The Statesman.
London, England, 1818-07-25 00:00:00

• ".77.

•• •

•

•

•
_.

• •
the Owners of Whom an and ;voted deal sihOke
Could obtain the best and theapeilt Article. Ir seo
be a libel On the Magistracy to insinbate, Ado, ton.:
gyAse there has been one solitafy instance Of defies
4irency detected, there is any connitante, prtqAdi6o;
of partiality, in the conduct of that body of Gentle.
men, The publicans in free houses Ire net afraid rd
any such influence: it is the pritilege, of their free:.
dons to purchase where they please) and irithoot
pureeing the topic further at present.; we elpitiss tree
conviction, that a nets Independent lireatti *geld
give ai death-blow to the present monopoly.

LAW INTELIAGENGC
•
COURT bi? CHANCERY, JOLT' 4t.
LADY ant etruesk O. Ili ranetsoet 'Ant tuitelni:
Mr. Haire made application to the court, on be:
half of the Plaietiff, that the St- rjeerit-al:Areel bd
ordered by the Lord Chancellor to issue his *orient
against the Defendebt, who lied been guilt, of a cnn:
tempt of Court, for not antwering to a bill filed
the Plaintiff, pursuant to sit order sued. tlif Oaf
1815. It appeared that the Plaibtiff add befindard•
were SO nearly 'elated es slather and sob, ehd thei
object of their long. pending liiigatiOn wee le obtain
from the possession of the Deferidiht
plate to • very large amounts which be had pereitip:
torily refused tb surrender, and wilier he had ob.
halved possession of from the cifeemstalsee of id
being in his Tether's 'house upon his death. A tail
bad been files! by Ledy Turiter for the perloate et
having these articles delivered op, end the Defetadent
bad put in his answer. That answer Was eoulidefed •
to be insufficient, end exceptions were fake° eybut
it. A farther answer was accordingly pet ill. Tbd
Plaintiff subsequently amended her bill, and celled
for another answers Which hid not yet heed dea.
livered, and it was for this neglect that he mode the
present motion.
.When this este eat before the
Court on a former occasion, farther information ear
desired to be given by the Plaintiff. He Nod held id •
his hand two affidavit., the one subscribed by Lady"
Page Turner herself, and the other by her salleitor4
Mr. Watkins. In his affidavit Mr. Watkine stated-
the principal facts of the case, aad it appeared that
the original bill was filed in 1811, and the answer
was put in in 1813 ; a further answer was put id on ,
Easter Term following. Mr. Watkins then stated 4
that he had applied fur the delivery of the articles
unceasingly, but the Defendant bad constantly re.
fused to deliver them up. He bad many times at.
tempted to arrest the Defendant, bet could not gain
admittance into the house. He then proceeded to ,
state, that in consequence of the malady with which
the Defendant became afflicted. in 1814, and in con•
sequence of the embarraised circumstances in chick •
he was involved, the Plaintiff desisted for a time to
prosecute the suit. In 1815, the Defetident having
recovered from his illness, and his stein hieing been
stringed, the Plaintiff renewed her application to
have the plate delivered up; and Mr: Watkins in.
formed him, that unless the application was complied
with, the present suit would be commenced' Lady
Turner In her,affidasit repeated the asettlibn of bee .
Solicitor, and added; that she had never entered into
any compretnise with her son respecting the articles.
These affidavits, he thought, completely Avowed
for the delay which had taken place in the protects.
lion ; and the Defendant having neglected to put in
his answer, the Plaintiff bed only this swore* of
compelling it by the warrant of the Serjeant at Arm! •
being executed against him. He was desired to date,
on the part of Lady Turtle*, that if the Defendant
required time to put in his enlister, she would be
ready to allow as much time es the Court in its judge
ment thought proper to glee hint.
Mr. lint. appeared on behalf 6f the befendant,
and observed that Mr: Hart had not stated ell the
facts of the awe. He was proceeding to enter inter
the particulars, when
The I.OIID CHANCILDOR asked, what time trite re•
quired by the Defendant to put in his answer?
Mr. Bet& replied, that a month would be •e
cleat.
Mr. HART consented that that time should be it.
lowed t and the evert ordoreds that the 'sedition
of the warrant of the Serjeant at Arms shoeld be
sespended for a month ; and if, after the etpiration
of that time, the answer was not filed, that then the
warrant should be issued against the Defendant.
AlttsWoßTH W. PRAM
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that he bad en*.
sidered this case since the argesuent of yesterday,
and made op his mind upon the question. He ens
decidedly of opinion that the Defendant ought to be
compelled to pay into Court the amount of the two
bills of exchange which he had had pat into hie
hands for the payment of certain specific sums.—
Although in some instances a partner might apply lb
his own use what be received on the partnership sc.
counts, yet it *as observable that the Defendant,
with respect to these bills of exchange, had taken off
the endorsements, and instead of paying the sums
for which they were given to him, applied their to
his own purposes. As to the sum of 15001., the
value of the goods Which had beet. seized by the IND.
fendsnt, he bad more difficulty in deciding upon that
point; bet tie thoeght the fairest way of dealing
with the matter would be, to allow the Defendant tea
make a further affidavit as to that fact, in order that
be might have an opportunity of assigning further
reasons for the seizure. lie was clearly of opinion
that, at least, the' amount of the bills of eschauge
should be paid into Court.
ItSADISO D. lalitlt.Toll4 •
The Low CHANCELLOR observed, that he had
great difficulty in deciding this case. Ile thought it
would be e very dangerous experiment to grant this
motion without farther enquiry. Ile had looked at
the Act of Parliament, handed ep to him iwthe case
of the Lady of Mr. Serjeent Hill, and he foaled
that It contained some very curious classes.
The SoLIEant.GERERAL remarked, that the tee.
tutor had, in that case of Serjeant Hill's Lady, es.
pressly directed that the application shoeld be made
to Parliament, and an Act was passed accordingly.
The Loan•Cneecnt.oa.--All that was required
iby the testator was to take the name, or to ase the
best endesvours to do so. He conceived that no
Parliadeot would base bed any difficulty in passing
such an Act, because, sepposing the Bill had not
passed, no forfeiture would have foltewed, as On
hest endeavours bad been teed. It was quite a di,.
ferent case where ad absolute forfeiture succeeded the

~.....t1Z5.

. A

-.~

,

••

7

1

1

: