Page images
[blocks in formation]

Gazette, March 31.

Ashworth and Keyworth, brewers, Manchester, April 22, at twelve, Manchester, aud.-Daniel, W. cabinet maker, Manchester, April 23, at twelve, Manchester, aud.-Fordyce, W. bookseller, Newcastle, aud.-Hansen, P. merchant and shipowner, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, April 21, at twelve, Newcastle, aud. and April 23, at one, further div.-Henderson, J. horse dealer, High Crosby, Cumberland, April 21, at eleven, Newcastle, aud. and April 23, at one, div.-Lowthin, J. and Brinley, R. J. printers, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, April 21, at twelve, Newcastle, aud. and April 23, at half-past one, further joint div.-Oldham, E. and T. builders and railway directors, Chalford, Gloucester, and Cheltenham, April 27, at eleven, Bristol, aud. and final div.-Russell, C. H. scrivener, Ludlow, April 25, at eleven, Birmingham, aud. MEETINGS FOR ALLOWANCE OF CERTIFICATES. Kilpatrick and Smith, rope manufacturers, Liverpool, April 24, at twelve, Liverpool.-Wren, T. sharebroker, Preston, April 22, at twelve, Manchester.

Partnerships Dissolved.

Gazette, March 24.


Abbott, W. W. and Habershon, W. G. architects, St. Neot's, Jan. 1.-Allatt, I. Hillhouse, Dean, J. Crosland, J. Hepworth, J. and Chadwick, E. Huddersfield, fancy manufacturers, Jan. 2. Debts paid by Allatt.-Barton, W. sen. Mawdesley, and Cookson, W. Parbold, quarrymen, March 20. Debts paid by Barton.-Bates, J. and Willis, D. merchants, Liverpool, March 20.-Berridge, M. and Baker, R. drapers, Leicester, March 20. Debts paid by Baker.Bower, L. and Bottrell, J. coal dealers, Birmingham, March 16.- Carter, G. and Mullett, J. butty miners, Kingswinford, March 12. Debts paid by Mullett.-Cathie, J. and T. pianoforte manufacturers, Charles-street, Long-acre, March 19. Debts paid by J. Cathie.-Catterson, G. and W. tanners, Beverley, March 19.-Chrismas, R., T., and T. farmers, Mountfield, so far as regards R. Chrismas, Oct. 11. paid by the remaining partners.-Collier, H. and Eaton, G. share-brokers, Sheffield, March 19.-Colville, S. and Birrell, A. I. merchants, Liverpool, Sept. 17.-Falcke, H., D., and I. curiosity dealers, Oxford-st. and Hanway-st, March 17. Debts paid by H. Falcke.-Fearnley, David and Dan, wire drawers, Birstal, March 18. Debts paid by David Fearnley. -Gawthorp, M. and Rideal, S. victuallers, Great Portlandst. March 17.-Gilham, C. and J. and Moore, G. hat manufacturers, so far as regards Moore, March 17. Debts paid by Messrs. Gilham.-Hamilton, C. J. and Bird, W. J. booksellers, High-st. Islington, March 20. Debts paid by Hamilton.-Hampson, J. and L. stone dealers, Dukinfield, March 19.-Jackson, W. and Moore, J. linen drapers, Nottingham and Sutton-in-Ashfield, March 11.-Kingham, W. Edmondson, G. Keniston, S. and Howson, B. woollen drapers, Ludgate-hill, Feb. 18. Debts paid by Kingham, Edmondson, and Keniston.- Law, G. and Fuller, H. G. brassfounders, Rose-lane, Ratcliffe, March 18.-Lewis, W. and S. builders, Wokingham, March 20.-Ludlow, D. and Mills, J. hosiers, Oxford-st. March 21.-Morewood, G. B. Hetherington, M. Morewood, A. and J. R. Liverpool, Dec. 31. Debts paid by either partner.-Needham, S. and D. pork butchers, Manchester, Jan. 7.-Nicholls, A. and Jones, W. I. lamp manufacturers, Birmingham, March 19.Roden, W. and T. C. surgeons, Kidderminster, June 24.Veltmann, F. C., Kuhling, L. and Meyer, J. merchants and agents, Hull, so far as regards, Meyer, Jan. 1.-Walkey, J. and Stevens, R. painters, Plymouth, March 21. Debts paid by Walkey.-Webster, G. and Thompson, M. architects, Kendal, March 20. Debts paid by Thompson.-Wild, J., Dunnicliff, J. D. and Bradbury, W. lace manufacturers, Nottingham, March 19. Debts paid by Wild.-Woodgate, S. and How, C. T. St. Leonard's-on-Sea, Feb. 28.-Worssam, G. J. and S. millwrights, Great Mitchell-st. March 14.Wray. J. and E. commission agents, Friday, March 18.Yale, G. and W. and Barker, G. china manufacturers, Stoke-upon-Trent, so far as regards G. Barker, March 19. Debts paid by the remaining partners.

Gazette, March 27.

30, at half-past eleven-Clarke, C. coal dealer, Paradise-st. NERVOUSNESS, CURTO

Lambeth, April 1, at eleven.-D'Asmar, M. T. spinster,
King-st. Portman-square, April 1, at half-past ten.-Day, the Rev. Dr. Wills Moseley) has made arrangements to ex-
S. grocer, Hitchin, March 30, at half-past twelve.-Dexter, tend to every member of the community the benefit of the
C. W. glove maker, Duke-st. West Smithfield, March 30, at
great discovery for the CURE of NERVOUS COM-
eleven.-Domnison, W. engraver, Thornton-st. Bermondsey, PLAINTS, which hitherto has been enjoyed by the upper
April 1, at eleven.-Edie, E. widow, Market-st. Tottenham- and wealthier classes exclusively. Persons suffering from
court-road, April 8, at eleven.-Francklin, T. baker, Mar- groundless fear, delusion, melancholy, inquietude, disincli-
gate, April 1, at half-past ten.-Gardner, J. smith, Watling- nation for society, study, business, &c. confusion, blood to
ton, April 2, at eleven.-Glover, G. plumber, Hemel Hemp- the head, giddiness, failure of memory, irresolution, and
stead, April 3, at half-past twelve-Harcus, J. tailor, every other form of nervous disease, are invited to avail
Chatham, March 30, at eleven.-Hendry, J. back-maker,
themselves of this never-failing remedy. The most deeply.
Henry's-place, Hoxton Old town, March 30, at half-past rooted symptoms are effectually and permanently removed.
twelve.-Hunt, J. beer retailer, Johnson's-court, Fleet-st.
Hours for consultation daily from Eleven to Five, and in the
April 1, at eleven.-Larke, J. sen. house carpenter, Great evening from Seven to Nine, at Mr. Newton's residence, 7,
Yarmouth, April 1, at half-past ten.--Moon, J. surveyor, Northumberland-street, Trafalgar-square.-Letters, with a
Arundel-st. April 1, at eleven.-Onion, J. gardener, Ely, concise statement of cases, promptly attended to, and the
April 1 at, eleven.-Parris, J. general shopkeeper, Bedford-
means of cure sent to all parts.
st. Walworth, April 1, at eleven.-Rodwell, J. cabinet maker,
Watford, April two, at eleven.


Vatford, April two, at eleveBARD IN THE COUNTRY. GALVANI. HAI,valids are solicited to

Barnes, I. provision shopkeeper, Manchester, April 4, at
twelve, Manchester.-Bensley, B. in no business, Poolholm,
April 16, at eleven, Bristol.-Butterworth, B. linen draper,
Sutton in Ashfield, March 27, at eleven, Leeds.-Dewhurst,
S. sawyer, Blackburn, April 7, at twelve, Manchester.
Duckworth, H. woollen carder, Rochdale, April 2, at twelve,
Manchester.-Green, M. A. widow, Sheffield, March 27, at
eleven, Leeds.-Hindley, F. C. butcher, Newark-upon-
Trent, April 3, at eleven, Birmingham.-Jones, T. butcher,
Newtown, April 3, at eleven, Liverpool.-Newsom, T. butcher,
Sheffield, April 3, at eleven, Leeds.-Ogilvie, A. surgeon,
Bath, April 2, at one, Exeter.-Pickett, B. carrier, Ilfra-
combe, April 1, at one, Exeter.-Pratt, J. blacksmith, Col-
lumpton, April 1, at eleven, Exeter.-Ridsdale, T. publican,
Ferry-hill, Durham, April 7, at half-past twelve, Newcastle.
-Rose, J. R. clerk, Newcastle under-Lyme, March 28, at
half-past ten, Birmingham.-Sawtell, T. game dealer. Bath,
April 9, at eleven, Bristol.-Scott, F. gaol keeper, Halifax,
March 26, at eleven, Leeds.-Vincen, J. in no business,
Bedminster, April 2, at twelve, Bristol.-Wood, J. salesman,
Ashton-under-Lyne, April 6, at twelve, Manchester.
Wright, T. table knife manufacturer, Sheffield, March 27, at
eleven, Leeds.
Gazette, March 27.


