Star. — London, England, 1822-11-22 00:00:00

i t , f ~a LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER ti. - - - Mr. Wm-immix, at the sitting of the Court, ap plied to his Lordship to fix Tuesday next for hearing two injunctions to restrain from selling or otherwise disposing of certain salt-works. The LORD CHANCELLOR desired his compliments to be-liven to the Vice-Chancellor, with a request to hear them. This Court was so overwhelmed with questions of injunctions, that it could not dispose of appeal cases, of which some.were seven Testis old.— The Public had a right to complain of this delay. Mr. SHADWELL said, that if next Tuesday could not be fixed, any other day would do. . The LORD CHANCELLOR said he could not • fix a day. Lord Portsmouth's case must - be decided as earlyas possible ; and the case of" Beer and Ward," involving a question that might much affect lunatics, would not be delayed beyond the shortest period in which the Court could dispose of it. - Mr. HEALD said the Bar were fully sensible of the iaconveniencies which his Lordship. complained of. •. TIIIRGAR B. MORLEY. This was a motion for a new trial. The LORD CHANCELLOR read the Lord Chief Justice's report of the case as tried before him upon issue from .the Court of Chancery. The issue was, hether the plaintiff was entitled to ot.e.eighth of the ship Morley? The Jury found him entitled, and the Lord Chief Justice communicated to the Lord Chan cellor that the verdict was satisfactory to him. Mr. LIORNE appeared for the defendant to move his Lordship to grant a new trial. Mr. Morley, who mas confessedly a man of money, engaged in the building of a new ship. The plaintiff's nephew, Mr. Moran, was to be Captain, and he and his uncle, the 1 laintiff, were to have 3-Bths; the defendant hold ing the other 5-Bths. That was, Mr. Thirgar was to have 3-16ths ; Mr. Morgan 3-I6ths ; and Mr. Mor ley 5-Bths. But Mr. Morgan having the command of a vessel, and not choosing to wait for the building of the Moi ley, declined any share in her. His name was never entered in the reg ister . It was not pr e . tended that he had resigned in favour of Mr. Thir gar ; tkerefoie, as 3.-Sths were only mentioned for 3-16tlis were all the plaintiff could claim, and that they had Immerly offered, and now repeated the offer. Messrs. CAMPBELL (from the King's Bench) and ItosE folloued on the same side. Mr. PARK (from the King's Bench) opposed the !notion. Thee had never been any division of the 3-Bths into two 3-16ths, but a letter from the defend ant distilled y a.ked whether both names, or what one name, t!: ,, uld be registered for 3 Bths ? Tie L tuft Cli ANC ELLOR.—I confess I cannot see suflicre .1 reason for granting a new trial. There are ditlicril.ies in the case; but if the verdict were the other way, it would not be mote satisfactory to me. I lament .that the Act of Parliament does not require the several shares as well as the names of share- ' bolters to he ret;isteic.l. The defeedant. llerlev, was abcut to build a to he called the Morley. The Thirgar, :.'.as to ln!ve some interest in her , and his ee l w, Alorgan, was to be the Captain.— The phrintill and his nephew were to have 3-Bths. The budder went on two instalments were paid. It a• 1 e.u•s that the had made sonic advances.l A letter was then wi'itten ir:.• the nephew, stating that he would have nothing to do with the ship, as he could not wait till she shoeld be. fini-led. This is' clear evidence it::::inst M•riley, that ;he uncle was the person with wieun a:1 the air-augments were made. A letter n as t::.rt wriAen by Palmer and Tomlinson for :qorlev, iniuiring whether both names ".ere to be registered, or only ore flit. the 3-Bths ? One name could not stand for the other in the re. , .i:.ter ; but the y whose na:; - was to be registered for the . 3-Bths, clearly shew ed the view of the defendant then' of the amount to be slated. then says that he will have nothing t. do with her. It might have: been a question upon this, whether he did repudiate, or could repudiate. It does not ar . , ear that this was urge, l . on the trial. Thirgar was in fact registered, and aletter is written to him, stating that what be longed to him would be assigned to him by bill of sale or otherwise, regard being had to the expenses of building the ship. What interest had he at this period? Morgan claimed none. The Juty have been of opinion that it was 3-Bths, and I see no reason to disturb their verdict. The letter of Thirgar,-contain •ing what is said to have t:ien a new proposition, re- - oeived no answer ; therelore, if Thirgar had any inte rest at all; it was 3 Bths. I .cannot say that he had no interest, and that is a point that was not so much pressed as it might. • Mr. PARK applied, for costs. • • . . The LORD CDANCELLOR.