Court Of Chancery, Friday...
LAW sEpORT. tn tnis cause, which has been for niany years.beforethe Court. and in which the main question was the legidmacy of the plaintiff, a decree had been obtained in his favour. The present petition is a bill of review, which is prayed upon special matters which have since come to the knowledge of the defendant respecting the marriave of the parents. Air. KNIGHT moved, on behalf of the defendant, that the papers and documents which he had deposited in the AlaRter's-office, under the common 6rdermade in the cause, might be delivered back to him to aid hin in bringing on his petition. 31r. HEALD opposed the motion, and trusted tbat the ,o6rd Chancellor would at once dismiss the bill of review.- The spedial matter, as he well knew, and was perfectly sure of the fatt, coold not be made out. It consisted of proofs wlhich the defendant said he had obtained of anothier marrinee, being the third wlhich be lhad discovered, whicih was had in Philadelphia,when he had overwtvhelm. ing evidence to showv that the father of the parties was in a distant part of the world. .lMr. Ho wE: said thaat he boped hislearned friend would not per; siet in asserting that he was quite sure of that concerning which he (lir. Hbrne) fclt as sure of the contrary. Hlis client was prepared with official documents which would command as much attention from the Court as the evidence wthith was to be pro. duced by his learned friend-namely, a register ofa marriage certi- fied by the American Consul resident there. Mr. HEAID said that there was no affidavit of the fact: it rested on the a.ssertion of the defendant. MIr. HoiNtE said that there was an affigavit regularly filed, and therefore he must again request his learned friend to be less hasty in his assertions. The LoitD CIHAN CELLO5 doubted as to the possibility of bring- ing in thia new matter, the object of which was to obtain a new trial tinder a bill of review. If they would hand him up the bill, and an oflice copy of the affidaLvit; he promised to tell them what should be done with it to. morrow morning, and he would fix some day for the peremptory hearing. As to the papers, which must of eourse be considered until the dlecision as papers necessary to the cause, he did not see how hle could allow them to be given up to a party in the cauSe. He woul, give directions, however, to have them placed in thc hands of a clerk oftlhe court, so that the defendant might be able to use any ilformation wyhich they contained in the course of argu- men. COURT OP CHANCERY, FumwtV, Juvv, 2a. GORDON V. GORDOS.