Davis, J. P. attorney, Chiswick, April 2, at two.-Etty,
C. land surveyor, Poole, April 2, at two.-Poulton, J. painter,
West-st. Walworth, April 2, at two.

Davies, D. publican, Llantrissent, April 17, at eleven,
Bristol.-James, R. out of business, Bath, April 17, at
March 31, at eleven, Leeds.-Knowles, T. butcher, Kidder-
eleven, Bristol.-Johnson, R. woolstapler, Snape, Yorkshire,
minster, April 18, at eleven, Birmingham.-Liggins, J. H.
gent. Nuneaton, April 14, at eleven, Birmingham.—Oakey,
Turner, J. framesmith, Nottingham, April 2, at half-past
C. jeweller, Cheltenham, April 13, at eleven, Bristol.-
ten, Birmingham.


From the Gazette of Friday, April 3.

BROMPTON, LONDON, for his PAMPHLET on MEDICAL GALVANISM, which will be forwarded free on receipt of Two Postage Stamps. They will be astonished at its contents. In it will be found the particulars of cures in cases of Asthma, Rheumatism, Sciatica, Tie-douloureux, Paralysis, Spinal Complaints, Headaches, deficiency of Nervous Energy, Liver Complaints, General Debility, Indigestion, Stiff Joints, all sorts of Nervous disorders, &c. Mr. Halse's method of applying the Galvanic Fluid is quite free from all unpleasant sensation; in fact, it is rather pleasurable than otherwise, and many ladies are exceedingly fond of it. It quickly causes the patient to do without medicine. Terms, One Guinea per week.

"Galvanism.-We hold it a positive duty to call attention to the extraordinary cures lately effected by Mr. Halse, of Pelham-crescent, Brompton, London, by the means of Galvanism. A detail of these may be seen in clever pamphlet on the subject, lately published by the practitioner himself; but we are enabled to corroborate the most essential part of these statements, by the fact of having ourselves undergone the operation, the process of which is no way disagreeable, while the effect is equally astonishing and complete. In Asthma, more especially, the powers of Galvanism, properly applied, are wonderful."-Court Journal.

Galvanism.-The Science of Galvanism appears to be now brought to great perfection; for we are given to understand that it can be administered to mere infants, without producing the least inconvenience to them. Mr. Halse, of Pelham-crescent, Brompton, is the gentleman to whom the public are indebted for this improvement in the Galvanic Apparatus; in short, Mr. Halse may be considered the Medical Galvanist of the metropolis. Like most other men of talent, however, he has opponents and imitators; but what reason of Galvanism, would think of resorting to any imitator, when able person, who feels desirous of trying the remedial powers Mr. Halse can himself be applied to?"-Weekly Chronicle.

"Galvanism.-Our readers may have noticed several exGalvanism. We have reason to believe, that every case tracts we have given from Mr. Halse's Pamphlet on Medical stated in the pamphlet is perfectly true, wonderful as they certainly are; for a short time since we called on Mr. Halse, and were introduced by him to a gentleman who was undergoing the operation. The patient informed us that it was not at all an unpleasant sensation; indeed, we felt it our. selves, and there was not the least unpleasantness about it. that before he came to Mr. Halse, one leg had withered away to a mere skeleton, but now,' said he, you perceive, it is both stout and healthy.' Such, indeed, was the case. If we can judge by the number of patients Mr. Halse has, we should say he is making some very wonderful cures."— Shipping and Mercantile Gazette.

Haye, J. and Ayres, H. woollen drapers. Newgate-st.-This gentleman's case was Paralysis; and he declared to us, Dutt, J. carpenter, Upper-st. Islington.-Pile, W. licensed victualler, Lower, E. S. basket maker, Essex.-Holmes, J. R. brewer, Poplar.-Duffield, A. and M. ironmongers, Slough.-Shann, T. G. woollen cloth merchant, Leeds.-Cook, T. M. publican, Bath.-Watkinson, H. carpenter, President-st. East, St. Luke.-Withers, J. cattle dealer, Bushey-heath, Hertford.-Bradford, W. G. tailor, Bucklersbury-Forshall, T. surgeon, Doddington. grove, Kennington.-Williamson, J. brick maker, Manchester.-Oliver, M. innkeeper, Longtown, Cumberland.Henry, T. draper, Liverpool.-Marsland, H. silk throwster, Bosden, Cheshire.-Morris, J. dealer in furniture, Lancashire.




No. 7, Old Jewry, beg to inform the Legal Profession, that
they undertake to forward Deeds for Execution by Parties
abroad, through their correspondents on the Continent, for
the costs of transmission, and a simple commission.
List of Correspondents, and for further information, apply
as above.


Beal, H. and Watson, C. wheelwrights, Spencer-st. Shoreditch, March 21. Debts paid by Watson.-Billing, W. and Hall, J. flour dealers, King's Lynn, March 19.-Carling, W. and Milbourne, W. stockbrokers, Bishopwearmouth, March 24.-Chadwick, J. and Ashworth, T. manufacturers, Manchester, March 24.-Clark, J. and Cowan, T. and J. millers, Rotherhithe, March 25. Debts paid by either partner.Fowler, J. jun. and B. cordwainers, Malmsbury, March 16. Debts paid by B. Fowler.-Hamer, B. and Lund, J. cotton spinners, Bury, March 26. Debts paid by Hamer.-Hayes, M. and J. dentists, Great May's-buildings, March 25. Debts paid by J. Hayes.-Heaken, S., Buckley, T. and M. A. PonMansfield, Feb. 19.-James, R. and Woodburn, J. letterpress printers, Liverpool, March 26.-Jones, G. and Williams, P. coal masters, Walsall, July 23.-Maggi, C. and Cave, M. milliners, Regent-st. March 27-Nicholson, J. and Drew, T. linen drapers, Devonport, March 19.-Orton, J. and Donnison, F. mustard manufacturers, Newcastle, March 5.-Perks, W. S. and J. and Riddell, W. brewers, Burtonupon-Trent, so far as regards Riddell, March 25. Debts paid by the remaining partners.-Philpotts, J. and Weaver, Ċ. S. shawl warehousemen, Holborn-hill, March 24.-Price, J. and Davies, T. druggists, Abergavenny, March 19. Debts paid by Davies.-Stainforth, S., Hutton, G. and Rickett, J. J. corn millers, Sheffield, March 25. Debts paid by Rickett. -Wheeler, R. sen. and jun. and T. bankers, High Wycombe, so far as regards T. Wheeler, March 20.

tesbury, April 28.-Jackson, J. and Stinson, J. frame smiths, ALL and CO.


Petitioning the Courts of Bankruptcy.
Gazette, March 24.

Barker, R. victualler, Clarendon-st. Somers'-town, March
30, at twelve.-Bosley, M. domestic servant, Park-place
West, Camden-town.-Bridges, A. cheesemonger, Lambeth-
walk, March 30, at twelve.-Bullock, R. tailor, Dover, March


PANNUS CORIUM, or LEATHER CLOTH BOOTS and SHOES, for Ladies and Gentlemen. These articles have borne the test and received the approbation of all who have worn them. Such as are troubled with Corns, Bunions, Gout, Chilblains, or Tenderness of Feet from any other cause, will find them the softest and most comfortable ever invented-they never draw the feet or get hard, are very durable, adapted for every climate; they resemble the finest Leather, and are cleaned with common Blacking.

The PATENT INDIA RUBBER GOLOSHES are light, durable, elastic, and waterproof; they thoroughly protect the feet from damp or cold: are excellent preservatives against Gout, Chilblains, &c.; and when worn over a boot or shoe, no sensible addition is felt to the weight. Ladies and Gentlemen may be fitted with either of the above by sending a boot or shoe.

