Star.
London, England, 1818-07-25 00:00:00

DOMESTIC DISPUTE.

LADY PACE. TURNER V. SIR GRECORY PAGE TURNER.
Mr. HART made application to the Court, on be-
half of the plaintiff, that the Serjeant at Arms be or-
dered by the Lord Chancellor to issue his warrant
against the defendant, who had been guilty of a Con-
tempt of Court, for not answering to a bill filed by
the plaintiff, pursuant to an order made in the year
ISM It appeared that the plaintiff and defendant
were so nearly related as mother and son, and the
object of their long-pending litigation was to obtain
from the possession of the defendant a quantity cif

plate t 6 I very loge must, vAlch be 1441 Perffq.
korily refused to surrender, and. which he 011*
tabled possession of front die eircunistattee df itil
being in his father's house upon his death. A bill
had been filed by Lady Turner for the ptirpose of
having these articles delivered up, and the deiet
had put in his answer, That answer was oonsideted
to be insufficient, and exceptions were taken IV
it. Further answer was accordingly put plaintiff subsequently amended her bill, and called
for another answer, which had not yet been deli•
vexed, and it was for this neglect that he made the
present motion. When this case was before the
Court on a former occasion, further information was
desired to be given by the plaintiff. He now held ht
his hand two affidavits, the one subscribed by Lady
Page Turner herself, and the other by her solicitor,
Mr. Watkins. In his affidavit Mr. Watkins stated
the principill (Acts of the case, and it appeared that
the origin; T' was filed in 1811, and the answer
was put in in 18 as, further answer was put In on
Easter Term folio • g. Mr. Watkins then stated,
that he had applied for the delivery of the articles
unceasingly, but the defendant had constantly re,
fused to deliver them up. He ha i many times .at,
tempted to arrest the defendant, but could not eain
admittance into the house. He then proceeded to
state, that in consequence of the malady with which
the defendant became afflicted in 1814, and in cone
sequence of the embarrassed circumstances in which
he was involved, the plaintiff desisted for a time to
prosecute the suit. In 1815, the defendant having
recovered from his illness, and his affairs having
been arranged, the plaintiff renewed her application
to have the plate delivered up ; and Mr. Watkins ine
formed him, that-unless the application was come
plied with, the present suit would be commenced;
Lady Turner in her affidavit repeated the assertion
of her Solicitor, and added that she had never ens
tered into any compromise with her son respecting-
the articles. These affidavits he thought completely
accounted for the delay which had taken place in
the prosecution ; and the defendant having neglected
to put in his answer, the plaintiff had only this re-:
source of compelling it by the warrant of the Ser..
,jeant at Arms being executed against him. He
was desired to state, on the part. of Lady Tuner,
that if the defendant required time to put in his an-
swer, she would be ready to allow as much time as
the Court in its judgment thought proper to give him.
Mr. BELL appeared on behalf of the defendant, .
and observed that Mr. Hart had not stated all the
facts of the case. He was proceeding to enter into
particulars, when
The LORD CIIA NCEL LO II asked, what time was rem
quircd by the defendant to put in his answer ?
Mr. BELL replied that a month would be sufficient.
M. Mae consented that that time should he al.
lowed ; and the Court ordered, that the execution of
the warrant of the Serjeant at Arms should be sus-
railed for a month ; and if, aftei the expiration of
that time, the answer was not filed, that then the
wairant should be issued against the defendant.