Star. — London, England, 1822-11-26 00:00:00

• LAW INT4LLIGENCE. I. ' :F • ww••••=1.0 COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER IS. ROPRIt V. WILLIAMS AND OtINNS. The Lotto CHANCELLOR ,upon coming into Court r ift judgment in.this case. He bad carefully read all the affidavits. The covenants in the indenture be tween the parties, in 1816, were very ill drawn, if the object in view had been such as the plaintiff stated it now. The buildings were to be thirty feet from the road ; they were to be detached ; and they were to be of the Third rate of houses. It was further co venanted that no work should be done there which could create a nuisance. Roper was limself placed under no obligation to build on the piece of land which he purchased for £llO. Now, in such a case, if there was not active diligence on the part of Roper to prevent any departure from the covenants,.a Court of Equity would not interfere. The obligation must have been enforced against all the purchasers to constitute a ground of interference in a Court of Equity. Against Williams the only remedy that could be sought was by an action at law. The build ings erected were, iu the first place, not thirty feet from the road ; in the second place, they were not detached ; and, in the third place, they were of 6th, 2d, and 3d rates. In 1818 a case was submitted for the opinion of a Learned Counsel whom he now•saw iq Court (Mr. Horne), and the opinion given then was, as he should have expected from that Learned Gentleman, extremely right and proper. It was, that application ought to have been made to a Court of Equity the moment the foundation:--the first bricks, were laid. Notice was served upon the defendant, B:rnard, that the plaintiff insisted upon the covenant. It was that that the building was for a public-house. A bill was filed six months afterwards. This, then, in such circumstances was not a case of equity. If an action at law should be brought. against Williams, it would be for the Jury to say what damages eight to be given. He thought the injunction ought to be dissolved. It ought to be generally known that in all cases application must be instantly and promptly made, otherwise aCourt of Equity would not interfere. ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. CLEDIENTE. Mr. K NIGH T applied to the Court for leave to have tills petition restored to the paper. It had formerly been ordered to stand over.--Leave. granted. LEES V. AINSWORTH.- CONTENIPT. Mr. HEALD said his Lordship bad ordered that this case should be again mentioned. Affidavit was now made that the defendant's father had a large family, and could not, therefore, settle a large fortune on this his youngest son. It was right also to mention, that the bill to make the young Lady a ward of that Court, had been filed in the name of the defendant's father, but without his knowledge. It had been:done by the solicitor, Mr. Chippendale, in whose name the bill had first been drawn. This might look, if not ex plained in this way, very like a trick ; but the father knew nothing of it. The father of the defendant had been sworn w orth forty thousand pounds; but out of respect for the youngeit son; and considering that his two eldest children 'were provided for, be settled e,tates on the defendant which were • sworn to be worth £6OOO. _ _ _ The LORD CHANCELLOR.—Let it go to the Master to approve of the settlement. Mr. WINGFIELD mentioned that application had been made to the Vice-Chancellor to stlike the name out of the bill. Mr. HEALD said, that was as he had explained it. nere was now an aMdavit of banns if hib - Lordship wished to see that. • The Lono CHANCELLOR.—Let the Master inquire whether they are properly mat tied. Mr. HEALD asked whether they should tre married again? They were disrosed, if his Lot dship wished it. The LORD CIIA NCELLOR.