Court Of Chancery, Thursd...
The Times, 1824-01-30T00:00:00

.. '. .OR.. I. - - I- J ORD-U TAXCViLOLt.F ased if the co nal-had joy kuiu uncationto mAlce tpn higirecommendaitioo-to 3 -eeMent pantdiupo 6receiving areplyin theineXtive,,fixed on ATlaynet peremptorili for hN5udjgmeTf=o - -,i coMAths?tgNTs 1S tShA 2Pttt'Cy. Au'. !I!ONTAG=U~ moved for- the slischargEof a erwoI who had 1I53iOIe&s in hi,sbrolresa aar e lo,e asted fhat .ha4-lieii dome.wj acrasla nteY sh~~~'tdto ac. Zt,t b.et,een'thj .Hsatae w thteaerii o'.A and LstrOyed it. T C aon ant1tdhmoringinsuf- bThe Iso n'CfrAw.?ciLaoijai.hdn 3 forMnei mentiOn o0 the case observe d that-no answer c0nld:b ce-Ioe saltfficient, :a the mman h2d 1c nopedged himself fo. be. one of thle etest rogues in the rnS iO is Lordship XIOn eXpressed his opinion that the cont- nadslneop shoirid be.nmore- y c t i spect, not onlyi"n the use of theirpowe of mprioiise'nt, but a!so irn the reports vWhch -they- rondo of it to the Conrat 'ge had qbservedon several occasions of th l that. iirsad4been, courrmitted for answerA, in which Ite.rnade the most explicit declaiationsof theirOwn nmisconduct; i t g that appeared- to the contraryg in the copies of the ex. afndlation% becgase ,these answers displeased the Commuisioners adfno eer-reason, the parties were committed -for insuf3cieht r ed, shey' vere't again. and 'agra,ii brough r up. and each timr 'Praedihs,eentue antSwer ,o-the, samse -q;,estion; atid afterall, this 'q&tepresented to ,tlhe Ccaurt -as gvvit-h insmici6nt ansawers to the c uestma5ofthe Commissioners, though. in reality, there was only - 'q~iar put to them. -, . SIB5 48E5GORY PAGE T1Tf2JREBt. , AAT moved shrelvi tliat a committee of the estate miglit apro ruted add#rm, to support the lunatic's interest in certain Proeedings at. law now pendirng, the trgency ef which pressed too OSely to adBrnt of psstpon6mint until the varions-petihons in- the acY wdeeard It waa proposed, that -the- brother Gf- the luna- tc should'be appomtcd.'The motion was rmferred to the Master. The StcslTon GxNtn.s,L again rneitioned 'the yetitjon-of the miother and brother-in-law, so be allowed to go in and vffier them- eel.foz the committeeishriof the estate. t Tlie'Lo0a CSi ANCELLOrtsaid, thatswhe petition to travers~e thie Wom ,iiOnmit be head first, bi4orbethe Court ctild attepi toc decide upon the other. petitrins.in the matter. - He did not appre. bsrd_ that the Court hbd the poiyer of, denying to the lunalic the Mr. SeooxEr said, thiatSthsre was a ' fuaterial nuestion, which .k2 rb tep ttres v eatly the petitibn of Sir Th Re LORO CH 'CELLOU anpointed the hiaring of the petitions - GAAlRICR V. CAUDEN. ~dr. 5'/ T replied upon the mnotion in this case, which wasYaiade nnlreMs.r Paine a legatee of Peter Garrick, who was legatee of Da. Garicicthat iter port"ioin of the lhind, after satis.fying her credItar miglit be transferred to her-5:cotnt. 'the objection had beein, that no0 order could benimale foriher is, the caste of bavil Oaar- rick'R wil, and that of. tle adminiitration of Peter. Garrick'a es- tate there was no question before the Court- and thit, more-. oveX. Mllr.- Baily, repe Le of his 'late brother, who w-s trustee to PiGarrick's- will, 'had: obt~ahled an order for the Acconintant-generj t pay over this portiori 9( the fund to -him;, of which order she other sty, had sufficient, iog o iLtntc before the filinig af' thiisr. bill.hno dret otc Snuce the ad,'ournment of thie bq;wflng, hMrAWhitton, thle. golicitor, had filed an 'Ui ditiotmal afiidavi-. to meet this last part of the case, uPOTn Which the cooinqel were uillowed to argule. Trhe L(ADCnIACe Tj6t p o'-~ the atfidavit., promising to read * U? 0! 6tA U =5tr . .CAU. O1 - - CO rI' t . 1 f . .. . .