Legal business. On the advice of Mr Vaughan's counsels the writer yesterday repaired to Mr John Thelwall and found him very courteous. But at the moment Thelwall has been directed by the Lord Keeper to treat with Esq. Roberts about their interests in the judgment obtained in Thelwall's name against Mr Vaughan. Has only this day waited upon Mr Ellis about Owen's queries. Has arranged a meeting between Ellis and others of Mr Vaughan's counsel. Counsel's opinion signed by William Ellis on 17th Nov. appears on the dorse: Sir Francis Russell obtained a decree in chancery in 1649 against John Bodvel, esq., for £500 per annum for the maintenance of his wife, Anne, and her two children. Bodvel resisted and his estates in Caernarvon and Anglesey were sequestrated. In 1656, Mr Vaughan, being then sheriff of Caernarvonshire, by authority of the court, ejected the Lady Elizabeth Bodvel, John's mother, from Bodvel's house, she being in possession of part thereof as her dower, and having goods in the house and cattle upon the land. She was living apart from her husband, Mr Thelwall, and had separate maintenance. Thelwall and his wife then brought an action for battery against Vaughan and the sequestrators in the Common Pleas, and secured £450 damages, and in a further action £1,000 damages for the goods and cattle. The sheriff and sequestrators then exhibited a bill in equity claiming that they acted only in obedience to the order of the court. But the damages are now being disputed between Mr Roberts, administrator for Lady Bodvel, and Mr Thelwall who claims the benefit of the judgment, and suits of equity are proceeding between them for the same. The question is with whom it is most safe for Mr Vaughan to agree while these suits are pending - with Mr Roberts or with Mr Thelwall? And if he agrees with either of them, what security is fit to be taken against the other? Counsel's opinion is that Thelwall has the best title at law, but that Roberts has the better title in equity, and that it is better to agree with Roberts.