—I think it proper. Mr. HEALD said they would have been married according to the Act on the Monday following the t me of their mart iage. BEER AND WARD. Mr.WETHERELL asked whether his Lordship would go on with Beer and Ward to , morrow, as Lord Ports mouth's case would not come on? They had sent tieir• case to the Attorney-General, but the other side bad not sent theirs. • • The LORD CHANCELLOR—Let it stand for the next motion day—Thursday next. Would you be able to go on to-morrow, or are the Gentlemen from the Common Law Courts engaged in the Cambridge —"Election ? Mr. SUADwELL said it was he who was next to address his Lordship. Mr. HEALD hoped they would not be prevented from going to Cambridge. -The LORD CHANCELLOR—I should be sorry to - prevent any Gentleman from going to Cambridge, be it to vote for whom he will. It is better to take it on Thursday. V ICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, NOVEMBER 25. BRYSON V. WHITEFIELD. Mr. HEALD, on the past of the plaintiff; stated that this bill was filed for the specific. performance of an agreement under the following circumstances :—The plaintiff, who was a dyer residing in London, agreed to sell his business to the defendant for a consider ation Of 45001. and also to communicate a certain secret in the art of dying for a further consideration of 1,0001. the plaintiff binding himself not to divulge the secret, or make any use of it, or to carry on the business of a dyer in London for twenty years. When the deeds of the agreement came to be drawn up, the defendant refused to sign them, unless the plaintiff would submit to certain terms which were not ori ginally. stated. The plaintiff, under these circum stances, applied to the Court to compel the .specific performance of the agreement. Mr. BELL, for the defendant, said that his client ought not in equity be compelled to perform the agreement, because he had been deceived as to the benefits which -he expected from it. The plaintiff could not in law bind himself generally not to carry on a trade, and if he' were bound only 'locally, he might, from the peculiar nature of the business, esta blish himself at Norwich, or any other place, and com pete with the defendant as effectu a l l y in the London market as if he lived in the mitropolis. The VICE-CHANCELLOi was of opinion that a man might bind himself generally from making use of a ' secret in business ; he therefore decreed that the agree- - went mast be carried intosiroot, and that it be re. famed to the Master to dr-al/ it up.. - . COURT OFXINGS• Blow% RUMMER st ' Tat KING V. Tait VIOIMINIANGILLOR OF Tai lINIVIIIR *ITT ti commensal& In a former Term, a Rule was obtained, calling on the Vice-Chlincellor Of. .the University of Cam bridge to chew ‘ci'se why a aiaadai,nu should not issue, commanding hiin to admit Mr. Jephson to be Professor of Mineralogy in the University, to which office it was alleged that he had beta duly elected on the death of Dr. Clarke. Mr. Serjeant Laos, Mr. LtmaDat.e, and Mr. At- DERSON, sheaved cause against the Rule. Before en tering into the great question in dispute between the two parties, relative to the mode in which the elect , tion of .rtofessors should be conducted,, they took two preliminary objections to the proceeding by manda mus. First, they contended that the Professorship was not an office of such a description as would war rant the interference of the Court; and, secondly, that even supposing the office, simply considered, was the subject of such a proceeding, the proper course of the applicant was, not to move the Court, but to appeal to the King, as visitor of the Univer sity, in Council. On. the first point, they argued that the Professorship of Mineralogy was no office conferring permanent emolument, but merely a title of honour incidentally productive of certain benefits. It was not of ancient date, for it had no existence before it was specially conferred on Dr. Clarke, nor was there any salary which the Professor could claim. Dr. Clarke; indeed, received 1001. a year from his Ma jesty, which was granted annually by Parliament, but in which-no one could obtain a permanent inte rest, as it was liable at any time to be discontinued, and, indeed, it was not improbable that some Mem ber of the House of Commons, bent on economy, would insist on its being withheld. Its profits arose from the voluntary attendance of members of the University on the lectures of the Professor, for which they gave him a compensation ; but it did not even confer the right of delivering lectitares,. for Dr. Clarke had lectured before he received-the title; and other persons, although doubtless liable to inhibition, had at various times delivered lectures, without any title or direct sanction. The office, then, was analogous to that of a lectu r er of a parish, where there was no endowment or:fixed salary, but the party chosen by the