Court Of Chancery, Thursd...
LAW REPORT. u pon me ?ORD CHEANCELLOR colnijg into COurt, he was ad. dressed by a person who applied for lcave to plead ib forryn6peaperts. The LonD CHANCELLOR asledl him if he had obtained ar. or. der foi peimission to do so ? The applicatit said he had not; and if he were not allowed to plead his cause in that way,having no means of feeing either counsel or solicitor, he could not bring it before the Court. The LoRDS CHAN CELLOR informed bim, that without obtaining permission to pleaa ?inforrn& pauperis in the regular way, he could not hear him. However, he would take his papers, and if upon reading thern he conceived there were satisfactory grounds for en- tertaining Ihis suit, he would grant an order for his permission to plead informfi pa pqt' ;OTSIE OF LOADS His Lordship stated that in future the days of his attendance at the House of Lords would be Mlondays and Thursdays. Lord Gif- ford would sit on the other days. BEER V. WARD. This case, which has beens before the Court and the -public for about a quatter of a century, was then called on. It will be recol- lectedl by our readers that in the course of last November term, (see The Times of lNov. 15), an application was made to the Court to set aside the second verdict (establishine the legitimacy of the party through whom the plaintif claimnd to be heir at law), principtlly on the ground that the Chief Justice, in his charge to the jury, had mistaken the law vhen he said that a mar- riage without religious solemnization, or the presence of a priest, and rnerely with consent of parties, admnitted before sufficient witnesses, and followed by cohabitation, was, before the passing of Lord Hardwicke's act, a valid marriage for all puIrposes whotsoever, according to the then known law of the IaN , as was the case with the law of Scotland to this (lay. In support of the apulication no less that six counsel wvere heard, namely, AIlr. Scatrlctt, illr. 1WVetherell, Mlr. Gaselee, ir. Sergeant Bosanquet, the Conimon Sergeant, and tilr. Phillips. The Lord Chancellor then directed the argument to stand over until after the Christmas holydays. T his day Alr. HART was heard at considerable length against the motion, and contended that the position laid down Ly the Chief Jus- tice was fully borne out by the authorities on the subject. The learned counsel examined the various authorities cited on the other side (with thc names of which the sheets of his brief were covered), and argued that many of them were in his favour, whilst he in- pugned the rest, particularly Bracton, who was admitted to have furinshed contradictions to himself, owing to his lhaving entered deeply into the struggle for a;cendency wh ich was then carrving on between the civil and common lawvers. Having examined the au- thorities quloted on the other side, the learned counsel cited several others in his own favour. When he had concluded, \lr. BARDER followed on the same3 ide, unil lie was interrupted by tile rising of the Court. Tlhe LORD CHANCELLOR said he would proceed with this case to-morrow; as it quite harrowred him to hear arguments of this kind bv niecemeal. __ - I -- COURT OF CHANCERY. TyrTRnA v A -, O