Star.
London, England, 1827-08-18 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Aua. IT.
IN THE MATTER OE JODDRELL, A LUNATIC.
Mr. Honor-presented a petition from.. Mt. E.Joderel),
title of.the younger sons of the, lanatie, praying that the
Master's report might be confirmed. The Master had
reported that 2,8001. a year should be allowed for the
expenses of the lunatic. His establishment cost 2,5001.
a year, and there was a necessary additional expense of
3001. a year for a companion, or keeper, to reside with
him. The lunatic's fortune was 5,0001, a year. The
petition also prayed that the lunatic's house in Portland-
place might he still kept up, and the furniture kept
there for the use of the lunatic: that the petitioner might
be allowed, in compliance with the request and inten
tion of his father, to reside in the country house in Ox-
fordshire, and that the lunatic might be removed there
while the town house underwent repair.
Mr. SH A ow/ILL opposed the confirmation of the Mas-
ter's report, on the ground that 2,8001. a year was more
than necessary to defray the expenses of the lunatic's
establishment.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought 2,e001. a year by no
means toe much to be allowed, when the lunatic's in-
come was 5,0001. a year. His Lordship therefore grant-
ed the prayer of the petition.
Mr. &LADWELL then presented a petition from Sir
Richard Paul Joddrell, the eldest son of the lunatic. It
prayed that the lunatic might not be removed to Ox-
fordshire, on the ground that it would be to the injury
al his health ; but that while the house in Portland-
place was undergoing repairs, the lunatic might reside
at the petitioner's house in Bentinck.street.
The LORD CHANCELLOR refused the prayer of the
petitioh. His Lordship thought that it would be better
to leave the management of the lunatic to the discretion
Of his daughter and the younger Wu, one of his com-,
mittee, in whose custody and under whose care he had
hitherto been.
The LOAD CHANCELLOR intimated that he should
give tome judgment during the vacation; and observed,
that if King's Counsel were not present on these occa-
sions, the juniors perhaps would be; and if they were not,
there would be short-hand writers there, so that every
body would be made acquainted with what was done.
His Lordship, in the course of the day, said he bad no
objection to sit till seven o'clock, lithe Bar would attend
him; but, at half•past four, there were not more than
three or four Counsel present, and his Lordship rose.

VICR.CHANCRULOR'S COURT, Aim 17.
BATH V. BURMAN.

This was a petition presented by the plaintiff, a cre-
ditor of the defendant's to the amount of SOL and
it prayed that the commission which had issued
against the defendant might be superseded, on the
ground that the defendant had never acted as a scrivener
within the meaning of the Bankrupt Act. The petition
also prayed that an issue might be directed. •
Mr. HZALD and Mr. Suorretr appeared for the plain-
tiff. They contended that the defendant, who was an
attorney, had acted solely in that capacity in all the
m ney transactions, by way of loan, in which he had
been concerned, and never in the capacity of scrivener.
He had certainly been the instrument of pro Curing loans
of money for persons, but then it was merely in order
that he might have the advantage of preparing the be-]
cessary legal securities. The two characters of scrivener
and attorney were perfectly distinct, and whenever they
were seen in conjunction, they ought to be viewed with
an eye of jealousy and suspicion.
Mr. MONTAGU appeared for the assignees, and Mr.
Russet. for the bankrupt. The Learned Counsel read
several affidavits for the purpose of establishing the
fact, that the defendant had acted as a scrivener within
the meaning of the Bankrupt Act, and contended that
the subterfuge about drawing up legal securities between
the borrowers and the lenders, was of itself a proof that
he had received procuration fees. There were other
proofs of the same fact upon the record.
Mr. HaAi.o replied, and contended that many acts
which, out of the profession, were sufficient to constitute
a man a scrivener, would not have the same effect when
they were done by an Attorney.

The Vrea-Cuattennoa observed, that the callings of
scrivener and attorney were formerly as distinct as those
of wine merchant and brewer. In modern times, how-
ever, they had become more closely united than was
conducive to the public welfare, and where a man acted
both as an attorney and a scrivener, the law bad found
it a matter of considerable difficulty to distinguish be-
tween the two characters. It had been held by one
Learned Judge, that in such a case the ouly way in
which a decision could be arrived at was, to see which
limy the circumstances preponderated,—whether the
man had acted oftenest in the character of a scrivener
or in that of an attorney. The plaintiff, however, in this
case had not put this difficulty upon the Court, as he
prayed that an issue might be directed to a Court
of Law ; and although the plaintiff was a creditor
only to the amount of 801. in an estate of 20,0001.
and the cost of an issue would be 4001. or 500/. yet ,
be could riot for that reason deny the plaintiff his just
rights. Considering, therefore, how much legal doubt
existed in the question whether defendant had acted
as a scrivener or as an attorney, and. that the decision
could only be arrived at by an investigation of the facts
of the case, he could not refuse to comply with this
part of the prayer of she petition. and direct the issue
to be tried. At the same time, however, as there
were no allegations upon the record which impugned
the integrity of the defendant, he should not withhold
his certificate while the trial was pending, although
the validity of the certificate would of course depend
upon the result of the issue.