parishioners was compensated by their voluntary subscriptions; in which case the Court had always' refused.to interfere. - Here, then, there was no List ing interest—no profit essentially and permanently resulting frdnl the office—nothing but a mere title of honour, attended • with fluctuating advantages, of which it *Might .be rendered destitute; and this, upon the principle of all the cases, was not an office to which the Court would compel admission. In the next place, it w'as clear that there was a Court competent to hear and determine the complaint, to which no application had been made, in which no reluctance to hear the case was suggested, and to which, therefore, the- par ty seeking redress ought to apply. It was a Court peculiarly fitted to determine the case, because it could decide on the whole at once; whereas the Court of King's Bench must hear the mandamus and quo warranto separately, and if they refused to interfere cnibehalf of one party, m 4 h: again be called to decide on the validity of the elec tion of another. Former appeals bad been made, when . differences arose in the University (rarely it was admitted, for the occasions were rare), to the King in Council, and there they had been heard and decided. - It was the evident purpose of the Statutes of •the Univeriliy, to keep - its members from submit ring disputes to-Courts of Law, by providing tribu nals where academical questions of right and of dis cipline might more properly.be decided. This case, therefore, on the final determination of which tilt mode of electiog the. five Professors would depend, might not to have been brought before a Court of Law by motion for mandffmas, while there was ano ther Court peculiarly adapted to the .discussion, and willing to hear it. Besides; it did net. appear that Mr. Jephson himself had promoted the application, for he had made no affidavit ; and the case was brought before the Cuurt by a.stranger. . The SOLICITOR-GENERAL and air. TOMAL re plied, that it was true Mr. Jephson, who was now at Cambridge, had rnade no affidavit; but it was stated that he was elected—that- he had presented himself to the Vice-Chancellor for admission, and waseefused, and that he had adopted every legal means of obtain. ing admission in vain. The Cower intimated, that they could not enter tain any tnotion for a mandamus to admit to an office, unless the party on whose behalf the application was made swore that he had been desirous- of being ad.' mitted to the office, that. he was still desirous cf ad-' mission, and that, if admitted, he would execute its duties. Without such an affidavit, it would be wasting the time of the Court to proceed further. The So LICITOR-GE N E RAL expressed his hope, that, in a case *ftif so great importance, he should not be precluded by the omission, but allowed an opportn tunny of obtaining the affidavit of Mr. Jephson, which he could obtain on Wednesday. Mr. Serjeant LENS expressed his readiness to con sent that the case should stand over, to allow of the production of Mr. Jephson's affidavit. The Sotactroft-Gtsmam. wished it to be under stood, that he did not undertake that such an affida vit would be made by Mr. Jephson. The case was then postponed till Wednesday. • THE KING V. ALLISON. Mr. BROUGHAM moved for a Rule calling on the defendant, a tea-dealer in a small village in Cum berland, to shew cause why a criminal informa tion should not be filed against him. He applied on behalf of Captain Backbouse, who had been an officer in the 85th Regiment of Foot, and in 1794 and 1795 served in Flanders and Holland, with great intrepidity and zeal e . On no occasion bad his conduct been called in question, _until he.was di rected, with seven- others, to prefer charges against his commanding officer, who was eventually ac quitted, in consequence of which he with the others was forced to leave the regiment. There was no inn• putation whatever at any time on his courage or honour, which could giye occasion to the conduct of Mr. Allison. In the Autumn, Captain Backhouse had been with some Ladies to look at a waterfall, and on his return passed through a field of Mr. Alb.