Hall and Co.'s Portable WATERPROOF DRESSES for
Ladies and Gentlemen. This desirable article claims the
attention of all who are exposed to the wet. Ladies' Car-
dinal Cloaks, with Hoods, 188. Gentlemen's Dresses, com-
prising Cape, Overalls, and Hood, 218. The whole can be
carried with convenience in the pocket.

The Trade supplied-Terms, Ready Money.
HALL and CO. particularly invite attention to their
ELASTIC BOOTS, which are much approved; they super-
sede lacing, or buttoning, are drawn on in an instant, and
are a great support to the ankle.

HALSE'S PORTABLE GALVANIC APPARATUS.— Mr. W. H. Halse, of 5, Pelham-crescent, Brompton, Lon don, is now ready to supply patients with his efficient PORTABLE APPARATUS. It is constructed on so simple a plan, that the most unscientific can manage it; and what renders it far superior to all other galvanic apparatus is, that it will remain in action for several weeks without the least trouble. It is constructed on precisely the same principle as the ones he uses at Pelham-crescent; and as he galvanizes between 40 and 50 patients every day, it may be well supposed that he has brought the galvanic apparatus to great perfection. Price 10 guineas, the cash to accompany the order. Medical advice will be given how to apply it. N.B. By inclosing two postage stamps to Mr. Halse, a pamphlet on galvanism will be forwarded post-free.



10s. 6d. per dozen, in demi-semi-quaver bottles. "Four glasses of capital wine, in an elegant bottle, called demi-semi-quaver, so ornamentally shaped as to grace any dinner-table."-Review.


"In the study, at chambers, or at the office, with a snack or luncheon, nothing can be better, and the wine is certainly first-rate."-Post.

"The wine is admirable, and the half-pints, or demi-semiquaver bottles, a most convenient form."-Herald.

Hampers, containing one dozen of each, or smaller quantities, may be had as samples. Semi-quavers, or pints, 218.; quavers, or quarts, 40s.


[ocr errors]

QUAVER WINE STORES, 70, St. Martin's-lane. Terms-Cash. Country Agents Wanted. WILLIAM CHARLES, Manager. ROUT'S TOOTH-BRUSHES. These celebrated Brushes are well known in most parts of the world, and esteemed for their durability and beauty of workmanship. They retain the hair till quite worn out, are made of every degree of hardness and variety of shape, to the extent of nearly 100 sorts, including those recommended by the principal dentists of our day, and are sold at the usual price of 1s. each, or by post for thirteen stamps.

Superior smooth-pointed Tortoiseshell Combs, the workmanship of which is rarely equalled. The new and fashionable Comb for Ladies' Head-dress in great abundance. Tail and Dressing Combs, together with Front Combs, carved, turned, and plain. The stock, for variety, colour, or extent, is presumed to be the most complete as well as the largest in London.

Prout's Brush and Comb Manufactory, 229, Strand, London, seven houses west of Temple-bar. Established forty years.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]


28 29




Page relating to any of the matters in the said bill mentioned,
with the exception of such documents in his possession
25 or power, as related exclusively to the rents and pro-
26 fits of the said copyhold estates or some part or parts
27 thereof received by this defendant since the death of
28 the said Thomas Rigby, or to the personal occupation
of the same estates, or to some part or parts thereof by
this defendant since the death of the said Thomas
31 Rigby." And save as in the said schedule mentioned,
31 the defendant denied the possession of any documents,
31 &c., "relating to the matters, or any matter in the
32 said bill mentioned, whereby, if the same were pro-
duced, the truth of such matters, or any of them,
33 would appear, except documents relating exclusively
33 to rents and profits so received by the defendant since
33 the death of the said Thomas Rigby as aforesaid, or
to the personal occupation by the defendant since the
death of the said Thomas Rigby, of the said copyhold
estates and premises, or some part or parts thereof."
Jas. Parker and Ran. Palmer, in support of the
36 plea. The statements in the bill may be divided into
two parts. The one which relates to the indentity of
36 the individuals who claim the property, which must
37 be answered; the other part is consequential upon
that, and against which we claim a right of protecting
37 ourselves. This is a case where one party, a total
stranger, asks for an account of the rents and profits
37 of a gentleman's estate. The plea ought not to be
39 disregarded by the Court, inasmuch as it proffers a
fair issue as to identity.




39 39



Thursday, Feb. 12. RIGBY v. RIGBY. Practice-Pleading-Discovery of documents, &c. The plaintiff's bill contained an allegation of his title to an estate (the subject-matter of the suit), and prayed an account of the rents and a discovery of documents, &c. relating to the estate. One of the defendants pleaded in bar to the relief, and to a discovery of documents relating to the rents, setting forth in his answer a list of all the documents" in his possession or power relating to any of the matters in the said bill mentioned," except such documents as related exclusively to rents. Upon the ground that the documents in question might, in their recitals, contain information to which the plaintiff was entitled on other points, the plea was overruled gene


Robson, for the bill, contended that the plea was not in fairness an issuable plea; and that it only aimed to protect the defendants from a discovery of the documents which related to the rents and profits; and might contain incidental information by rentals, &c., to which the plaintiff was justly entitled.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR.-The bill contains a general allegation that the defendants are in possession of documents relating to the matters aforesaid. Your plea goes to the whole relief, and so much of the discovery as prays an account of the rents and profits. Can this be taken as a division of the bill into two parts? The documents, as you state them, are not divided into two parts, since they all relate to some of the matters aforesaid.

J. Parker.—I have a right to protect myself from
the production of documents relating to the discovery
covered by the plea, if I produce all those which re-

late to the other matters mentioned in the bill. We gave
the plaintiff all such documents as do not relate ex-
clusively to rents and profits.


I do not understand

The bill was filed against Joshua Shaw, Mary Ann Bennett, the elder, William Bennett and Mary Ann Bennett, the younger, praying that the said indenture of 24th Sept. 1838, might be declared fraudulent and void against the plaintiffs, and that the said defendants might be declared only entitled to the said leasehold premises, subject to the aforesaid equitable mortgage, and that the defendants might be decreed to pay to the plaintiffs what should be found due on taking an account of principal and interest. The defendants now objected that the representatives of Robert Bennett, the settlor, ought to be made parties, and upon this objection the cause was set down (a).

Tennent, in support of the objection, contended, that the plaintiffs did not positively state that there is such an indenture of settlement, but simply this, namely it is alleged that there is; and there exists no instance in which the Court has gone to the extent of declaring an instrument fraudulent in the absence of the party making it.

Piggott, for the plaintiffs, stated, that the settlor had by the settlement made an absolute assignment of all his interest to the defendants.

His HONOUR thought, that, looking at the whole record, whatever infirmity there might have been in the allegations contained in the bill, it was sufficient that the substantial question was, whether the settlement should stand good as against the mortgagees. If not, his opinion was, that the bill might stand without the settlor's representatives, and therefore overruled the objection.


Tuesday, Feb. 17.

Solicitor's bill of costs-Delivery-Taxation-Paying
over trust money-Delivery of papers.
Four persons having taken a conveyance of property
claimed by a fifth, for the purpose of raising money
to prosecute his claims, employed a solicitor, and
deposited the money &c. with him; three of the
trustees, together with the cestui que trust, having
employed another solicitor, applied to the Court to
order the delivery of the former solicitor's bill, and
to refer it for taxation, they undertaking to pay
what should be found due. The former solicitor was
forbidden by the fourth trustee to deliver his bill,
pay over the money, or deliver up the papers. The
Court ordered the delivery of the bill and taxation,
reserving all other questions and also cosis, and
permitting the solicitor to review his bill, though made
out fully, if not actually delivered.

