Court Of Chancery, Saturd...
Ld W REPORT. I 1 111- "At Ulnea a bilt upon a bondi excuted jointly by thie t.e=se husband of tlhe derendeaLt, togethter with the Marquis and anrcnionesa of Hastings, for paying oft, with intermediate interest, {annn-ity granted by that nobleman to the p!aintiff 'IThe defend. was sued in the character of administratrix * and the mnoney, by ee eflect of pr-ceeding, in anothez cause of Ridge v. Ridge, had tiadlIts way into the hands of the Accountant-General; thc bill gel dismis 'by the Blaster of the Rolls. The consequencc of ;ich whieasd naturally follow .ns an ordler to transfer the nioniev ithe ? ee e f the Accesntant_.Ge,eralt f.Uhc SOLte&S3R-on2AL. mnade an application to the Court to ibm the par froin removing the fund, becanue an appeal was ding, having been already signed. ~.Ir. TItEsLovE opposed the mnotion, because no decree had yet COSheC LouD CUt-tSCET T.OR Put aside the entire merits, of whichi taod not become him to spenk, and resolved thiepresent question thN,pontof ractice,whether an appeal could be taken niticeof:against It eree whien was not yet reduced to writing. Pis Lordship's opinion thed tQ be opposed tothat prnpositlon,from the general order of pro- of ings. Thepracticeinrthellouseof Lords was so directly opposed au , that, amidst the wildness and irregularitv of appeals from an- *trkingibom, he had sometimes seen with regret, that parties, after S3Fah dav5' proceedings had been entertained, were sent back to ob- aim that decree against whlich they appealed, wi:h the entire charge he costs, before anothier appeal coutld be brought. unless it ppcared that the respondent had been as negligent as themselves. i* Lrdshup expatated in a tone of earnest coniplaint against that } , e of esnducting suits which had crept into this Coust, whereby it happesed that from3 begning to enid of almost every suit, and at every step and cheage in it, charges were made and retorted of irre- gularity', iltmsttrialitv, irrelevance, and every thing else implying licentiosness and neglect in the pleadings. Ylules had been made and multiplied al:rost to infinity to correct and regulate the proceed- ngs; an.:l if they were not now conluctetd in a proper manner, it must be mainly attributed to counsel, in whose honour con- sisted almost all the checkJ and sectirity which the Court could l:ve that those orders were not neglected or abused. In say- ing this, he did not wish it to be untlerstood, that in his belief coun- sel didl not act conscien ouslyin 99 cases out ofa hundred. Withi- out absolutely fixing the point of practice notv in dispute, his Lord- ship directed tbat the money should remain in the hands of the Ac- eountant 1General nntil a fortnight afer the filing of the appeal, sub. jeCt to such order afterwards as the Court upon reotion should make. Q COURT ?F CHANCERY, SATURDAY. Nov. 13. ~, *lL -- -..- STMIS V. R1DGE.