- son's. He received a notice not to trespass—of which he so far did not complain; but which proceeded, after some iosimultions respecting his ig modesty," to denominato him N a , cowlittity inmerrstry and ncl i gentleman: P -1101e granted to shew cause. TER MATTI,* of SAVIOR% A anaatria orricts. Ort a former drj . blr. Coma made - application tq the Court on behalf of a felon named Wdod, against a Sheriff's officOe; sawed, Radforct on the ground that the oEseer had taken much larger stints from Wood, while in his custody at a lock-up-house, than are allowed by law. It was then referred to the Mas ter to ascertain whether any and what extortion had been committed. The MASTER now appeared with his report, which he read. He stated, that in his opinion Radford had taken of Wood, who was sir weeks in his custody, £2l. 13s. 6d. more than he could legally.receive ; and that, on the investigation before him, Radford had pursued it line of conduct calculated to mislead him in forming his decision. The COURT adverted to the power given them by the Statute, not only to order restitution , but to punish the offending officer ; and this power they now felt called on to exercise. They . therefore ordered that Radford should pay to Wood the sum of £2l. 13s. 6d. and the costs of the application to be taxed as between attorney and client ; and that he should further pay a fine of £25 to the King, arid be com mitted to the custody of the Marshal until the sums of £2l. 13s. 6d. and £2.5 should be paid. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. NOVEMBER 25. COMPLAINT AGAINST TWO ATTORNIES. Mr. Serjeant PELT,, be had to move their Lordships for a Rule to shew cause. in a matter arising out of the case of " Short v. Pratt," why two Gentlemen, attornies of the Court, should not be called upon to deliver up all the papers belonging to the plaintiff to his present attorney, and alio to ac count for various sums of money received from the plaintiff and others in the cause, and likewise to an swer certain other matters stated in; the affidavits. The case, the Learned Serjeant continued, was one of the most extraordinary instances of improper con duct he had met with for a long time. The affida vits on which it was founded, stated,:thaethe plain tiff had been a fifer-in a military'regiment for several years, and was very poor. Some time back he re ceived information, leading him to believe that he was entitled to property in land and houses of a con siderable value. Immediately on receipt', of this in telligence, plaintiff applied to a frieild . tiaraedlialmes for advice how to proceed to recover this property. By Holmes he was introduced-to a third-party and by him to the two Gentlemen against whom the application was made. These were deic — ribed,to the plaintiff' as men of great practice and consider able skill in their profession. The plaintiff informed them that he was extremely poor, dnd had not the means of carrying on any proceedings for the reco very of the property. One of the attornies instantly replied, " I amp the poor man's friend, and I shall not want more money than will reimburse me the costs out of pocket in the proceedings." He added, " the case shall be entered for you in forma pauperis, by which you will be spared a great - deal of expense." Subsequently the plaintiff, by applying to many of his friends, raised several sums of money, amounting in the whole to . about £lOOO, all of which, he paid over to the attornies. On receiving those sums, the at tornies constantly assured the parties that there was no doubt of success in the recovery of the prcperty.— Upon the faith of these assurances, a Gentleman, a filend of the plaintiff, was induced to advance large sums for the prosecution of the cause, and, .to secure him, a deed was drawn up by the attornies by which he was made the mortgagee of a moiety of the pro perty to be recovered. This, the Learned Serjeant contended, was a positive act of maintenance in a suit, and the parties were liable to punishment at common law. Not satisfied with having gone thus far, these Gentlemen proceeded to administer an oath to these poor people (the plaintiff and several of his friends), binding them to secrecy as to the proceed ings, to be true to each other in the cause, and not is employ any other attorney. The Learned Seijeant was proceeding, when The Loan r :IIIEFJUSTICE interrupted him and said —" The offence charged against those parties is one cognizable and punishable at common law; we can not therefore issue a Rule to compel them to answer, as that might criminate them. You