Star.
London, England, 1821-06-06 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JUNE. 4.
GORDON V. GORDON.

The LORD CHANCELLOR, this morning, entered at
some length into the pleadings of this suit, and made
a declaration of the principal points upon which his
decree would be founded. All that he could do, he
said, was to order that the agreement made between
Mr. James Gordon and the plaintiff, for the purpose
of settling some family disputes, and executed by the
plaintiff, on the supposition of his being illegitimate,
should be delivered up to be cancelled. The Court
below had decided that the plaintiff, Harry Gordon,
the younger, was the heir at law of Harry Gordon
the elder; and it appeared that, at the time the
agreement was made, the defendant was in the pos-
session of the important circumstance of the so-
lemnization of a private marriage, but that the plain-
tiff was .wholly unacquainted with it. His decree
ould, therefore, be guided by that decision, which
slistablished that James Gordon was not the heir at
'.law of Harry Gordon the elder ; but that Harry Gor-
don, the plaintiff, was his heir at law. But he would
band his minutes to the parties, for them to see the
points to which he chiefly referred; and, if they had
any observations to make, lie would hear them on
Thursday, previously to his finally disposing of the
matter in question.
Mr. James Gordon addressed the Court, and corny
plained of an affidavit that had been filed, on a former
motion' in this cause.
The LORD CHANCELLOR replied, that the affidavit
alluded to would not affect his decree, but that he
Was at liberty to mention that, and also to address
the Court on the subject of the minutes, on Thurs-
day, if he thought proper.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PORTSMOUTH DANS; AND IN
TIM MATTER OF HOWARD AND GIBBS, satataurrs.
Mr. MONTA6UE stated, that this was an appeal
from the decision of his Honour the Vice-Chancellor

against the competency of assignees to supersede a
commission of bankruptcy, after they had made their
election to accept the office and the trust attending
it: The appeal was made in the case of the Ports-
mouth Bank, after the commission had proceeded so
far as to expend upwards of £4OOO in an ineffectual
attenrpt to work it. In the case of Howard and
Gibbs 'bankruptcy, there was a great question whe-
ther there was a substantial petitioning creditor's
debt; and in the present, and in many instances, it
v. as highly desirable that an immediate decision
should be made, equal to the magnitude of the sub-
ject. He then requested his Lordship to appoint
a day on which it would be convenient to hear the
appeal of the Portsmouth Bank.
The LORD CHANCELLOR.—" On Thursday I will
name a day when I can hear it." .
CONSISTORY COURT, JUNE S.
AYLMER V. AYLbIER.

This was a suit of divorce or separation, by reason
of adultery, promoted by the wife against her hus-
band. The marriage and identity of the persons•trere
fully proved. The husband was an officer in the
army, and married, in the year 1820, a young lady,
by whom a sum of money had been advanced to-
wards the payment of his debts. Before this con-
nexion, he had formed an adulterous intercourse
with a female of the name of Morgan; and within a
•ery few months after his matrimonial union, he re-
turned to• this connexion, in which he has ever since
continued to live.

The JUDGE pronounced the sentence.
LABOREE V. LABOnEE.

This was a similar suit promoted by the husband,
a French cook and. restaurateur, against the wile.
The history of- the adulterous intercourse between
Madame Laboree and a Lieutenant Bland was by no
means deficient in its details ; but as further evidence
WAS considered to be wanting, in order to establish
the identity of the parties, the case was directed to
stand over till next Session, in order to allow time to
supply it.
VIE MARQUIS OF DONEGAL v. MAY, FALSELY CALLED