—This is not a case for costs. If parties will make their contracts with so much ambiguity, they must suffer the consequences. FIELD AND OTIIERS V. STIRRUP. Mr. Homo.- stated, that this was a motion to pay moliey into Cow t, and also to have a receiver ap .pointed. The plaintiffs were assignees on the estate of Mr. Hewitt-, a bankrupt.- The defendant had kept house for the bankrupt for many years.. He did not' shun' to c.l , t any insinuation against-hen, on that, ground. Rut his dwelling-house (Fairmill-house, at • Ilenley-upon-Thanies), some cottages, and several acres of land, had been conveyed to her by the bank _ • fulit.This conveyance, the assignees contended, was 'fraudulent. The defendant had also received money, by checks and otherwise, belonging to the bankrupt, of which she gaye no account. The prayer of his motion therefore was, that she should be directed to pay into Court the money . which she had received belonging to the bankrupt, and . that a receiver should be appointed for the rents and profits of the estate. The Lora) CtrANcELLoit inquired the value. Mr. HoasE.-1:2000 or £3OOO. • Mr..linntaa followed,. and contended that the conveyance was Voluntary. The LORD CHANCELLOR.—Why, then, apply for a receiver ?. Why not bring an ejectment ? I think you might :ltink it fortunate if this were not opposed. Mr. HART opposed the motion. The first point was the receiver. LORD CFMOCELLOR.—That is out of the question. Mr. BART.—Then the secoid question was, whe ther any. balance was due, and whether it ought to last Now for this, he submitted, that would lie as well as a bill in equity. flowed.—lt had been said that this tiler anynaiance w paid into,Court ? an action at law w Mi. Roots folic • conveyance had WI bitsilltitg What l was she t.s proclaim it to all the wor4d4 The Lima, CstAtroat.Loa.-- - No ; she was afraid, t perhaps, of Mr. Barber. Mr. HORNS replied. He would not contend against his Lordship's opinion : but did not his Lordship think them entitled to anything? The LORD CHANCELI.OR.—No. As to the bank-, rapt being in possession, though personal properti in the possession of a bankrupt be liable to his creditors, it is not so with his real prop erty . I remember a rich banker proposing to bring in a Bill to make real property liable; but when I said it would be neces sary to have all incumbrances ascertained, he be came from that moment most anxious to prevent such a change. This motion must be discharged with costs. The LORD CHANCELLOR, in the course of the day, stated, that as the Recorder was to make his report to-morrow, he could not sit in that Court more than an bout and a half, and that time he should require to prepare him for the duties he had to perform. He would not, therefore, come into Court to-morrow. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, NOVEMBER et. COTTERILL V. WANT AND PAGE. In this case an injunction had some time since been obtained to restrain the defendants, Messrs. Mant and Page, from attaching certain property in the hands of the plaintiff. The plaintiff now applied to have the injunction perpetuated. Mr. HART stated, that in 1814 Messrs. Chatteris, Mainwaring, and Co. bankers, became insolvent. The creditors of the firm agreed amongst themselves to supersede a commission of bankruptcy, upon receiv ing payment of their demands at the rate of 10s. in the pound. A part of this sum, to the amount of 7s. 6d. had been paid, and Mr. Mainwaring gave notes for the remaining 2s. Gd. Among the credi t-ors was a person named Hancock, who received 7s. 6d. in the pound, and accepted the notes of Mr. Mainwaring for the rest of his claim. Mr. Main wat subsequently, at a time when he no longer acted as a trader, consigned all his teal and personal estate to the plaintiff, to be by him appropriated to the payment of the 2s. Gd. notes. The notes which had been paid to Mr. Hancock passed from his hands into those of the defendants, who, by a process cf the Lord Mayor's Court, attached the property which had been consigned to the plaintiff by Mr: Mainwa ring. In consequence, the