Star.
London, England, 1811-02-01 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JAN, si.
THE DUCHESS OF CUMBERLAND.—SIAM v. CROULEU
A singular case was this day moved by Sir SAMUEL
ROMILLY, on behalf of the defendant, a lady, acting
as the executrix and sole residuary legatee under the
last will and testament of her Grace the late Duchess
of Cumberland, who died in Hungary, leaving pro-
perty in jewels and otherwise, in that and this coun-
try, to a considerable amount and value, to the care
and administration of the defendant, who administer.
ed to the will. There were debts and legacies due
in Hungary and at Vienna, as well as in this coun-
try, and a sequestration was issued at Vienna, requi-
ring all demands in the Austrian dominions to be dis-
charged, before the assets could be removed ; while
a suit on a bond and judgment was instituted in this
country, by a bona fide creditor. The plaintiff de-
manding payment, a bill was filed by the defendant;
and this motion was made to have it referred to the
Master, to receive such security as could be given fel{
I restraining the proceedings at law, until a sale of the
jewels could be effected at Vienna for some reason-
able value, which could not be had at present, owing
to the state of that country. The Learned Counsel
for the motion charged• the proceeding at law to be
acrimonious and vexatious against the defendant, for
no other cause than that she was the residuary lega-
tee of the late Duchess.
Mr. RICHARLE for the plaintiff at law, a fair creditor,
who knew that sufficient effects were left to discharge
all just demands, denied any acrimonious orvindictive
motives, and contended, that the debt should he paid,
although it was true that the defendant had offered to
transfer toe trust, and wave all benefit under the resi-
d*ary clause.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, it was plain that the
♦atue of jewels could be obtained now in no country
except this in Europe, and it would be unjust so lose
their value. He added, that if the defendant would
give security before the Master for the bond debt,which
was agreed to, he Would grant the motion.
Motion granted.

•

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. SI.
RISHOP OF DERRY.
Mr. GARKOW moved for a Rule to shewseause why,
another criminal inforMation should not be filed, on
the part of the Bishop of Derry, for the paragraph on
account of the publication of which informations had
been obtained during the last term. The object of
his present motion was not to multiply informations
, on this subject. Having now got at the author of
the paragraph, their Lordships would believe that it
was not the wish of the Right Rev. Prelate to press
too strongly against the other parties implicated. He
now moved for a rule to spew cause why a criminal
information should not be filed against Mansell Phil-
lips, Esq. M. P. as the author of the paragraph in
question. It appeared from the affidavits that this
person, having been at Swansea, called on Mr. Grif-
fith, the printer of the Cambrian, in which the para-
graph in question originally appeared, and proffered
to him to send from time to time, after the usual post
hour, paragraphs not generally known or in circula-
tion at the time, by la inch means he (the printer of
the Cambrian) would get the start of the London
newspapers.' Ehe paragraph in question he accor-
dingly sent, among a string of others, and it being
ieserted, of course reached London through the me-
dium of this paper. As the Court had already given
their opinion as to the quality and nature of the pub-
lication, it would be -unnecessary for him (Mr. Gar-
row) now to enter into it. It was sufficient to say
that the publication had been taken from Mr. Phil-
lips's manuscript. •
Mr. Justice LE BLANC asked, had the Learned
Counsel affidavits as to the conversation with the
-printer of the Cambrian, and as to the manuscript
. being in Mr. Phillips's hand-writing ?
Mr. GARROW answered in the affirmative ;—and
al.o that the letter containing the paragraph came
Nfrinked by Mr. Phillips. He must so draw up his
I RA., as to refer to the former affidavit of the Bishop,
who was now in Ireland.
Rule to 'hew cause granted.
THE mNtI C. FINNERTY.
Mr. BEVAN moved for the judgment of the Court
on the defendant in this case. •
It was for a libel on Lord Castlereagh, with the
• nature of which our Readers must be well acquain-
ted, having been already in a variety of shapes before
the public.
Mr.. FINNERTY begged to be allowed' to put a
question to the Court. It was this, Might he be per-
' 'milted to avail himself of the assistance of Mr. Clif-
ford in the preliminary and technical part of the case,
and still have liberty himself personally to reply to any
of the observations of the learned CQuasel against Lim?

• • .
• .