Star.
London, England, 1829-11-12 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 11.
meson sr. SAM
The Loan CIIANCILLOR stated that he had read the bill and an-
swer upon which the Vice-Chancellor had granted an injunction.
The order directing the injunction had been drawn up in a form
different from the manner in which the injunction had been
granted. The order was in terms that the Vice-Chancellor never
could have directed, and which the Plaintiff, who was a Solicitor,
ought to have known. Not only did his honour not make such an
order, but no application was in Court on which such an order
could have been made. An application was subsequently preferred
to the Court below for the purpose of having the order set aside,
which the Vice-Chancellor complied with, making the Plaintiff
pay the costs. The present was an appeal from the last proceed-
ing, and upon the whole of the documents on which the Vice-
Chancellor bad acted, his Lordship was of opinion that he had pro-
ceeded with perfect accuracy. The petition further prayed that a
new injunction might be directed, but the case appeared to be so
suspicious, there seemed so much appearance of fraud and trickery
throughout, that the Court could not feel justified In interfering
in the case at all at the instance of the Plaintiff. Under these
circumstances the appeal was dismissed, the costs to be costs in

the cause.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 11.
JUDGMENT—MOTLEY V. DR CLOD'S&
The VIIII•CHANCILLOR, this morning, gave judgment in this
rase, which involved questions under the will of Mr. Philip Astley,
late proprietor of the Amphitheatre. which still bears his name.
The testator bad given annuities to his nieces of £52 a year each.
and other legacies to the De Clieves, under certain contingencies.
The questions raised by the biU were—first, whether the annuities
to the nieces ceased upon the death of the son of the testator with.
out children ; next, if they did not cease, whether they took for
life only ; and the last question was, whether the gift over to the
De Clieves was void. His Honour, after going at some length
into the will, stated it as his opinion that the annuities given to the
nieces did not cease upon the event that bad happened, that they
took only life interests, and that the gifts to the Dr Clieves was
void. The testator, at the time of his death, was in poiset,ion of
certain leaseholds in Lambeth ; the interest in which his Honour
considered was taken by the persons who took iu sixteenths
under the will. The Court considered the next of kin, at the
death of the testator, entitled to the residue, by whom also the
costs must be paid.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH.—Nov. 11.
LADY GRIOLDY.
Mr. PLATY applied to the Court to enlarge the time for bringing
up Lady Gresley to be discharged under the Lords' Act. Notice
had been served on her Lady.hip that she would he brought up to-
morrow. The object in applying for enlargement of the time, was
to afford Lady Gresley an opportunity of entering into a composi-
tion with her creditors.
Mr. MOST, on the part of a detaining creditor, said his client
would not object to the enlargement, but be submitted whether,
under the provisions of the Lords' Act. the Court could accede to
the proposition. The Act required the party to be brought up
within the first six days of Term.
Lord Tionesosz intimated that additional time hod been allowed
in similar cases.
Mr. Bosse said, when Lady Gresley came into Court, any indul-
gence which the Court might think proper could be allowed.
Lord TINTIRDRN then observed, that no indulgence could be
[ granted until Lady Gresley came into Court.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
Mr. ANDREWS moved to file a criminal information against the
defendant, for the publication of an alleged libel in the Hombre don
Goortge. of which he is the publisher and proprietor. The publi-
cation imputed to the prosecutor corrupt and partial conduct in the
selection of a Jury to try a Corporation question. The motion
was made on the affidavit of Mr. Manic, the Town Clerk of Hun-
tingdon, which stated that sonic disputes had arisen with respect
to right of common belonging to the borough, In order to try the
question between the parties a cow was driven upon the land, sub-
ject to litigation. Those who opposed the commoners drove her
off to the pound, where she remained. Some violence ensued. and
several of the Corporation party were indicted. at the Sessions,
when the Bill was thrown out. It was with reference to the latter
proceeding that the libel was published. Mr. Maule, whose duty
it was to summon a Jury. was charged with partiality in his selec-
tion of Jurors. The panel was described as consisting of noto-
rious adherents of the Corporation, and persons who had a direct
interest in the quarrel. Mr. Mauls, in his affidavit, denied an In-
tention to return improrr Jurors.
The Court granted a rule to show cause.
SWAYNZ V. INGILIST, DART
This was an action brought by the indorsee of a bill against the
defendant, one of the Directors of the Potosi Mining Association,
to tecover the amount of a bill of exchange for ,E 142, drawn by
one of the miners sent to America by the Company, accepted by
their clerk, and made payable at their office. This cease was tried
at the last sittings at Guildhall, when the plaintiff was nonsuited, as
the presentment at the office of the Company could not be proved.
Mr. GUMMY now applied for a rule to chew cause why the non-
sult should not be set aside. and a new trial granted, on the ground
that the bill bad been presented at the office of the Company, and
the notary had been reterred to the office of Mr. Gregson, the de-
fendant's attorney; but on the trial the special presentment could
not be proved. He held an affidavit of this fact, made by the no-
tary who presented the bill at the office ; ;.nd under these circum-
stances he hoped the Court would grant a rule, on the payment of
the costs of the trial.—Rule granted.
11011111111 v. WOOD.
This was an action of prohibition tided at the last Assizes at
Shrewsbury, before Mr. Sergeant TATIODY. when a verdict wan re-
turned for the Defendant. The object of this action was to try
whether or not the City of Chester was from time immemorial part
of the County Palatine of Chester, and within the jurisdiction of
the Court of Great Session of the County. The Court was going
to try the right of the Plaintiff to a situation in the Corporation of
that Town, and it was therefore important to decide whether it
had jurisdiction in matters relating to the corporate affairs of the
town.
Mt. Tamen now moved for a rule to 'hew cause why the
verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial granted, on two
grounds; first, because the Learned Sergeant who tried the cause
had Improperly admitted evidence adduced by the defendant ,• and,
secondly, because he had rejected a roll of the sth and 6th of Ed-
ward 111. which be ( Mr. Taunton) contended ought to have been
received, as it was the best evidence of the document that could bo
produced..—Rule granted.
Mr. TAUNTON observed, that there was another case relating to
the jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer, which had stood over
until this case was decided ; be Wiped the Court would permit that
case to stand over again until the rule was disposed of.'
The Court assented.
a/misuse D. costar Aim omens.
Mr. Dumas applied for a rule to *bow awe why the Varna*
which was for the plaintiff, should not be set aside and s new ilia
granted. This was an action on a bill of exchange, accepted by she
defendants, and drawn by Mr. 1.. Hunt. The skips* to the
action was, that the plaintiff had obtained the bill for an suirises
i consideration. The Learned Counsel said, he moved on dos ground