plaintiff applied for and obtained an injunction to restrain the defendants from proceeding under the attachment, on the ground that the property was subject to an equitable trust. Mr. HEALD, for the defendants, said, that the pre sent motion was made merely for the purpose of de ciding the question of costs ; the property in dispute having been entirely distributed. When the case was formerly argued, the question turned principally upon the jurisdiction of the Lord Mayor's Court. The Counsel for the defendants were instructed to con tend principally, that the Lord Mayor's Court had authoti:y to attach property in the city of London, even although it were held in trust for equitable pur poses. The Lord Chancellor declared that it was im-1 possible the Lord Mayor's Court could have such ju risdiction, and therefore he granted the Injunction. He would not now touch upon this point, but would convince the Court that there was no equitable ground for maintaining the Injunction. . The chief argument employed on the other side was, that Mr. Main- Waring had consigned his property to the plaintiff, in trust for his creditors. But this deed could only bind those creditors who signed it. This, Mr. Hancock never did ; in fact, the deed of assignment was not executed until five months after the notes became due. If Mr. Hancock had himself held the notes, what was to prevent him from attaching the property of Mr. Mainwar ing ? The case could not be altered by the notes being in the hands of the defendants, who, it was sworn, gave a valuable consi.leration for them. Mr. Hart had stated that Mr. Mainwaiing was not a trader at the time the deed of .assignment was executed, but that fact did not appear in evidence. The VicE-Ctin NCELLOR-11 he were a trader when he assigned the estate, the deed was fraudulent against all the ciediturs who did not come in under it. Mr. HART—CaII it be fraudulent for a man to as sign all his estate for all his creditors? The VICE-CriANCELLOR—Yes*; that very argument was employed w hen the question was first decided. Mr. WILBRAtIASI, for the defendants, said he un derstood that the Lord Mayor's Court teas competent to decide upon the validity of the deed, and that it was contrary to the practice of that Court to issue an attachment against property which was subject to eq.litable trusts declared by a valid deed. The VICE-CHANCELLOR ()Inc' ved that, if such were die fact, the application to the Court of Chancery was evidently unnecessary. It would be necessary to obtain evidence of the practice of the Lord Mayor's Court. Fcr this purpose he would propose to the Recorder a question in the following form :—lf A assign property to B for trust purposes, can C attach the property under the process of the Lord Mayor's Court, supposing the deed of assignment to be valid. The case must stand over until after the Recorder answered this question by certificate. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER 21. ILCIIESTER JAIL. THE KING V. WILLIAM BRIDLE. This was an information filed by the ATTORNEY- G 1 NERAL against the defendant, late Keeper of ll chester Jail, for unlawful, cruel, and oppressive treat ment towards two persons confined in his custody, named Mary Cuer and Thomas Gardiner. At the trial before Mr. Justice RICHARDSON, at the last As sizes for the County of Somerset, the defendant was acquitted upon that part of the charge which related to the treatment of Mary Cuer, but was convicted of cruelty and oppression towards Thomas Gardiner. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now moved that the de fendant be brought tip for judgment, and the defend ant appealed accordingly upon the floor. The defendant put in an affidavit in mitigation of punishment, representing a history of his character and conduct during a period of twenty-two years, and urging his meritorious services in that interval, as the ground for a lenient consideration of his case in re ceiving the judgment of the Court, for an act which, though unlawful, did not proceed from any vindic tive or unworthy feeling towards the person named• in the information. His father had been an indus trious tradesman, and became unfortunate in his cir cumstances. At the lige of 16, the defendant, being one of tea children, left the parental roof to seek his unwilling to remain any longer a burden upon his . :obeli industry: He, enteseds_regitnri of fenerble cavalry, as a private, and in