Star.
London, England, 1828-01-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OP CHANCERY, JAL 16.
IN THE MATTER OP CLARK, A PR/SOWER. •
Mr. ROUPELL applied to the Lord Chancellor-for a
writ of Habeas Corpus, directed to the Warden of the
Fleet. commanding him to bring op the body of Mr.
Clack, who was in his custody for a contempt of this
Court, in not paying a sum of money pursuant to an
order which had been made upon him. The object of
the application was, that Mr. Clark might be. present
at the hearing cf. a cause in which he was a party, in
the Court of Delegates. .Mr.-Roupell stated, that a
motion had been made before the Vice Chancellor for
an order to the same effect, and that motion, after long
discussion. had been dismissed with costs The present
application was thetefore somewhat in the nature of an
appeal from the Vice• Chancellor's decision. He then
stated the case, which arose under the will of a Mr.
Stott, an empiiical practitioner of medicine, in Hart-
street, Bloomsbury, the particulars of which have been
often before the public. The prisoner and his brother
being the residuary legatees of Mr. Stott, had been
ordered by the Court to pay a sum of money amount-
ing to .5,0001. in a suit preferred by the testator's
'daughter; the brother had gone abroad, and both of
them had neglected to do so. A suit was instituted also
in the Ecclesiastical Court,, and upon the decision of
that Court an appeal was now pending before the
Court of Delegates. For the purpose of being present
at the hearing of that appeal the present application
'was made. He was too poor to comply with the order
of the Court, and might relieve himself from the order
of the Court by means of the Insolvent Debtors' Act.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said Mr. Clark had been
ordered also to transfer some stock, which he had not
done; and that if he resorted to the Insolvency Act, he
most give up all the property.
Mr. ROUPELL submitted, that notwithstanding the
decision of the Vice-Chancellor upon the motion for an
order, the motion (or a Habeas Corpus was one of
light, and to which the prisoner was entitled.
The Loan CHANCELLOR said that it would be of no
use to grant a writ to bring him up, since, if he did not
purge his contempt, he must be remanded. As Counsel
had been heard on both sides before, he did not like to
dispose of the case now ex parte. .
Mr. Hourau. submitted that, notwithstanding his
contempt. the Court might order him to attend the
:Court of Delegates.
The LORU CHANCELLOR did not doubt that the Court
had the power to do so; but it was a power which the
art would not exercise for the purpose of granting
indulgence to a party who was wilfully in contempt.
Mr. Rourau was inclined to deny that it would be
any indulgence to the prisoner. It appeared to him
a tight, and not an indulgence. The prisoner would be
brought up in vinculie, and would attend the Court of
Delegates in vinculis ; because it wabf not asked that he
should be discharged, but merely that he might attend
the hearing of his own cause. Could this be refused to
a poor man who had not perhaps 5,000 prate, and who
was nevertheless in custody for not paying 5,000/.? His
cause was every thing to him, and in the absence of
Counsel to address the Court in his behalf, how could
he hope for any success if he were not allowed to be
present in the Court himself. Was justice still to be
deferred indefinitely in this case?
The LORD CHANCELLOR inquired if Mr. Clark was
a professional man ?
Mr. Belleau. believed not. In representing him as
having no Counsel to argue his case, he had spoken
merely hypothetically. His hypothesis was only in-
tended to ahew, that in such a case he had a right to be
present to argue in his own person.
The Lour CHANCILLOtt thought it unlikely that such
a case should oteur ; bat ut •allevents, in his present
view of the case, he felt himself obliged to hear Counsel
on the other side before he made any order. As the Vice
Chancellor had gone fully into the question, heating
Counsel on boils sides, and had dismissed the application
with costs, he (the Chancellor) did not conceive that he
should be justified in making any order upon an ex
parte application which should overturn the decision of
ins Honour upon no better grounds than those which
had been stated.

IN RC JODDRELL, A LUNATIC.
Thep tition mentioned some days ago came on to be
argued. It stated, that Mr. Edward Joddrell, the Com.
mittee of the lunatic,who was in possession of theLewkier
estate, had been very much annoyed by some colts
which had been suffered to run wild about the property,
,and he prayed a reference to the Master to ascertain
whether it would be expedient to sell them. .
The LORD CHANCELLOR, after hearing Counsel,
directed the reference as prayed.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JAL 16. •