what is meant by the expression "exclusively," for although it may be taken as signifying a deed which did relate to the rents and profits exclusively, yet to have, a right to certain property, but not having One William Mobbs having, or conceiving himself there may be contained in that same instrument reci- the means of asserting his rights, arranged with four tals or descriptions of parties, which might afford information to which the plaintiff is entitled. The plea persons to become trustees for him of the property for the purpose of raising money to prosecute his avers that the defendant is the party named in the The plaintiff, John Rigby, in his bill, stated" that bill as the testator's nephew, John Rigby; still the claims. The trustees appointed Mr. Richardson their his uncle, John Rigby, after surrendering certain plaintiff is entitled to a discovery of the rents and solicitor, and certain moneys which had been raised, copyholds to the use of his will dated 22nd January; profits, and all that you allege is, that you have set as well as papers, were deposited in Mr. Richardson's 1812, directed the trustee therein named to stand fined forth in a schedule all that do not relate exclusively cestui que trust, having thought fit to change their hands. Three of the trustees, together with the and seised of all his aforesaid surrendered copyhold to the rents and profits. You then ask protection estates in trust for the use of his brothers, William from discovery of the documents which relate to the solicitor, demanded his bill of costs from Mr. RichRigby and Thomas Rigby, from and after his decease, rents and profits. The circumstance of the defen-ardson, together with an account of the money transequally to be divided between them as tenants in dant's being entitled, affords no reason why he should actions, and a delivery of the papers, and he having common and not as joint tenants during their natural not make a discovery of those deeds which relate to refused, Mobbs presented a petition to that effect, lives, and to and for the use of the survivor of them the rents and profits. which was dismissed. The present petition did not, during the natural life of such survivor, and, from and as before, ask for the money in his hands, but only after the decease of such survivor, in trust for the use for the delivery of his bill, and an order for its taxaof his nephew John Rigby and his heirs and assigns. tion when delivered, &c. they undertaking to pay The testator died in 1812, and besides the said what should be found due. William Rigby and Thomas Rigby, the testator had Practice-Parties-Fraudulent Settlement-Represen-stated that Thomas Smith, the other trustee, would

two other brothers, one who died in the lifetime of the testator, leaving a son, John Rigby, the defendant, and another, Henry Rigby, the father of John Rigby, the plaintiff. The bill stated the respective deaths of Henry Rigby, William Rigby, and Thomas Rigby, and that since the death of Thomas Rigby the defendant, John Rigby, had continued in possession of the said copyhold estates, and charged that the defendants had in their possession documents, &c. relating to the matters aforesaid, and whereby if produced, the truth thereof would appear." And prayed that it might be declared that the said testator by his nephew John Rigby, in the said will named, meant the plaintiff, and not the defendant John Rigby, and that the plaintiff might be declared entitled to the said copyhold estates, and prayed an account of the rents and profits of the said copyhold estates since the decease of the said Thomas Rigby.

To this bill the defendant John Rigby put in a plea and answer, whereby he pleaded in bar to all the relief prayed, and to so much of the discovery as asked for an account of the rents and profits, and as required, the discovery or production of documents relating to the receipt or application of the rents and profits of the said copyhold estates or some part thereof since the death of the said Thomas Rigby; and for plea saying that he the defendant was the testator's nephew John Rigby in the said will named. To certain other parts of the bill the defendant John Rigby answered as follows, that in a schedule to his answer annexed he had "set forth a full and true list of all the documents now in his possession or power, VOL. VII. No. 158,

Plea overruled, without leave to stand for answer.
Friday, Feb. 13.

Shapter, for the petitioners, read the affidavits, and

not join.

Kindersley, contrà, said that the respondent was willing to deliver his bill, and to comply with the wishes of the petitioners; but he held a sum of money which had been borrowed to prosecute the suit of Mobbs, and there were also papers in his hands, and he was directed by Thomas Smith not to give up either the money or the papers, inasmuch as Smith was liable to other persons from whom the money was borrowed. [The MASTER of the ROLLS.-That can be discussed and settled hereafter, if only the delivery and taxation of the bill be ordered now.] troversy is between the three trustees and cestui que trust on the one hand, and the remaining trustee on

the other.

The con

Moore, for Thomas Smith, said, he considered him

To a bill filed for the purpose of impeaching a settle-
tatives of Settlor.
ment on the ground of fraud, an objection was raised
for want of the representatives of the settlor. Held,
that such representatives were unnecessary parties.
The bill stated that one Robert Bennett, for securing
the repayment of a sum of 150l. to the plaintiffs, de-
posited with them in July, 1840, a certain lease, and
at the same time gave them a written memorandum
of the transaction. The plaintiffs, at the request of
Robert Bennett, advanced the further sum of 201. and
received another memorandum at the foot of the for-
mer one; that an indenture of settlement was al-
leged to have been made, dated the 24th Sept. 1838,
whereby the said Robert Bennett professed to assign
to Joshua Shaw, his executors, administrators, and
assigns, the premises comprised in the said lease upon
nett, Mary Ann Bennett, his wife, and William Ben-
certain trusts, for the benefit of the said Robert Ben-
(a) This was under the 39th Order, 26th August, 1841,
which directs, "that when the defendant shall, by his an-
nett and Mary Ann Bennett, his two children, and all swer, suggest that the bill is defective for want of parties,
and every other child and children of the said Robert the plaintiff shall be at liberty, within fourteen days after
Bennett and Mary Ann Bennett the elder, as therein answer filed, to set the cause down for argument upon that
mentioned; that, until the month of August, 1844, objection only; and the purport for which the same is so
the plaintiffs had never heard or had any suspicion Registrar's Book, in the form or to the effect following (that
set down shall be notified by an entry to be made in the
that the said Robert Bennett had made any such set- is to say), Set down, upon the defendant's objection for
tlement; that the plaintiffs were purchasers for valu-want of parties,' and that where the plaintiff shall not so
able consideration of the said leasehold premises to set down his cause, but shall proceed therewith to a hearing,
the extent of 170%, and interest; and that the said in-notwithstanding an objection for want of parties taken by
denture of 24th September, 1838, was a voluntary
settlement, and fraudulent and void against the plain-
tiffs as such purchasers, as aforesaid: that in June,
1845, the said Robert Bennett died.

[blocks in formation]

self only liable, but that the others, though they said they were, really were not liable.

The MASTER of the ROLLS said, he understood that the four trustees employed the solicitor, and it had not been denied. He would therefore crder the bill to be delivered and taxed, and would reserve all other questions, which, if he could, on the jurisdiction he then exercised, he would consider. If the bill had not been delivered, though fully made out, the solicitor might review it, and he allowed him six weeks to deliver it.

Wednesday, Feb. 25.
Consent to pass decree-Change of solicitor-Irregu-
larity-Order to restore solicitor.

accordingly given in his presence and with his appro-
bation; but the question was, how to proceed after
having got it. The plaintiffs' solicitor says it would
have been useless for him to proceed unless he was
the solicitor on the record, and so, after taking ad-
vice, he got himself substituted for the purpose of
giving the consent and authorising the passing of the
decree. It would have been better if he had told the
lady of the difficulty, and prevailed upon her to give
a peremptory order to her solicitor or to some one
else to appear for her; he did not do so, however,
but at the same time he did not act on his own au-
thority without advice which appeared satisfactory.
Well, having got himself substituted as solicitor, and
having appeared and consented, he was functus officio.
Inquiries having been made by the defendant's soli-
citor, who was desirous of communicating with Mrs.
Whatley, he finds himself displaced, and wants to
know how he is to get out of the difficulty, and it
occurs to him that the only way is to obtain an order
to discharge the order for a change of solicitors.
Now that is not a proper order; for if he had done
what the other party did, there would have been no
occasion for the change. First, then, no costs must
fall upon this lady in consequence of the proper effort
made by the plaintiffs' solicitor to supply the defect
of her non-appearance. On the other hand, as she
did consent to pass the decree, let it not be disturbed.
The proper order is, that the defendant's original
solicitor shall be the solicitor on the record, and the
costs to fall on the plaintiffs.

Saturday, March 21.
General Orders-Master's finding--Master's duty on
a reference to him—Inconvenience of his not drawing
a conclusion.

