Court Of Chancery, Monday...
LATV AP0Ro1. * - l &O1tD CSIA CELLQRS gave the counsel a privatehearing, d inpatted', his 'disecriona to the partits appointed to visit the hlr. SUOENz, not having been apprised of the arrangement, said the he hoped his Lordship wvould issue no order antil he had been as zheazsLon 'aa.l.f of Captain Turner. TS LeLOPD CHA~tCELLo5I. retired with the learned counsel for Pttpose of hearing his argument, wvhich was supposed to reate it the ap>pointment of a committee, and shor after resumed his nt. lt th court. OWRtT OF EABEAS conPus AND IAY RULES. Oett Trotter havinz come up under a writ of Habeas Coitput, "o0.d his Lordsblp to ivc directions to the l1arshal of the King's Ci .Soitt to a)lowbln aday rule,which the Marshal had tefusied Conttartm as the prisoner beieved, to his legal right, as he deduced them from a long train of eascs and auth0rfties ruled In this as well aL in the ccurtsof common laWr. ThbLe oIt) AN CE LLousaid that Alr.Trotter wa.s in custody un dzerttLahmeatt forcontemptin not putting In an answer to a biR filed against him in tbis court. The experiment to which he had re- 801tcd of an actlen in tbe King's Bench, which had the effect of re- 12MVing him to the prison of that Court, and which experiment was cteded us a mode of eluding the efflert of tfie attachment by obtain- n tle rules, had been tried before by other ptisbners, but without eQl!(' The reason seemed to be this-tha t tie remonv- did not al- t *h- nature of the custody. and this being fot a specific ac: of YO- 1tztY contemnpt, was not reducible to ary standard of bail by pecu- z1arY security or comoensation. AMr. Trotter must either put in an ftwer, or tell the Court why he declined doing so. Such was h13 ordshp's opinion upon the night at present, and therefore he would O? give thebdrc ations requiredi. If UpOn another inspection of the case, and the authorities wzhich bore upon it, he should find reason t<iater hLs opinion, the prisonet shousld have the advantage of that cage trithout loss of~ time. IN''IsE CAUSE OF FREEMAN V.FAIRLEIGt.-TlE ATTORNEY- GENERAL V. OLDHA}t. The Louti CxtAscELioa determnined in this case, which wras argued on Friday last, that the state of facts as to the legitimacy of thomas O,dham, the uncle of the intestate, from whom the defend- 5311tS derived theisr descent and claim, was not authorized by the en- tries irs theparish register of' Colesbfil, and as it had been made the rnaln grorng af evidence in the trial of the issue, his Lordship was ofopinion that a new trial must bc had in the same county of COVAT'OR VFTAT,,Tf'P.DV Af--- T.-, it 1X,,}l' .T l--p.s-R G1Usc.(R Y P.nn7xi .T, iT