imposition.
The defendant claimed a relationship to him, and in
November, 1770, in the life-time of his father, pro-
cured from him a fee-farm grant of the estate at a
rent of two hundred and sixty pounds a-year, to c )m-
-mence from his father's death.

In 1805 Thomas was thrown into the Marshalsea,
where the defendant suffered him to remain until his
death, entirely under the influence of the defendant,
who out of his rent supplied him with a small weekly
allowance.

In October, 1786, Thomas died in prison, leaving
a widow and two sons, the plaintiffs, Perceval and
James, both then of tender years, and thereupon the
defendant set up an instrument which he termed the
last will and testament of Thomas, by which his two
sons were left no more than twenty guineas each per
annum, for life ; his wife (a gentlewoman of most
tespectaSle connections) unnoticed and unnamed,
and the residue of his estate and fortune given to the
defendant O'Brien. This will appeared witnessed by
defendant's Clerk, and defendant attempted toprove it
in the Court of Prerogative, where it was condemned.
In 1789, plaintiffs filed their bill, impeaching the
grant of 1770 and the will, and in the year 1792, the
plaintiff had scarcely attained his age, when he was
obliged t 6 execute a deed, purporting to confirm the
fee-tarrn grant of 1770, and to release a large arrear
of rent, upon defendant's relinquishing the preten-
ded will.

ac1,t;,.4
If ••,‘
ti
r.
3
beal.
, and
dim.
ed
khich
avint
h still
lettei
RIP ni
it.
heat,
taloa
ly at.
ipany
vbich
Tani
with
Lady
sand
itl of
and
Inty),
Sir J.
tke
ten.