It being necessary to have the consent of a defendant,
who had not been properly served, to the passing of
a decree, so as to make it binding, application was
made to the solicitor of one set of defendants, of
whom this defendant was one, to act, but he refusing
to do so, the solicitor of the plaintiffs having got the
defendant's signature to a consent to pass the decree,
obtained an order making himself solicitor of the de-
fendant in place of his own solicitor, and the decree
was passed. The defendant having moved to dis-
charge the order for changing the solicitor, it was
ordered, not that the order should be discharged, but
that the original solicitor should be the solicitor on
the record, and the costs should fall on the plaintiff.
In this case Ann Whatley, one of a set of defen-
dants, made so at the hearing, being found in the
registrar's office not to have been duly served, it was
necessary to have her appearance and consent to the
passing of the decree, in order to make it binding
upon her; and for that purpose application was made
to her solicitor, who was the solicitor of her co-defen-
dants, to act for her; but he refusing to do so, she The 48th General Order of August, 1841, requires the
was applied to by a solicitor on behalf of the plaintiffs Master not to insert states of facts, &c. in his reports,
to sign a paper in presence of her son, whereby she but to refer to them merely; and the Master ought to
consented to the passing of the decree. The solicitor come to a conclusion on the matters submitted to him
for the plaintiffs having obtained this consent, was as well that the parties may have the opportunity
doubtful how he should proceed upon it, but, acting of excepting to his report, as that the Court may
on advice, he got the common order to change soli- have the benefit of his finding. And where, in a re-
citors, substituting himself in the place of the de- port, the Master had set forth a full state of facts,
fendant's solicitor. This it was thought necessary &c. and had come to no conclusion upon them, the
to do in order to avail himself of the defendant's
Court referred the report back to him to review it.
consent, for no one but the solicitor on the record for This was an administration suit, and, by the decree
the time being acting for the defendant could give made at the hearing, it was ordered that it should
instructions to counsel, or take any step on her be- be referred to the Master to inquire who were the
half, and so the consent would be inoperative, if next of kin of the testator, and to ascertain whether
acted on by the solicitor for the plaintiffs as such. any and what debts were due to his estate from a
The decree was accordingly passed, Mrs. Whatley particular defendant therein named; also to inquire
assenting thereto by her new solicitor. The matter, who were interested in the residuary estate, and whe-
however, coming to her knowledge, and that of ther any and what proceedings ought to be taken to
her own solicitor, they were both dissatisfied; and get it in or otherwise in respect thereof, with liberty to
hence the present motion to discharge the common state special circumstances. The matter having come
order to change solicitors, which, if successful, would before the Master, and the executors having carried in
be equivalent to setting aside the decree. The mo- certain states of facts, and having produced several
tion was opposed, therefore, by the plaintiffs, and it affidavits relating to the debts in question, the
was alleged at the bar, though there was no affidavit Master set them out in his report at full length, not-
to that effect, that the plaintiff's solicitor had pro-withstanding the 48th General Order of August, 1841,
posed to the defendant's solicitor to obtain the com- which directs that states of facts, &c. shall not be set
mon crder to restore him, and that this suggestion out, but only referred to. The Master also found
was made before the notice of motion. On the other some debts due, but he left it for the consider-
hand, Mrs. Whatley, as well as her son, in whose ation and direction of the Court whether any proceed.
presence and with whose approbation the consent ings ought to be taken by the executors to recover
was given, denied that anything had ever been said and get in the residuary estate. The report was duly
to them about a change of solicitors, and if they had confirmed, and the cause now came on upon further
known it was intended, the consent would not have directions; but the attention of the Court being drawn
been given.
to the report, the further hearing was directed to
stand over.

Turner (with him Borrett) contended that the order to change solicitors had been improperly obtained, and ought to be discharged. Mrs. Whatley was not told, nor was her son, that the change was intended to be made, or she would not have agreed to it. Kindersley (with him Pitman) said his clients had no objection to obtain the common order to restore the defendant's solicitor, and a suggestion of that kind had been made to the other side before motion, but there was no affidavit of it. The order was, to appear for Mrs. Whatley and consent to the passing of the decree, and, her solicitor refusing to do so, her consent was obtained by the plaintiffs; but as no solicitor can give authority to counsel except the solicitor on the record, it was therefore thought necessary to go through the form of changing the solicitor. This, it is said, was wrong, and the defendant says she never consented to it; but if the only way of making the consent she gave operative was by changing the solicitor, it is clear she virtually assented to that step. The plaintiffs' solicitor had no objection to pay for the common order to change solicitors, the cost of which is 7s.; and also for another order to restore the defendant's solicitor; but it is submitted he ought not to pay more.

The MASTER of the ROLLS.-It seems this lady was one of a set of defendants who were brought before the Court at the hearing, and that she could not be duly served. This being discovered in the regisNtrare offeplication was made to the solicitor of

these defendants to appear and consent for her to the passing of the decree; but he refused to do so, and the decres Bassed, would not therefore be binding on his chent pplication was then made through a son of the defendant for her consent, and it was

The MASTER of the ROLLS observed that the Master had, in violation of the rule of Court, founded on the General Orders, set out in full the states of facts, affidavits, &c. which had been carried in before him, and, besides, had come to no conclusion respecting the matters submitted to him. He had never seen a greater departure from the rules of the Court in the form of a Master's report. It was of the utmost importance that the rules of the Court should be adhered to; and the interest of the parties in the cause, as well as of the suitors in general, required that they should be so. The Master in this case had come to no conclusion, and the parties were therefore deprived of the opportunity of excepting to the report, and the Court was deprived of the benefit of the Master's finding on the facts and evidence before him. He was unwilling to increase the expense, but he could not adjudicate on a report in this state. He would therefore discharge the Order confirming the Master's report, and refer it back to the Master to review it, so far as related to the points on which he had come to no conclusion.


Monday, March 9.
Misconduct of solicitor.
Where, upon the pleadings in a suit, the conduct of a
solicitor, who was a defendant, appeared to have been
grossly improper, the Court, after disposing of the
case, ordered that the solicitor should, by a certain

day, shew cause why his name should not be struck off the rolls.

This suit was instituted against the executor of a will and Mr. George Price Hill, his solicitor, for the purpose of having a sum of stock, which had been improperly sold out, replaced. The allegations of the bill were substantially admitted by the answers. The conduct of Mr. George Price Hill, as it appeared upon the pleadings, formed the principal subject of discussion, and after the other parts of the case had been disposed of,

The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, I have now so far disposed of the cause. I must do more. An old man, in a lowly class of society, a Worcestershire peasant, scarcely or not at all above the station of a farm labourer, happens to be a trustee under a farmer's will, of a sum of stock amounting to 6501. Three per Cent. Consols, for the benefit of the Goodwin family, who are infants-for the benefit, probably, of unborn persons. The stock stands in the name of the testator, and is bequeathed to his sole acting executor and trustee, for the benefit of the children, and that bequest of the stock is for this purpose a specific bequest, and has been assented to. I must, upon the evidence, consider the trust as fixed, and the fund as clear, except that the legacy-duty, amounting to 11. per cent. which makes the amount something less than 81. has not at this time been paid. In this state of things the old man, the trustee, seems to have received the ordinary application from the legacy-duty office, as I collect, on the subject of the duty, and to have consulted Mr. Hill, a solicitor, upon it. Mr. Hill advises him to sell the whole of the stock.

desire now not to be understood as adopting the evidence of Mr. Gibbon, a witness in the cause. I do not put it so unfavourably to Mr. Hill as that evidence does. He advises him to sell the whole of the stock, the will giving no authority for this purpose. This advice was plainly unjustifiable, and most manifestly unwarranted. Perhaps it might not have been wrong to sell, or to advise the sale of, a specific part of the stock to pay the duty, but for that object certainly not so much as 151. could have been wanted. I am bound to attribute to Mr. Hill a knowledge of the title to the stock in question, of the circumstances of that title, and also a knowledge of the nature of the advice he gave. I cannot, upon the evidence before me, ascribe to the trustee a sufficient degree of knowledge or information to enable him to judge whether the advice given him was right or wrong. The trustee follows the advice. Mr. Hill causes a blank power of attorney to be prepared in favour of his London agent, Mr. Smith; it is sent down to Mr. Hill, who procured its execution by the trustee, and then sent it back to London, where the agent, Mr. Smith, under Mr. Hill's direction, acted upon it by selling out the stock and paying the clear proceeds, amounting to more than 5901. sterling into a London bankinghouse, to the credit of Mr. Hill's account with a country bank, by which transaction the clear produce of the whole sale found its way into the name and into the power of Mr. Hill, and in fact came into his hands. It is unnecessary to characterise such a transaction. But the matter does not end here. Mr. Hill afterwards dealt with the money, and in doing so it was materially at his peril, by lending it, or representing himself to have lent it, on a security on which (even supposing, as I collect, the will had authorised a sale) it would have been unwarrantable and improper in its nature to have lent it upon. He misapplied grossly, and represents himself to have misapplied grossly, in some other manner, the remainder of the money, and claimed all, or nearly all, the remainder, as being due to him for charges of an unreasonable nature, at least in part, and with which, as to part, the persons who were beneficially interested in the fund could have nothing to do. He prepared, and caused to be executed, a release to himself in respect of these transactions. What would have been the right mode of dealing with or viewing conduct such as this, had the trustee been a person of education, or a man capable of protecting himself, I need not say. Upon the evidence before me, I believe that the trustee here was a helpless and ignorant instrument-a mere instrument in the hands of Mr. Hill, without any judgment, or with scarcely more judgment or volition for any effectual, substantial, or useful purpose, in this matter, than the pen with which he was made to sign his name. It has been said of other persons, and in other instances, and it may be said of Mr. Hill and of this case, that the regret that a professional man should have so conducted himself is only equalled by the wonder that, as he has the means of preventing this transaction from being brought under public observation, he should have allowed it to go forth to the world as he has. None of the parties interested have made any application against him except by the institution of this suit. I see no reason for supposing Mr. Hill to be unable to satisfy the pecuniary demand which the plaintiffs have upon him, if it had not been necessary that the case should come before the Court. As it is, however, unfortunately the case has come before the Court, and it is now judicially before me, and my understanding of the

