The Statesman.
London, England, 1813-02-10 00:00:00

L4W MTH LLIGENC E.

' -40.000: •
COURT OF, CH&NCERT, FED. 9.
EX-PARTE THE REIN HR. LU AND INRS. LEE.
Sir ARTHUR PiaGott made a motion this day• on
behalf of Mrs. Lee, praying the Lord Chancellor
upon the grounds of justice and humanity, to Are: I
consider the minutes he had made, as directions to
the Mister for preparing a marriage settlement be-
tween the parties in this case. Mrs. Lee complained
of the insufficiency of the allowance* `f- 4001. a year
directed by his Lordship for her, instead of 6001. a year
allowed by the Master in his Report. The whole
interest of her fortune at present amounted to
18001. a year, out of which she thought 4001. a year
too little. .
Mr. HART followed on the same fide.
Sir Saastmt. ROMILLT opposed the moths% 4s
being made without notice.
The LORD CHANCELLOR directed the case to be
again brought forward for further argument on a
future day.

COURT OF XING'S BENCH, Fss. 9.
SIR V. 1111711DITTI Slit?. V. Tilt CARL OW MOIRA.
Mr. Serjeant Suzeoxite said, lie "appeared before
their Lordships to-day in consequence of a rule eb-
lained•by his Learned Friend the Solicitor.General,-
calling on hii Client, the Plaintiff in this case, to
show cause why a day in next Term should not be
fixed for the trial of this action at Bar. There were
originally, as tifeir Lordship would recollect, three
several actions brought by the present Plaintiff, all
arising out of the same transaction, one against the
Speaker of the House of Commons, another against
the Serjeant at Arms, and the third, being the
action in which. the Rule Nisi had been obtained,
against the Earl of Moira, as Constable of the
Tower. The two first of these actions had been
already disposed of in this Court, the first on a
demurrer, the second by a trial at Bar, and, for the
trial at Bar of the remaining. action, it was now
asked, on the. other side, that a day is next Term
should be fixed. To this the Plaintiff could
have no objection, if the Court should be of opt.,
Ilion that it was fit-such a rule should he made abso-
lute. It would be bot proper, however, that he
(Mr. Serjeant Shepherd)*on the part of the Plaintiff;
'ihould account. why the Plaintiff himself had made
no such application ; and that, he presumed to
think; would afford a good reason why, their Lord.
.slilticalieualbsvet new thaiv-dapiesaha next Torylivtat,
the trial of this amiss at Bar, The questions,
occurred lathe other two eases "would, in a consi-
derable degree, decide the present case. The deci-
sion of their Lordships in those two eases had been
removed bf error, into the Exchequer Chamber.—
There; no doubt, the judgment of this Court had
been affirmed, but other Writs of Error hid' shim been
takin out removing both cases into the House of Lords*
where the • points at issue must once more undergo
discussion and decision. If the judgment to be given
by the Howie of Lords should-be in atilrinance of the
decision of thistourt, that judgment would, in all
probability* dispose of the present case also.
was not far him to'say that this must absolutely be
the case, butiurely, on the judgment there to be
riven the great question between the parties,must is
a very-material. measure depend. While, tftels cases
were paiding, therefore, before the House of Lords
and a decision hi them 'speedily 'to . be expected, he
presumed to doubt 'their Lordships-being of %dafts
that a clay should be fixed in.the uext Timm for the
trial at Bar of the present action. It was far than
Lordships, however, to say, Whether they saw any
• * %. • • lIANKRUPTS. tree sit 'for now fixing a day In nett Term' for the,
-L. J. J. Xoel,ffieoriitta-street-4treet,Covest-gneden, brelcer,/ trial at Bar of the present action. •• If so, the-Plain.
to surrender. Feb. 13, '2U, March V, at Guildhall. Attorpics,.. tiff should sorely attend to tleir LordshiPe' elders ;
Sienrs. IVlltsltirn, Holton, and West, Old Broad street.
C. Payne, New City chamber, ttishopsgate_st„„t. iner. . but the should be
.giving up those other
owe,' Feb. 16, March 2S, at Chambers,.
Atuvney, Mr. tiocstioitS, if ha withdrew the present,a,ctiea till they,
Amor% Broad-street. were decided.' •
J. Linlayson, Midford-plare, Tottenham.coart-rosin, chair-
) c 4w, Feb. 13, 20, !.trcit 'l9, at - Attorney, Mr. i The SOLICITOIt.t.rEs 9Eli/tit 'tads. he shotildebstele
Stmentosn Peroy-street, Tottenham-enurt-road.. from at • all touching on the merits of the present'
-Nelreili,litliirnute, innkeeper, feta. 13, 20. March" 29,
1 nation. Attorney, Mr. Stcventon, Part -street, OW. His NOW Client wit willlog its Ili
I.ot-muss rr-r.s4d. Solicltor.Getieral) himself was to cookies thiralme
ial•haw, Kirk hetttim. Yorkshire, cloth-masafeitarer, -of the Court. The. Court had originally elmieghe
17, March 21, at the White liens, Leeds, Anemia, • •
Atkinson and Rolland,' Leeds. . this a case of such importeuce, that it %mild be proper

111666.
S. Psii
se Gail 11.
ft..tralla,
4 W 4
P.' . Id,
..L44-141. A