may take your Rule to shew cause why the papers should not be delivered:'—llule granted. CRAMP W. SYMONR, CLERIC. Mr. Serjeant LESS moved for a Rule to shew cause why the award made in this case should not be set aside, and the matter left open for trial. The original question was to determine whether the fees for the interment of- bodies in the chancel of a Church be longed to the Rector or the Vicar. The case was left for arbitration to Dr. Lushington, by whom it was decided that the fees belonged to the Vicar, and that the plaintiff ought not to have brought action, —The award then went on to order that each party should pay his own costs. He (Serjeant Lens) con• tended that this decision was contrary to law, and ought therefore to be set aside. The COURT said there were several cases (which their Lordships cited) where Barristers had been ap pointed to determine both the law and the fact, and the Courts alwayt considered the parties bound by their awards, except where they plainly appeared to be in error. The Court saw nothing in the present case which called upon them to interfere. —= Rule refused. SECONDARIES' COURT, NOVEMBER 2$ ASSAULT AND EALSZ IMPRISONNIENT.-.-PRIDDI V. COOPER. Mr. Avommus stated, that this was a writ of in quiry for the assessment of damages in a case of as sault and false imprisonment, the defendant having allowed judgment to go by default. Compensation in damages was sought by a young Lady for the in jury she had sustained in being dragged to a watch house at night by a watchman, under the authority of the defendant, charged with the commission of a felony, and detained contrary to law. The Learned Counsel then detailed the evidence as it was given by the following witnesses : Mrs. Louisa Kingdom, sister of the plaintiff, stated, that on the 7th of 'October last she determined to go from Henry -street, Kennington, where she lived, to her mother's house, at Chelsea, to lye-in, and took measures to remove her bed and baby linen accord ingly. The Sheriff's officers had come on that day to look for ber husband, who was from home, and an execution was in the house. She took a small band box in int hand, but her sister (the plaiutiff) who aCCOINKSett** toot IttsOftOtet; and both set eT between nine and ten at night. They had not golie . (2o yards when - the defendant, who was Mr. KingeBm' s landlord, came up and desired to look at the contelit s of the box. This was most Willingly granted. The box contained three or four glasses, some women' s ilinen, and a small brass fOotman, and the defenda nt immediately said that they were removing the house.. hold furniture, and that the articles should retain. Witness said that defendant might take them borne with him, or where he liked, but they should not be taken * -into her house. After some altercation, I le knocked at the door of the house, but the witnets would not allow it to be opened, upon which 1., called the watchman, and said, pointing to the tiff, 44 ,1 give yois this woman in charge, tar feloniously aiding to remove goods, in order to defraud me fl rent. The watchman immediately dragged tl:e plaintiff to the watch-house at Vauxhall, and calle them both swindlers and b--s. The defendant tcld the watchman, if any resistance was made, to sprint- his rattle and get help. There wag remaining sia house, after witness left it that night, a great deal furniture, much much more than would have paid off value the rent due to the defendant. Cross-examined.—Her husband was in debt t.) tradespeople in the neighbourhood, and owed a sho 3 bill to the defendant, who had since the time of tie violence taken possession of the house. When plaintiff was leaving the house it was not more than ten o'clock. Joseph Randall, a constable of Vauxhall, stated, that Richard James, a watchman, brought the plain tiff to the watch-house at a little after ten, on t::e eight of the 7th of October. She had the box w;!1 the articles described. The defendant said he charged her with illegally taking away those things from the house when there was an execution in it (4 rent._ Witness told him he had nothing to do with money transactions, and that he (the plaintiff) ought to care mit arrender hinself liable. The plaintiff had been detained go. or gs minutes, and wa, told bi the witness (who, .being ten years in the place, kke..." his duty) that she was at per tect liberty to depart.