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

duty I owe to this profession and society prohibits me from treating it as not containing any thing beyond a mere matter of civil litigation. If a solicitor by his employment professionally on behalf of an ignorant man, and by means of the confidence reposed in him by his client-by means of information given him by the client-is enabled to acquire, and using those means for the purpose of acquiring, does acquire by them, from the client, the property of others for whom the client is trustee, and to whom he is answerable for it-if the solicitor thus acquires, and I do not merely say unduly, I do not merely say unjustly, and for an improper purpose, but in 8 manner which the solicitor must have known to be improper and unfair, for purposes which he must have known to be manifestly unjustifiable-if, having done so, the solicitor actually does misapply the property so unduly acquired, and if the purpose for which, and the manner in which, he so misapplies it, is to any extent substantially for his own private advantage, benefit, or profit, and if the client so relying upon the solicitor is a person by education and station so incapable of forming a correct estimate of the propriety or impropriety of the act of the other as to be substantially a mere instrument or machine in his hands, used by him as I have said, I am not prepared to say that such a professional man ought to remain a solicitor of any court. Assuming the act of acquiring property under such circumstances not to amount to an indictable offence, I do not see any other reason than that against the substantial applicability to him of a term or terms more ordinarily and familiarly in use in jurisdictions of a kind differing from this, and which I need not more specifically express. As I am to my great regret unable to say that the materials before me do not afford a probable ground for apprehending the supposed case, which I have been mentioning, to be a substantially correct description of Mr. Hill's conduct in respect of the 6501. stock, and its produce, and, therefore, for questioning the propriety of the continuance of Mr. Hill as an officer of the court, I should in my judgment, considering the nature of the case, be deserting one of the most important duties belonging to the judicial office, were I not to order, as I now do, that Mr. Hill do shew cause, on some future day to be now fixed, why, having regard to his answer and to the evidence in this cause, his name should not be struck of the roll of solicitors of the Court of Chancery.

The second day of Easter Term was then fixed for Mr. Hill to shew cause.

Russell, Goodeve, Renshaw, Wigram, and Rogers were the counsel for the several parties.

Saturday, March 14.-The VICE-CHANCELLOR said that a somewhat similar order to that which he had made in this case, had been made in 1794, in Dungey v. Angom. The order in the registrar's book (5th August, 1794; A. 1793, fol. 542), appeared to be as follows:-"And it is further ordered that the said Anthony Steventon be struck off the roll of solicitors of this court unless he shall, on the first day of next Michaelmas Term, shew unto this Court good cause to the contrary."



Monday, March 2.

ADIE v. WALFORD. Joint Stock Company-Liability-Member of Committee-Sale of shares-Embarrassment-Fraud. A member of the committee of a Joint Stock Company may sell his shares to the company without fraud upon the other shareholders, where the proceeding is done according to the rules of the company, and thus relieve himself from further liability, although he knew at the time the company were embarrassed, and obtained that information from the situation he held in the company.

This was an original bill and cross bill for a discovery, which came on for hearing together. The first bill was filed by Walford on behalf of himself and the other members of the Birmingham Coal Company, against the defendants Adie and Robinson, and prayed to have the transfer of twenty-two shares in the company made by Adie declared fraudulent and void, and that the same might be cancelled, and that Adie might be decreed to pay the calls which had been subsequently made upon them, and contribute rateably with the other shareholders to the payment of the debts of the company.

The company in question was formed in the year 1793, and the defendant Adie held twenty-two shares in it, and was a member of the committee of management. The company became very embarrassed, and during that time, and while Adie was a member of the committee, he sold the shares to the company in July 1835, and made a transfer of the shares into the name of the secretary, Robinson, in trust for the company, which was duly registered. The bill charged that Adie knew the company was embarrassed when he sold the shares, and that he did so to avoid liabi~ lity as a shareholder; for after the sale and transfer Adie ceased to act on the committee,

Romilly and Daniel, for the plaintiffs,
Wood and Stinton, for the defendants.
The arguments are fully entered into in the


of the sale, if the shareholders generally had managed their own concerns; as, in the case of ordinary partnerships, it would not be unreasonable to presume that they were acquainted with the contents of their own books; in the present case it was not unreasonable to impute to the shareholders at large a knowledge which the committee had acquired. I think the body of shareholders are clearly bound by acquiescence in the present case. The shareholders would, from a circular sent at the annual meeting, be aware whether Adie continued a shareholder or not, but this alone would not have notified to whom the shares had been sold; it was not notified that they had been sold to the company; however, after March 1836, it was admitted that the fact of Adie's having ceased to be a shareholder became a subject of discussion amongst the shareholders, but it was not known then to whom he had sold them. It was clear that, immediately after the meeting of June 1837, it became known to the shareholders, or some of them, including the plaintiff Walford, that Adie's shares had been sold to the company. Having got this notice, they did not call upon the committee to convene a special meeting to take active steps until August 1838, when a committee was appointed to inquire into the transaction. The bill was filed in 1841. I do not find a word of explanation for the delay; the question, therefore, was, whether the Court was to pronounce a decree which was to have the effect of making Adie a partner from July 1837 in a trading concern of a fluctuating character, and involving him in all the subsequent transactions of the company. All the facts of this case proved the soundness of that general rule, which imposed upon parties engaged in a fluctuating trading concern of this chracter, the necessity of promptitude and activity in stating what were their intentions; it had been said that Adie was privy to a fraud in misrepresenting the state of the account in 1835. Adie denied actual knowledge of those accounts. I cannot, without inquiry, trust to the evidence on that point, but I think this observation is applicable to it, that if Adie were guilty of fraud, it was one by which he was making himself liable, nor can I in the slightest degree connect the alleged misrepresentation with the sale which is the subject of complaint. I must, therefore, dismiss the original and supplemental bill with costs, and the cross bill, filed for the purpose of dis

Saturday, March 14.

