Star.
London, England, 1827-08-17 00:00:00

LAW IN*l ELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Aucus? 18.
DEW V. CLARK.

Mr. HIALD appealed in support of a petition by the
defendant, le-ho was confined in the Fleet for a contempt
of the Court. He prayed that he might be discharged,
upon giving lecutity for his te-ar pearance, and urien-
dering him•elf wi,enever he should be required.

The LeRD CHANCELL• It $a d, this application ap-
peared to Lim extremely novel, and, as hew as at present
inclii,ed to believe, without a precedent.
Mr. L-lEALD said, the case was one of so great hard.
ship, and in its circumstances so r ecoliar, that he he.
bevel the Court would be justified in making a prece-
dent.

Mr. Suctorti d. nied that there was any hardship in
the case. The Court was called upon to do a thing out
of its power. The application was neither more not
less than that the prisoner should be allowed to go a 4
large upon bail, and if it were permitted, it would be
directly contrary to the policy of the Court, and the
just ce of the case.
_

Air. Hutto said, the origin of the csie was alsuit
instituted in the Ecclesiastical Court, respecting the va-
lidity 9f a will. The plaintiffs were residwiry legatees
under a will, and the executor having refused to act,
they had obtained administration of the estate of the
testator. On the heating, the defendant, who claimed'
to be entitled as next of kin to the deceased, was decreed.
to pay 5,0001. into (court. This he had neglected to
do; and on subseque t proceedings in this Court, he
had been committed for his contempt. An appeal front
the decision of the Ecclesiastical Court had been lodged,
and was now pending before the Court of Delegates,',
but uutd it was heard, the unfortunate defendant would
be compelled to lie in prison, unless the Court should
grant the prayer of his petition.
Mr. SUGDICN was quite ready, and indeed desirous,
to go fully into the meritsof the petition. His Lordship
•wi old then see, that so far from the defendant's having
been treated harshly, he had by his conduct de-
served much worse.

Mr. REALD Said, he hoped his Lordship would
not be influenced in deciding the case by iscibe and
detiamation.

Mr. SUGDEN complained of this language, and ap-
pealed to the Court whether it was fit that such expres-
sions should be applied to him ?
Mr. HEALD said, he meant to apply the expressions,
not to Mi. Sugdi.n personally, but to repel the accusa-
tion which had been so needlessly made against I is client.
Mr. SUGDEN said, he would nor permit such espres-
si ns to he applied to him under any circumstances, or
by any person.
Mr. H EA LD explained, that he did not mean to make
Mr. Sugden peculiarly the object of his remark ; he
had only meant to say, that noise and declamstion,
wherever they came horn, would not lead away the
judgment of the Court.

After some further altercation, whiih was carried on
in a low tone of voice,

The LORD CHANCELLOR entreated the le.irned persons
to refrain from the u.e of any irritating expressions, the'
consequences of which must be painful and unpleasant
to ever y person who heard diem in a public Ci.urt. His
Lordship said he thought the prayer of the petition
could not be granted in its present form. Toe motion
ought to h,ve been for an order to enlarge the time for
paying the money.
Mr. SUDDEN was so well adsfied of the mtrits of.
the case, that he would consent to the .motion being
heat d on the pound *suggested.by the Coitrt.
Mr. /kite declined this offer, and contended that
the petition ought to be granted.

line LORD CHANCiLLOR said, that as he was at pre-
sent advised, he should not, he thought, be justified in
granting the order. He would, however, consult some
of the other Judges on the point.