Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 62, 1830. Originally published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, London.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
Die Mercurii, 10 Februarii 1830.
|Ds. Lyndhurst, Cancellarius.|
Comes Rosslyn. C. P. S.
Stewart v. Fullarton et al.
Bruce v. Bruce.
Fraser v. Fraser:
Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Archibald Thomas Frederick Fraser Esquire, of Abertarff; complaining of an Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary in Scotland, of the 25th (signed 26th) June 1829; and also of an Interlocutor of the Lords of Session there, of the First Division, of the 29th January 1830; and praying, "That the same may be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Appellant may have such Relief in the Premises, as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, shall seem meet; and that Thomas Alexander Fraser Esquire, of Lovat, may be required to answer the said Appeal:"
It is Ordered, That the said Thomas Alexander Fraser may have a Copy of the said Appeal, and do put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Wednesday the 10th Day of March next; and Service of this Order upon the said Respondent, or upon any one of his known Agents in the Court of Session in Scotland, shall be deemed good Service.
Richardson to enter into a Recog ce on it.
The House being moved, "That John Richardson of Fludyer Street, Westminster, Gentleman, may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for Archibald Thomas Frederick Fraser Esquire, on account of his Appeal depending in this House, he being in Scotland:"
Hume et al. v. Duncan.
Morton v. Hunters & Co. Respondents Petition to receive their Case, referred to Appeal Com ee.
Upon reading the Petition of Messieurs Hunters and Company, Respondents in a Cause depending in this House, to which James Morton is Appellant; praying their Lordships, "That their Case may be received:"
It is Ordered, That the said Petition be referred to the Committee appointed to consider of the Causes in which Prints of the Appellants and Respondents Cases, now depending in this House in Matters of Appeals and Writs of Error, have not been delivered, pursuant to the Standing Orders of this House.
Duffy v. Orr et al.
Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Cornelius Duffy, complaining of a Decree of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, of the 25th of June 1829, made in Two certain Causes, in the first of which Robert Orr was Plaintiff, and Cornelius Duffy, Patrick Thomas Duffy and Peter Rorke, were Defendants; and in the second, the said Cornelius Duffy was Plaintiff, and the said Robert Orr and Patrick Thomas Duffy and John Duffy, Richard Sause, Patrick Byrne and Edward Jones, were Defendants; and praying, "That the same may be reversed or varied, or that the Appellant may have such other and further Relief in the Premises, as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, shall seem meet; and that the said Robert Orr, John Duffy, Patrick Thomas Duffy, Peter Rorke, Richard Sause, Patrick Byrne and Edward Jones, may be required to answer the said Appeal:"
It is Ordered, That the said Robert Orr, and the several other Persons last named, may have a Copy of the said Appeal, and do put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Wednesday the 17th Day of March next; and Service of this Order upon the Solicitors or the Clerks in Court of the said Respondents shall be deemed good Service.