A defendant cannot move for an injunction against à

The VICE-CHANCELLOR.-I do not find in the bill any suggestion that the committee of management exceeded its authority in buying the shares on behalf of the company, or that the price given for them exceeded the market value of the shares at the time. A supplemental bill was filed, introducing charges of fraud and of false and fraudulent representations, alleged to have been made by the committee of management, of which Adie was a member, as to the state of the company's affairs. It was alleged that Adie was a party to these fraudulent representations. Assuming the authority of the committee extended to the purchase of shares on behalf of the company, and that no excess of price was charged for those shares, I should assume that the position of Adie, as a member of the committee of management, was not such as to bring him within the scope of the equitable rule relied on in the argument, which, if it applied in this case, would place Adie under an incapacity to sell to the company. Would the sale of shares, in that view of the case, be impeachable on the ground of fraud, or otherwise? The answer to this question, although not strictly called for by the pleadings, might be material. As explaining the view which I take of the other branches of the case, my opinion is, that the sale, in that view of the case, could not be impeached; that the concerns of the company at the time of the sale were in a depressed state, might, perhaps, not admit of dispute; but that it was the duty of any shareholder, upon that account only, to retain his shares, no one, I think, can with any success contend. If that were so, the position of Adie, as a member of the committee of management, could not place him in a different position, unless it could be shewn he took undue advantage of his situation as a committeeman, to sell his shares at an undue value to a party who had not the same means of knowledge as himself: this was not the case in the present transaction; the committee of management thought it was for the interest of the company that they should become the purchasers of the shares; the committee had the same means of information as Adie himself; the solicitor of the company was one of the body, and generally acted as chairman of the committee who had pur-covery, without costs. chased other shares, about the same period, for a similar price. If the purchase were really onerous to the company, the members of the committee, other than Adie, were acting in direct opposition to their individual interests, inasmuch as it appeared that more than one-fourth of the shares of the whole concern was held by the managing committee other than Adie; every thing had been done openly; the whole transaction had been entered in the books of the company; then could Adie's position, as a member of the committee, render the sale void? The agreement was, that his contract could not bind the company, unless it was made with the committee; and that as he was the seller, he was incapacitated from acting as a member of the committee, and therefore the committee for the time being could not contract. Considering the objection involved as one of the greatest importance, I shall consider the objection to be well founded, and consider whether, upon that assumption, the present bill could be sustained, always remembering that the price at which the shares were sold had not been made the subject of the bill; the retirement of the defendant, and his consequent escape from liability, were grievances complained of by the original suit. Upon this point, however, I felt less difficulty during the argument than perhaps any other part of the case. The defendant was a shareholder in a mining partnership; in July 1835, he retired from the partnership by selling his shares to the company; he The VICE-CHANCELLOR.-I never heard such an had, ever since, lost all the privileges of a partner. application being made by a defendant. The proper The sale of Adie's shares was (as I assume for the course would have been to file a bill and pray an inpurpose of argument) voidable at the option of the junction. No doubt after an order for a receiver, the company; but if the company in such a case had act of cutting the timber is highly improper; but the thought fit to avoid the sale, they were bound to have affidavit is defective by not stating the time Nockdone so with promptness. The company having notice holes first heard of the intention to cut timber. Had of the sale could not be permitted to carry on the this application been made by Sir Francis Vincent, concerns in the absence of Adie, reserving to them- his duly appointed agent, or any one having an inselves the power to affirm the transaction if the con- terest in the property injured, the Court would have cern should turn out prosperous, or to rescind it if it granted it; but the mode in which it is now made is should appear to be for the interest of the company altogether irregular, for it is admitted Nockholes, that it should do so. In a concern of such a nature, who makes it, has no personal interest in the subit was the right of Adie to know, at the earliest mo-ject-matter of the suit; he is the mere agent ment, whether the company elected to treat the sale of Sir Francis Vincent discharged by the Court, and void or not, especially where, as in this case, Adie does not now appear in the character of agent for Sir might, without the consent of the company, have got Francis Vincent, but as an accounting party derid of his shares to other persons. In fact, no step fendant in the suit. A party so circumstanced has had been taken from the time of the sale in 1835 until no right to apply for an injunction. I therefore re1841, when the bill was filed. During this interval fuse the application. the company had obtained, and had since acted upon, the provisions of the Act of Parliament obtained in 1836, enlarging their capital, creating new shares, and extending their mining operations, and Adie had been permitted to consider himself throughout as unconnected with and as having no interest in the concerns of the company. The question then was, from what time it was to be considered that the company had acquiesced in the sale; or, in other words, at what time it was to consider the company as having had notice

A person who has no personal interest in the subjectmatter cannot move for an injunction, even though he may be a party defendant in a suit.

The plaintiff, as equitable mortgagee, had obtained an order to remove the defendant from the office of receiver over the estates of Sir Francis Vincent, who is living in Italy. The defendant was the agent of Sir Francis, and in that character had been made a party to the suit for the purpose of having an account of the rents received by him. When the defendant was removed it was referred to the Master to have another receiver appointed; but before the receiver was appointed, the plaintiff had gone down to the estates and caused a fall of timber and underwood to be made; whereupon the defendant moved ex parte for an injunction to restrain the plaintiff from removing the timber he had cut down, and from further proceeding to cut down timber or underwood on the estate in the cause. The motion was supported by an affidavit of the facts.

Schomberg appeared in support of the motion, and cited Blanchard v. Cawthorne (6 Sim. 155).

Schomberg immediately proceeded before the Lord Chancellor, and made a similar application which was refused on the same ground, but the Lord Chancellor said the plaintiff had laid himself subject to an application for violating an order of the Court.

Common Law Courts.


Tuesday, Jan. 27.

Award-Declaration on.