consequence of h is go od own f° " 111411/it h 49t.11 *billing ip, hm.petc• ket. , being [conduits was successively raised to the rank of Cur oral;Ser situations ttloanns he baddActingatacqunairtteerritad this r, and.aa st good opinion of histommanding Officers. After th is he became second mate of a prison - ship at Woolw icb, of whic h esteem in e which office he held for. a period of six years, during which his humanity and kind attention had given universal satisfaction, and had even inspired the un fortunate persons under his care with sentiments of esteem, affection, and respect. A vacancy in the of fi ce of Ilchester Jailer having occurred, he became one of thirty candidates for the situation, and in conse quence a r o o f n t he Graham, high E testimonial sso p e r i i n n t h e i n s f e rn : l nv i t c h ; ships, he was elected to the office in preference to all other competitors. Even after he had been elected, , Mr. Graham, who had the highest opinion of him, endeavoured to induce him to resign the appointment by offering to procure him the command of a prison ship, but he declined the good intention of that gentle. man, and accepted the office to which he was elected. Upon entering into his new situation, he discovered several defects in the discipline of Ilchester Jail, and endeavoured to ameliorate the condition of the pi sciners by every means in his power, and, by his active humanity, was instrumental in procuring the use of irons lighter by one half in weight than had been theretofore adopted. During the time he had been in this situation, his conduct had been the subject of general approbation on the part of the visiting Ma gistracy, and he was an object of esteem and respect to the numerous unhappy persons placed in his• cus tody, whose comfort in sickness and in health was his .perpetual study. With respect to the individual towards whom he was alleged to have acted-with in humanity and oppression, he stated that that person had been capitally convicted of housebreiking, but in consequence of Royal mercy, his -sentence had been commuted from death to eighteen months im prisonment and hard labour. This individual, from. his early habits of depravity and vice, was indolent, morose, turbulent, and utterly irreclaimable. In vain had kindness and humanity been exerted to bring him to a proper sense of his situation. In re turn for these efforts he manifested the utmost ob stinacy, violence, and obdurate misconduct.' Re peated imprecations and curses were in his mouth against the Magistracy. In-order to avoid perform. ing the labour which formed part of his. sentence,le fiequently pretended illness, although, according to the certificate of the prison surgeon, he was in rude. health, and capable of performing his work. For the purpose of endeavouring to reclaim this individual, and of guarding *against his• contagions example to the 'other prisoners, be was indicced, at the sugges tion of the surgeon, to apply the remedy, and resort to the indiscreet act which was the subject of prose cution. The unlawfulness of the act he did not pre sume to doubt, because it was contrary to the prison regulations of this country ; but he solemnly pro tested, that in this proceeding he was influenced by no personal motive of malice or hostility towards the individual, the circnmstance being more the result of accident than of premeditation. Admitting, how ever, that he had exceeded his duty in this individual instance, he trusted that this solitary act of indiscre• don would be amply counterbalanced by his previous good conduct, and a lite devoted to the public service in the humb situations in which he had been employed, with,..lt impeachment or question. In conclusion, he urged his filial piety towards his aged parents, who were dependent upon him for support, and to whose maintenance he had largely contributed out of the savings of a laborious lite—the mental agony to which he had been subjected from libels upon his character and conduct previous to his trial ; and, upon the whole, he besought the Court to con sider, that in this proceeding he was not influenced by personal or unworthy motives. The affidavits of Sir John Acland, the Earl of Cork and Ossory; Captain Smith, commander of one of the hulks at Woolwich ; Colonel Anderson, com manding the Ist Regiment of Somersetshire Fenci bles ; and of several of the County Magistrates ; .the Clerk of the Peace, and of other Gentlemen of the County were put in, giving defendant an excellent cha racter for humanity, and the faithful and meritorious discharge of his duty. Several affidavits of indivi duals, relatives of unfortunate persons who had been under the defendant's charge, were also read, speak ing in the highest terms of the benevolence and hu manity of the defendant towards those unhappy per. sons.