The Statesman.
London, England, 1818-07-18 00:00:00

. -

_

:Frar7rlr.

7f '

• .• 7 ;

• ' .:*4oof INTELLIGSNUE.
. ,'COURT OP GIitSCERT, JOLT 17.
TiniOtST V. ORD.
this morning, immediately after the LORD CIIAN.
bELLOR had entered Court,
Mt. nouns, as Counsel on the pert of Lord
Stewart, observed, that in this case be understood
Or' Lordship had ordered that the marriage of Lady
Vline tempest with Lord Stewart should be restrained
until the appeal to, the [louse of Lords should have
been determined. , lie also understood that the Mas-
i ter was to proceed with the settlement, without pre-
judice to any •proceedings in the veperior Tribunal.
lie only now wished to ask, whether it was intend-
ed by his Lordship thai the Master should proceed
with drawing the settlements de die in diem ,
The LORD CDANCELLOR signified, that that was
certainly his intention.
...
BROWN V. TiRMIN De TA‘TET AND °THEM
Sir S. ROINILLY made in application to the Court,
on the part of the Plaintiff, to compel the Defendant,
an eminent merchant in the metropolis; to pay into
Court the sum of 51,7561. 6s. 6.1. due to the Plain-
tiff, according to a report made by Mr. Steel, late
one ...of the Masters in Chancery, to whom the case
was referred. 'Phe circumstances of the case were
.these:--Toroterly the Defendant, Mr. de Tastet,
had been in partnership with Mr. de Mangin, who
had died as long ago as 1803. The present Plaintiff
was his only daughter, and in right of her father laid
claim to the payment of a very large sum, which Mr.
de Mangin had advanced on going into partnership
with the Defendant, together with the interest, and
a due portion 'of the profits of the lucrative trade
which the Defendant had carried on since the death
of Mr. de Mangin.. After much litigation, which
had been entered into in consequence of the false
,suspicion which had been entertained of the. Alegi.
timacrof the Plaintiff, the matteewas ultimately re-
ferred to the Master. Steel, who had founithe sum
of 61,7561. 6s. 6d. to be due. To this lteport Mr.
de Tastet had taken many exceptions, but what the
result of them was he really could tint inform his
Lordship: they were of greet length, but so unin-
telligible. that he feared very few could comprehend
them. These excepti-ns had been argued.before the
Vice-Chancellor, in March last, and it was then
found impossible to understand them. The further
hearing was postponed to the present period, and
this was the last day for hearing exceptions.--
Although the exceptions in this case were put down
in the paper, as it were, to tantalize the Plaintiff,
yet it now appeared, that the case most remain for
several months before it could be finally settled.—
Under these circumstances he really thought it would
he but justice, that the Defendant should be com-
pelled to pay into Court ii sem, which the Plaintiff
would otherwise be deprived of until nest Michael-
mas Term. It was also to be considered that Mr.
de Tastet was not now a young man; and if death
should intervene, the Plaintiff would be wholly de.
paved of her remedy. Although the sum now re.
(paired was large, yet to amen of the opulence of
Mr. de Tastet it was trifling, and, under all the cir.
comstatices, he thought it was but reasonable that
the sum should be paid into Court.

On the other side, Mr. BELL and Mr. Preys ar-
gued at considerable length against the application,
entering rather minutely into the facts of the case,
and maintaining that it was impossible for the Court
of Chancery now to determine what sem ought to be
paid into Court. Already the sum of 17.0001. had
been paid, and could his Lordship take upon himself
to say, without knowing any of the merits of the
case, that so large a sum as 51,7561. was absolutely
due to the _Plaintiff ? It was al-o to be considered
that Mr..de Tastet had bad other partners besides
Mr. de Mangin. Mr. de Pair. and Mr. Frederick
Grellet had both been in the firm, although in 1808
they had withdrawn from the concern. There was in
fact no pretence for granting this application, when
it.was considered that in less than three months the
whole matter would in all probability be amicably
set tied. .
In reply, Sir S. ROMILLY argued, that it was In
the pokier of the Chancellor to act upon the Report
of *Master, althougb• exceptions might have been
taken to it. so far as ordering a sum of money to be
poidintu Court. . This had been done in the case of
Meters v. Taylor ; therg the Master had made his
Report; and exceptions had..been taken upon it.—
His Lordship bad ordered that Mr. Waters should
refale' in- his hands that whieh the Master had re-
ported to be due, although exceptions_ bad been taken
to it, which had- since been-Eved to be good ex-
, captious.
..• The LORD CHANCELLOR said he would give his
opinion upon this case to-morrow morning. in the
eivin.tinie, be should wish to be informed what the
Defendahr'Eonsidered to be the amount of the soma
dots to the Plaintiff. It was, he observed, a very in-
genious contrivance-on the part of the Defendant to
complain Qf the Master's Report, and yet not to tell
114-Court bow the Master should have acted, if,
'according to the Defendant's notion, he bad acted
:rightly. •
READING R HAMILTON.
..,
, The Stitacrrost:Ganaam. prayed the confirmation
of the Master's Report by Petition in this case. It
,appearid Upon the Report, that • proposal of mar-
fine had been made by a Scotch Gentleman, of the
iparire of Sharp; to the Plaintiff, Miss Kitty Jenkins
4Here (non Reading). This Gentleman was entitled
,to an estate in Scotland, and there was a . proviso,
that .the succeeding heir should be obliged to bear the
surname and arms of Sharp. He was possessed of
[.'lool. a year, besides the pay of 4501. a year, as Ms.l
...
,ior..F.ieaeral in the army. The Lady to whom he
hid paid his addresses was, also seized of an estate,
.te whickilso a proviso wit annexed, that she should
lkii,the seine of Reaffing,'and there was a forfeiture
in mie she did not take the name. In consecpretice,
• . . . . „
an application was mine to the Crown, to authorize
the Plaintiff to retain the name of Reading, rootrvith-
standing her moulage with Major-General Sharp.
' The LORD CUAIICEIJAR asked, whether it was
weal for the Crown to grant a licence of this sort?
Sir S. ROMMILLT, who appeared on behalf of the
ruing lady, replied, that he believed an Act of Kr-
tiamtnt was.„neceasary.,, _
'Tile Loan Citavvir.t.ort o-bieired, that in the Case
of Serjeant Hill's lady, an Act of Parliament4eas