in difference between the said parties to the said arbitrator thereon, should be made a rule of the said action, and between the defendants and the said Court. And the plaintiffs aver that at the time of William Cole, who consented to be made a party making the said order of reference, and from thence thereto, and to order and determine what he, the said until after the making the said award, there were not Robert Allen, should think fit to be done by either any matters in difference between the said plaintiff, party respecting the matters in dispute, who thereby Sarah Hawkins, and the defendants, in the said suit, agreed to be bound and concluded by such determi- or either of them, or between the said William Cole nation, and to remain contented and satisfied there- and the said defendants in the said suit, or either of A declaration stated that divers disputes had arisen with, so as the said Robert Allen, the arbitrator afore- them; nor were there any other matters, differences, and being depending between one of two plaintiffs, said, should make and publish his award in writing of or questions brought before the said arbitrator, or S. H. and the defendant, of and concerning certain and concerning the matters so referred ready to be was the award of the said arbitrator made or given in premises and buildings, and also between the other delivered to the said parties on or before the last day respect of any causes or matters in difference whatof the plaintiffs, W. C. and the defendant, of and of Michaelmas Term then next ensuing, or in case of soever other than the controversies and disputes in concerning the said premises and buildings. S. H. the death of the said parties, or either of them, to the introductory part of this count mentioned. And commences an action against the defendant and his their or either of their personal representatives re- the plaintiffs further say, that the costs of the said bailiff for breaking and entering the said premises, quiring the same. And it was by the said order and action, reference, and award, afterwards, to wit, on and that while the said action and the said with such consent as aforesaid, further provided, that the twenty-third day of August, in the year of our disputes were SO depending, it was agreed to the said parties should in all things keep such award Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-four, were refer the cause and the matters in difference so to be made as aforesaid, and that the costs of the duly taxed at a large sum of money, to wit, the sum between the two plaintiffs and the defendant in the said cause should abide the event of the said cause, of one hundred and seventy-five pounds, five shillings, introductory part of the count mentioned to R. A. and that all other costs should be in the discretion of of all which said premises the defendant afterwards, esq. a barrister, with power to him to direct for what the said arbitrator, who should direct and award to, to wit, on the first day of March, in the year one sum the verdict should be entered, and to settle all and by whom, and in what manner, the same should thousand eight hundred and forty-five, had notice. matters in difference. It then sets out the award of be paid; and it was by the said order, and by such Yet the defendant did not, nor would, on the said the arbitrator, who found that the plaintiff had a consent as aforesaid, further directed that the said first day of March, or at any time before or since, al. good cause of action against the defendant, and was arbitrator should have power, with or without the though often requested so to do, pay to the plaintiffs entitled to a verdict therein, and assessed the damages consent of the said parties, to enlarge the time for the said sum of forty shillings in the said award at "the sum of forty shillings, to be paid by the said making his said award from time to time, as occasion mentioned, and the said sum of one hundred and defendant to the said plaintiff, S. H. and W. C. who might require, and possess the same powers as a seventy-five pounds five shillings, the amount of the consented to become a party in the cause," and judge at Nisi Prius, and should also be at liberty, if said costs, or any part thereof, but hath hitherto directed the costs to be paid by the defendant. It he should so think fit, to examine the said parties to wholly neglected and refused, and still neglects and then, after setting out the necessary averments, con- the said suit, and their respective witnesses, upon refuses so to do, whereby an action hath accrued to cluded in debt for the amount of the damages and oath; and also, that neither the then plaintiff, nor the plaintiffs to demand and have of and from the detaxed costs. The defendant demurred on the ground the defendants, or the said William Cole, should bring fendant the said sum of forty shillings, and one hunthat the declaration did not shew that W. C. was a or prosecute any action or suit of law or in equity dred and seventy-seven pounds five shillings, parcel party to the action which had been referred, or that against the said arbitrator, or bring any writ of error, of the said sum above demanded by the plaintiffs. there was any matter in difference between S. H. and or prefer any bill in equity against each other, of and And whereas the defendant, on the first day of March, W. C. jointly and the defendant, and yet the arbitra- concerning the matters so referred; and that if either in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred tor ordered the damages to be paid to S. H. and W. party should, by affected delay or otherwise, wilfully and forty-five, was indebted to the plaintiffs in one C. jointly-Held, that as an equitable claim might prevent the said arbitrator from making his said hundred and seventy-seven pounds five shillings, for exist by which W. C. was virtually co-plaintiff with award, he should pay such costs to the other as the money found to be due from the defendant to the S. H. there must be judgment for the plaintiff. said Court of Queen's Bench should think reasonable plaintiffs on an account then stated between them, Middlesex } Sarah Hawkins and William Cole, the and just; and by the said order, and with the like which said sum of one hundred and seventy-seven to wit. plaintiffs in this suit, by William Whalley, consent, it was further directed, that the said order pounds five shillings was to be paid by the defendtheir attorney, complain of Robert Benton, the de- should be made a rule of her Majesty's said Court of ant to the plaintiffs on request, yet the defendant, fendant in this suit, who has been summoned to Queen's Bench, if the said Court should so please; although often requested so to do, hath not paid the answer the said plaintiffs by virtue of a writ issued on and thereupon heretofore, to wit, on the twentieth said sum of one hundred and seventy-seven pounds the sixth day of March, in the year of our Lord one day of November, in the year of our Lord one thou-five shillings, residue of the said sum above dethousand eight hundred and forty-five, out of the sand eight hundred and forty-three, the said Robert manded, or any part thereof to the plaintiffs, but hath court of our lady the Queen, before the Queen her- Allen, in pursuance of the power reserved to him by hitherto wholly refused, and doth still refuse so to do; self at Westminster, and the plaintiffs demand of the the said order of reference, did, by a certain me- whereby, and by reason of the non-payment of the defendant the sum of three hundred and fifty-four morandum in writing on the said order, enlarge the moneys in this declaration mentioned, an action hath pounds, ten shillings, which the defendant owes to time for making his said award until the sixth day accrued to the plaintiff, to demand and have of and and unjustly detains from them. For that whereas of December then next ensuing, and did afterwards from the defendant the said sum of money above dedivers disputes, controversies and differences having by a certain other memorandum in writing on the manded; yet the defendant hath not paid the said sum arisen and being depending between the now plaintiff, said order of reference, to wit, on the sixth day of of money above demanded, or any part thereof, to the Sarah Hawkins, and the now defendant, Robert December, in the year last aforesaid, further plaintiff's damage of ten pounds, and thereupon they Benton, of and concerning certain premises and enlarge the said time until the tenth day of bring suit. buildings. And whereas, also, divers disputes, con- January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight troversies, and differences having arisen and being hundred and forty-four, and did afterwards, to wit, depending between the said plaintiff, William Cole, on the said last-mentioned day, by a certain other and the defendant, of and concerning the said pre-memorandum in writing on the said order of remises and buildings, the plaintiff, Sarah Hawkins, heretofore, to wit, on the eighth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and forty-one, commenced an action at law in her Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench at Westminster against the now defendant and one John Smith acting as the bailiff and servant of the said Robert Benton in that behalf, for breaking and entering the said premises, and taking away certain goods and chattels therein, which said action or suit, at the time of making the order hereinafter mentioned, was depending and undetermined. And whereas, while the said action was so depending as aforesaid, and while the said several controversies and disputes in the introductory part of this count mentioned were so depending as aforesaid, it was agreed by and between the said several parties to the said suit, and by and between the said several parties and the said William Cole, that it would be for the benefit of all the parties aforesaid, and also for the benefit of the said William Cole, that the said cause, and all the several matters in difference in the introductory part of this count mentioned, as well as all other matters then in difference, if there should then be any such, between the parties to the said suit, and all other matters in difference, if there should be any such, between the said defendants and the said William Cole, be referred to arbitration. And thereupon, heretofore to wit, on the first day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-three, by an order of the honourable Mr. Justice Coleridge, then being one of the justices of the said Court of Queen's Bench, made in the said action, dated the day and year last aforesaid, it was amongst other things ordered, with the consent of the attorneys on both sides of the said cause, and also with the consent of the attorney of the said William Cole, that a verdict in the said cause be entered for the plaintiff, Sarah Hawkins, for the sum of 501. subject to the award of Robert Allen, esq. barrister-at-law, who should be at liberty to order and direct for whom and what sum the verdict should be finally entered; and it was, by the said order and with such consent as aforesaid, referred to the award, order, arbitrament, final end and determination of the said Robert Allen to settle all matters

ference, further enlarge the said time until the first
day of March, one thousand eight hundred and forty-
four. And whereas, before the making of the award
hereinafter mentioned, to wit, on the first day of No.
vember, one thousand eight hundred and forty-three,
the said John Smith died, and the plaintiffs, Sarah
Hawkins and Wm. Cole, in fact, say, that afterwards
and before the expiration of the time limited by the
said last-mentioned memorandum in writing made by
the said arbitrator, on the said order of reference, to
wit, on the twenty-second day of February, in the
year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
forty-four, the said Robert Allen, in pursuance of the
said order of reference and the said several memoran-
dums on the said order, did make and publish his
award, arbitrament, and final end and determination
in writing, of and concerning the said premises, ready
to be delivered to the said parties in difference, or
such of them as should require the same, and bearing
date heretofore to wit, the day and year last afore-
said, and did thereby award, adjudge, and determine
that all further proceedings in the said cause should
from thenceforth cease and be no further prosecuted;
and that the said plaintiff had good cause of action
against the said defendant in the said cause, and was
entitled to a verdict therein, and did thereby assess
and award the damages at the sum of forty shillings,
to be paid by the said defendants to the said plaintiffs,
Sarah Hawkins and William Cole, who consented to
become a party in the cause. And the said arbitrator
did thereby further direct and award that the costs of
the said reference and award be paid by the said de-
fendants, as by the said award reference being there-
unto had will more fully and at large appear, of
which said award the now defendant, the said Robert
Benton, afterwards, to wit, on the first day of March,
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred
and forty-four, had notice. And the plaintiffs further
say that afterwards, to wit, on the seventeenth day of
October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight
hundred and forty-four, it was duly ordered by the
said Court of Queen's Bench, that the said order

the Honourable Mr. Justice Coleridge, together
with the three said several memorandums of the said

Demurrer and joinder.

The defendant stated the following point :-That it does not appear by the declaration that the said William Cole was any party to the action which was referred to, or that any matters in difference between the said plaintiffs, Sarah Hawkins and William Cole, jointly, and the defendants were referred to the arbitrator; yet the award directs the sum of forty shillings to be paid as damages by the defendants to the said Sarah Hawkins and William Cole, jointly.


Gray, in support of the demurrer.-The arbitrator has treated Cole as a plaintiff, which he was not. has found 40s. damages, which will carry costs. Non constat, that if he had severed the damages, he would have awarded a sum that would have carried costs. The action was one of trespass, and perhaps the real plaintiff would not be entitled to costs.

By the COURT.-The arbitrator might have thought that an equitable claim existed, by which Cole was virtually a plaintiff with Hawkins.

Best, for the plaintiffs, was not called on.
Judgment for the plaintiffs.


Saturday, Jan. 31. (Before ROLFE, B. sitting in the Exchequer Chambers.)

DUFFIELD v. MORRETT. Commission to examine witnesses abroad, effect of. An order of a judge directing that a commission issue for the examination of witnesses abroad on behalf of the plaintiff, if served on the defendant's attorney, is a revocation of a notice of trial which the plaintiff's attorney may have given, and if the plaintiff chose not to avail himself of the order, he cannot proceed to trial without giving fresh notice in the regular way.

In this case notice of trial had been given on the 5th of December for the first sittings in Hilary Term. On the 7th of January a judge's order for a commis. sion to examine witnesses at Gibraltar on the part of the plaintiff was served on the defendant's attorney. On the morning of Tuesday, the 14th of January, being the first day of the first sittings, the defendant's attorney received from the plaintiff's attorney the following letter:-"Duffield, Executors,

« PreviousContinue »