Carlisle Patriot, 10 Dec 1825 - Court of Con-Delegates - BRISCO v. BRISCO

[petra.mi...@doctors.org.uk]

Saturday 10 Dec 1825   (p. 4, col. 4)

 

COURT OF CON-DELEGATES, DEC. 1.

 

BRISCO v. BRISCO

 

This case, which has attracted so much attention, was again called on.

 

The Registrar stated, that the act on petition, which Sir W. BRISCO's Proctor had been assigned last Court, to deliver three days before the present Court, was delivered to Lady BRISCO's Proctor accordingly.

 

Mr. JENNER.—Lady BRISCO's Proctor stated, that the act had been delivered to him only two days before the Court. He had nevertheless accepted and written to it, and returned it to the adverse Proctor.

 

Mr. GLENNIE returned the act sped, or concluded.

 

Dr. STODDART, the Senior Con-delegate, then said, that the Court being extremely anxious to expedite the hearing of the cause before the whole Commission, directed the Registrar to send up a warrant to the Common Law Judges, in order that a day might be appointed for determining the incidental question as speedily as possible.

 

Dr. STODDART then said, that he was desired by one of his Learned Associates to state, that one of the parties in the cause had called at the house of the Learned Judge, wishing to have some communication or other with him, which the Learned Judge had positively declined, and that no communication whatever had taken place. The Court were of opinion, that this statement were proper to be made, for the honour of the Learned Judge: and that the party, though probably without any evil intention whatever, had been guilty of an act of impropriety and irregularity in so doing. The Court did not think it necessary to make any further observations on this circumstance, and therefore (concluded Dr. STODDART) I dissolve this Court.—As their Lordships were withdrawing,

 

Dr. LEE, holding in his hand a bundle of papers, complained that their Lordships did not allow him to state his own case in his own way.