— The defendant had distinctly stated that the propwi was not his. Mr: PLATT, for the defence, almoit regretted that the case,had not been defended elsewhere, although he at once admitted that his client had committed an illegal am . Tke Learned Counsel then argued, that the plaintiff had sustained no injury, and sh4.u;Li not have assisted in what certainly should be considered a frattdulen.t removal of goods, and called upon the Jury to tive no more than'one farthing for her suffning , , . The UNDER SHERIFF left the case to the Jury, Idler having summed up the evidence. The damages were then awarded at £9.0. MARRIED. Thursday, at Warblington Churck, Elizabeth Tomizi-e Pinnix, only daughter of E. Pinnix, Esq. of Enuworth, to Czp tain Cameron, 536 Foot. Nov. 18, at Edinburgh, Mr. John Crnley, surgeon, late in the Canadian North-West Company's service, to 116. n, eldest daughter of Mr: John Mein, surgeen, Pitt-street. DIED. Nov. 22, at Walton-upon-Thames, aged 81, William Coc;,r, Esq. late Solicitor to the Customs. Sept. 21, at Providence Estate, Island of Jamaica, Thomas Jones, Esq. after three days illness. Nov. 14, Dr. James Cassels, physician in Lancaster, eldest son of the late Andrew Cassels, Esq. of Leith. Nov. 10, at Aberdeen, in the 74th year of his age, Patrick Copland, LL.D. Professor of Natural Philosophy in the Maris &al College and University, in which be has taught, with great reputation and success, for upwards of fifty years. Nov. 15, at Paisley, aged 55, Major Alexander Macdougall, formerly of the 72d Regiment, and only surviving son of the lzte Coll Macdougall, Esq. of Cregganich, Lismore, Argzleplure.— Major Macdougall entered the army in India at the early age of 15, and served at the sieges of Collongoodie, Bangalore, Nundy droog, Severndroog,'Pondicherry, Trinquomalie, Seringapatam, and Fort Oustinbatrgh, and Batlicaloe, in Ceylon—at the battles of Cuddalore and Camgot-hill-;-also in Sir Wm. Meadows' and the late Lord Cornwallis's campaigns, and at the attacks of the French lines and Tippoo's camp, where he was severely wounded NEW GATE AND LEA DENH ALL MARK ETS, Nov. 6S. (By the Carcase.) Beef Is 8d to 2s 6d Veal ns Od to 41 Od Mutton Is 4d 05 2s 4d I Pork ls 84 to 3s 44 PRICES or HAY asp STRAW YESTERDAY. ST. JAMES'S. WHITIECNATZL. Hay 51 Us Od to 41 Os Od Hay... 31 6s to 41 4s Od Straw 1110 s Od to 11 16s Od Straw 11 10. to 11 16s 0.1 Clover 3110 s Od to 41 4s Od Clover 31 89 to 41 15s 01 PRICE 0 /41W BAGS. HOPS. NEW TOCKITS. Kent 2l Its to 41 lOs Sussex 2l Os to 21 10s Essex Foreign Kent 2l los to 41 Mg Sussex 2l Os to 21 14s F.s►ex Farnham 6l Os to 71 Ts PRICE OF LEATHER . Butts, 50 to 56Ibs each 22d to 23d per 16 Ditto, 56 to G6lbs each 0 4d to 251 Dressing Hides 18d to 194 Fine Coach Hides l9d to 20} Crop Hides, 35 to 401bs for cutting 194 to 204 Ditto • 4'5 to 501bs 204 to ssd Calf Skins, 30 to 401bs 21d to 264 Ditto • 50 to• 701bs Ditto 70 to 80Ibs.. Small Seals (Greenland) ..... lBd to sod Large ditto 184 to sod Tanned Horse Hides .. l7d to 184 RAW HIDES. I Best Heifers and Steers (per Ordinary... 2s 6d to 2s 93 stone) .....3s 2d to 3s 6d Market Calf lOs Od to cs c,i Middlings ...2stod to 3s Od Eng. Horse Os Od to Os Od PRICE or TALLOW, SOAP, Ike. per 11215. Town Tallow 415 Od Ditto rough Mg Yellow Russia ... ..... 43s Od Yellow Soap White ditto Soap ditto Melting Stuff 55s Od Palm • • PRICE OF CANDLES—From Tallow Chandlers'ilnll. Candles, per doz. 9s Od—Moulds, lOs 6d; 6d. per dozen allowed for ready money. COAL MARKET, NOV. 25. Burdon 41s 9d—Felling Main 51s 61—Hebburn Main 434 Wallsend Bell and Co.'s 441 Wallsend Brown's 421 6tl-- Wansend Northiamberland 4216d—Wallsend Russel 45e--Elrl Main 44s 6d—Wallsend Lambton 4533d—Wallsend Sprillgwa 423.—Wallsend Stewart 45. 3d. _ _ 21i Ships at Market-1n Shia sold-4 unsold. • MAILS. •RR. DU B. Dublin 1 0 Waterford 0 1 Guernsey and Jersey 1 0 Lisbon 1 0 E RR. IM R. I 0 Hamburgh ; II Flanders 1 0 Holland 0 1 Leeward Islands 0 0 0 0 Gottenbursh 0 2 Brazil 0 0 dltaN W A JAW at LONDON 111111/GB TO-MORROW. Mirottlng . • - 21 minutes after 12 • 40 minutes after 111 Afternoon . LONDON . rnmett a n d puhlt,bed by Lira, lisy; rlcho plict, Temple-Dar. BIRTIL In Clonmel, the Lady of Sir W. H. Cierke, Bart. of the .ICd Light Infantry, of a son and heir. MARRIED. Thursday, at Warblington Church, Elizabeth Tomnine Fl i, 1' kil -