—No affidavits were put in for the prosecution, Mr. C. F. WILLIAMS then rose and addressed the Court in mitigation of the punishment. He urged, with considerable feeling and eloquence, that, consi dering the expense which the defendant had sus tained, the anxiety of mind which he had suffered, and the dismissal from his office, he had already been sufficiently punished for the offence of which he had been found guilty. Mr. Justice BAYLEY inquired if. there were not other charges against him,? . Mr. C. F. WILLIAMS.--" Ob, yes! my Lord, more numerous than the letters of the alphabet, and all originating in one individual, to-whom he had not de sired to advert,. but wherever he came anarchy and confusion followed ; like the individual of old, it might be said of. him, that' where his footsteps fell the, grass never grew." The CHIEF JusTicx.—". We had , better refrain from this topic." . . . . Mr. C. F. WILLIAMS resumed.—Ho bad no .wish to advert to this subject, and would press it no fur ther, but would now call upou their Lordships in tbe name of the. Public, whose 'faithful servant the de•• Pendant had been for so many years,..in-the name:of the hundreds of prisoners who would bear testimony to Iris humanity and kindness, in the. name . of the I highly respectable Magistrates-of the county who had this day come forward to bear testimony to• his good conduct ; op all these gfeu,nds,he. would humbly ask of their Lordships, rhar . the sentence they pro nounced' on the defendant should be such only as would deter others from falling into such erfors of judgment, but not such as from its severity the Pub- . lic might deplore. .• Mt: Ensitus followed on. the same .side, and In addition to the arguments of Mr. Williaais, ar 4 rd a s an extenua tion of the defendant's conduct, the diffi culties of the situation in which he was placed, the riotous conduct* uf the prisoner Gardiner, and the absolute tteeessity there lrat, toirtuaTe.subardi nati on in the prison. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in aggravation, ob. served, the defendant was not. dismissed from hi s situation in consequence of the'chirges contained in this indictment, but upon several other charges. H e admitted thtt the defendant must hive suffered great anxiety, and have been put to considerable expense, • and' as desirous that . he should have the benefit of ,the admission with their Lordships ? He was like. lavise ready to admit that the situation which the d e . fondant bad held was a difficult one; but the tines. ton now before the Court was, whether a jailer, wh o had of his , own will attempted to. introduce a ne..v and illegal species of punishment into the prison of which he had the controul, was a fit subject for pub. lic prosecution and punishinent? It WAS not_becaow an individual had forfeited his life to the laws of his country that he was to be.made a subject of arbitrl:7. and.capricious punishment, at the will of any indiv;. dual. He (the Attorney-General) regretted to see that an attempt had been made by affidavit to-clot, say that the punishment of Gardener did not 4311 7 -1 nate with the defendant, but with the surgeon. li not the defendant recollect that when examined he.. fore the Magistrate he acknowledged that the putth:.• ment originated with himself? Mr. Justice BAYLEY--f‘ That fact is not before Mr. Attorney-General." The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it war so, notwi t h. standing; but he would. admit, if the defendant de- Fired it, that the punishment was sugge,ted by 11,2 surgeon. What if it was so? the defendant hl t adopted it. How, he would ask, did it happen tLat this novel punishment was not entered in the occur rence-book? There was indeed art entry, stating tLt Gardiner was put into solitary confinement for conduct, but not a word of the blister or the stra:. waistcoat. He had no desire to press !raid upon tl:e defendant, but was in the discharge of his duty, a most 'painful one it was, to urge for the punish me: r of any individual ; but whilst beheld the