Star.
London, England, 1827-11-06 00:00:00

MILLER E. ELKINS.

His LORDSHIP stated, that in this case Mr. Miller
was the tenant for life of% house in Thornhaugh•street ;
Mr. Miller was appointed a receiver of it. Several
distresses were put into she house for the purpose of
recovering the rent, or turriiag out the tenant in posses-
sion, by which a great dell of 4spense was incurred;
one of the proceedings was removed into the Court of
King's Bench. Mrs. Miller gave notice that she would
have nothing to eto with those proceedings, and now
the receiver applied to be allowed to deduct these costs
out of the rents and profits due to Mrs. Miller.
The Count was of opinion that the •receiver had no
right to demand such costs, and therefore dismissed the
petition.

AETORNST GENERAL V. GER.
This was an information filed by the Attorney Ge•
neral, at the rela ion of the trustees of a charity in Essex,
described in the pleadings, for the purpose of having
that charity put under the management of the Court.
A decree pronounced declared that the property had
been misap; lied, through a misapprehension of the Vi.
cAr, and re'erred the matter to the Master, to approve
of a scheme for the future management of the charity;
the Master made his report, and at present it stood for
judgment upon exceptions to that report.
His Lordship's opinion upon all those exceptions was,
that the Master had judged wisely and properly, and
that the exceptions ought to be overruled.

BROWN V. Dl TAITIT.
In this cause an order had beet made by Lord EL.
DON, on the •ery day of his Lordship's retirement Irons
office, that the defendant should pay into Court, in the
month of July Last, a sum of 18,0001. to leek the ter
mination of the suit.

Mr. Hoene, on the part of the plaintiff, moved, on
S iturday last, that this order should be confirmed, and
that his Lordship would appoint an early day for the
payment of the money into Court.
Mr. HEALD now opposed the motion, alleging, that
without discussing whether or not Lord Eldon had
been, in fact, L,lrd Chancellor at the moment when his
Lot dthip made the order, that that order ought to be
rescii.ded, as no Counsel, Solicitor, or other person
concerned in, or possessing any knowledge of the case,
would venture to say ttr Lord Eldon had any right to
make the order in question.
The Lonu CHANCELLOR complained of the difficulry
of acceding to the motion of Mr. Heald, which would
go virtually to a reversal of a decree of Lord Eldon,
who had before him all the materials on which to form
a judgment, and who had, in fact, prOirounced one,
while he (the Lord Chancellor) was comparatively un-
acquainted with the merits of the cause, and, of course,
of the grounds of Lord Eldon's decision.
Mr. HEALD professed the most profound respect for
Lord Eldon and his judgments in general; but, never-
theless, felt bound to urge his motion, convinced as Ise
was that that Noble and Learned person had no right
to make the order. The Learned Gentleman then pro-
ceeded to urge the Court to grant the defendant time
to present a Petition, on the hearing of which the
grounds of Lord Eldon's judgment might be fully dis.
cussed.

The LORD CHANCRLLOR would have felt no objection
to grant the time required, if the defendant had not
had full and frequent opportunity previously to apply
fur it; but the contray being the fact, he felt bound to
refuse the application of the Learned Counsel, and ul-
timately ordered that the money should be brought into
Court by the last day of the ensuing term.

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Novntaca S.
WELLESLEY D. THE DUKE OF BEAUFORT.

Three petitions were presented in this case. When
they were called on,
--

Mr. BEAMES, on the part of Mr. Wellesley, objected
to their beMg gone into, on the ground that Mr. Wel-
lesley had nut been served with them, as he ought to
have been, according to an understanding when this
cause was last before the late Lord Chancellor, Eldon.

Mr. Paris for the petitioner stated, that Mr. Welles-
ley had been served with one of the petitions, which was
the only one necessary for him to be served with. That
petition merely prayed a reference t.) the master to
ascertain whether the infant plaintiff was entitled to cer-
tain part of the property in queAion as Tenant in Tail:
The VIC& CHAtimictost-iTate the order as prayed
upon, producing an affidavit of service. . _

..
. - .
The next petition was then c ailed on. It prayed at
reference to the Master as to certain repairs. . •
Mr. IlitAmes—Mr. Wellesley has certainly not been
served with this petition.
Mr. Paeys—No ; nor is it necessary or proper thas, be
should be.

The Vice CHANCELLOR—Is Mr. Wellesley a pasty in
the cause ? .

Mr. BEAMICS.--• He is not; but Lord Eldon intimate%)
an opinion that he ought to be served with every Peti-
tion Affecting the interests of his children, the infent
plaintiffs; and if his Lordship's suggestion is not com-
plied with, we must apply for an order that he may in
Inure be served with every petition presented in the
cause affecting the parties for whom he is interested.
The VICE•CHAPICILLOR•4I does not appear to ste
that the order to be made upon this petition can Wad
any one. It will be merely a reference to the Master
to see what is best to be done. If, however, any order
has been made for Mr. Wellesley to be served with every
petition presented in the cause, he must, of course, be
served with this.

Mr. BRAWLS said there had been no order made.

The Vics-CHANcria.oa,-- ; then it appears
to me that this application is a proper one.
The next petition prayed, that proceedings might be
instituted for the purpose of preserving certain evidence
in the cause.

The VICE CUANCELLOIt said, there could certainly be
no pretence for serving Mr. Wellesley with this petit' n.

NM