office he had now the honour of holding, he must not suffer his feelings so far to get the better of hini as to pre vent his performing his duty to the public. lie thoUght if ever these was a case calling for investi gation it was the present. Wheie a per son hoL;!:!.,* such a situation as the defendant held had conduced himself as the defendant. had done; the higher t! •e previous character the more dangerous was t!e offence,. and the grewer the necessity of repressirg it ; and he trusted their Lordships wouid, by their judgment in this case, chew that it must h. represse.i. He did not wish to withdraw from the consideration of their Lordships the defendant's previous good cot;- duct, but he must also remind their Lordships that a serious charge had been . made against the c:fei,d ant ; that charge had been investigated, and he bad been found guilty by a Jury t,f the county in w!:ich he had desired to be tried. He (the Attorney.Ger.e ral) hoped he should not be charged with pressing with unnecessary sever ity against the defendant. He had now discharged his duty, and it only rer.airied with their Lordships, in whom dr.! power was mot wisely vested;to•say what punishment sheu7d .Ile would only ask, that it might be such as meet the defendant's ease, and deter others from !ming the same course. The LORD CHIEF Jl:sTicE, after consult;„' the other Judges, directed that the defen , 2.::it shot' J be brought up to receive ;he judgment of the Cc . ..:t to-morrow. THE KING V. NV/ Lt.tANTS. Mr. SCARLETT moved for judgment on tlie de fendant, who was found guilty of publishing on the Clergy of the Established Church, aitil e Clergy of Durham. The libel appeared in the Ti :r -ho??? Chronicle, grossly reflecting on the Ce•-:.7, charging them with improper conduct .and rncti•.-!s on the death of the late Queen.. It alleged that :!:e bells were not allowed to toll, &c. The notes of Baron Woon, who tried the defenda were read from the Bench. Mr. BROUGHAM then moved for a Pule to shc cause why kulgment should not be arrested, cr a new trial had. His application to arrest kid-gr.:T:l was made on three points. First, these was an eri in the description of the Clergy alleged to be lihel:e,?. They were described as Clergy of the-Establisl.e.l Church ; 2dly, as the Clergy of Durham ; and, 3dly, the Clergy in and near Durham. These allegations, according to Mr. Brougham's argument, were vague and indefinite: The designation of the parties to whom the libel applied was insufficient. With respect to the Clergy of Durham, the allegation apply to Dissenting Clergy, and the terms iii and near Durham did. not specify any precise resi,:ence. It might mean three miles from Durham, or twent!.. In short, the counts were imperfect, and the proceed ings could not be sustained. The Learned Coun:el having urged his points for arresting judgment, stated the ground on which he expected the Court to grant new trial, in case his first objections should he Over ruled by the Court. It appeared that Baron Wood, in his charge to the Jury, said he was required to state whether it was a libel or not, and he had no he sitation in saying he considered it a gross libel. The Learned Judge also added, that this Court, in grant ing the criminal information, considered it a libel. Mr. Brougham contended that the above charge wes a-misdirection, inasmuch as the Learned Judge was not required by the Libel Act to state, without being asked the question, whether it was a libel or not. Upon these and other points he argued for a new trial. • The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE was of opinion the Learned. Counsel had not produced any fact to duce the Court to grant a new trial. Telling the Jury that the Court of King'sißench considered the pub lication a libel was no more thad calling their at tention to a true. bill found by a Grand Jury. On the other grounds stated by Mr. Brougham, his Lord ship thought there was more weight, and die Court granted. a Rule to chew cause why judgment sho,ild not be arrested. MAILS. *ea. ou a: Dublin • 1 0 Waterford 0 2 Guernsey and Jersey 1 0 Lisbon 0 0 Holland 1 0 Leeward Wands 0 0 France ARR. out. 0 0 Harnbursh 0 2 Flanders • 1 0 Makr o _ Gottenburgit Brasil 1 I 0 0 LONDON: rtliated and published by Levu Kos, Pickett• place, Temple-13st. .• 1 HIGH- TSR at LONDON BE . tp;l6,lt TQ-10.11 It W. Dikrning • • •• , 9 ...mtiotttes after R • Afternoon ' - •ft 'O. Minutes after 8