The National Register. — London, England, 1822-11-11 00:00:00

• 1. . 44L 414 TUiSDAT NIGHT* 444111177.8. BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDED. J. Greig and 11. Stun, Charlo:te Street, ltatlibone Place, linen drapers. BANKRUPTS. T. Dixon, Manchester, joiner. Solicitor, Mr. ltiakinson, Al idd'e Temple. L. 'Prickle, Nuneaton. Warivieks'iire, mercer. Sols. Nlesbre. ('unstable and Cu. Synaitirra Inn. Citaneery Lane. F. Harris. LiJe Street, Lea. .;ter Sy late. dealer. Sols. Aiesara. Timbreli rind Co. Maccleilield Sireet, soho. J. Athwelt, Noitiagbean, iron launder. sole. Mciars. dame and Co. New Inn. J. Nowerl, Q seen Street, Finsliu y„ tiinber merchant. Soh. Mesas. %Vinter and Co. Bedfurn B. J. Julius nr. Houndaditch, cabinet maker. Sol. Mr Boxer. Funiivai'i. lin. C. Kennington. (ilaitilird Briggs, Lincolnihire, draper. c & Mewl,. Eyre and Co. tilra)'s T. Craua g e, %rat ling Street. Shropshire, grocer. Sol: Mr. Leans, Hatton Garden. H. Greathead, Stepney ralseway, maser mariner. Sol. Mr. I.ang, Fenchureli street. J. Beattie. Puttees, victualler. Sol. Mr. Minchin, Verulam rulltlin;.a. Gray's liin. P. Howse, Park Street, Hanover Square, horse dealer. Sol. Air. Bright, Touk's Court, Cliancery Lane. E. Stistam thy, Whin:chapel. eieesemonger. Sol. 31r. Hut ehinron, Crown Court, Thre.ulnecdle Street. DIVIDENDS. Nov. 2C., W. Button, IlAcesier, Oxrimlshire. innkeeper-30, T. Brounthead, Sheffield. grocer-26. F. Pinner, Drury Lane, groccr—l2, G. Itiehardson, aleeklenburgh Square, and T. Wiocester Street, Queen Square, merchants—lC C. Jen amigo, Polisea, grocer-21i. S. Nctls , Aliddleton Garden, l'en toneide, fruiterer -12, C. Markene e, Caroline Street, Beard Square. merchant-26, L. W. Williams, Fleet Street, wine merchant—V . ..l. }}enuring, Long Acre, linen draper-26, J. Farrell, l'rospixt Place, Newington Causeway, merchant-26. 11. Cullen and .1. Pears. Cheapside, factors-26, W. Murray, Mall Court, Pall Mall. tailor.-26. J. Marshall, Gerrard Str.et, Soho, . , ovey seravetier-30, J. M. Fuller, %Worthing, linen draper-26, G. Houghton, Hercules Buildings, Lambeth, carpenter-Y7, .1. 'sicken. St. Stephen's Hill, Derbyshire, cotton spinner —Ys, M. Wotherspoon„ Liverpool, merchant-27, S. Millard, Gloucester, linen draper-29. J. Ashworth, Man chester, grix:er....1.6..1. and .1. Sykes and W. Itedrearm Almond. bury. Yorkshire. fancy imunifacturers-11. S. Dodd, Newcastle upon Tyne, mercluint-12. H. l'abi um and J. Barron,W'albrook. waratioustmen-30, I'. Baylis, Curdwortli, War wickshire. deader-30, J. Taylor, Leominster, skinner—Dec. 5, J. Tatlwn, Liverpool. merchant. CEICEIFICAThS to be granted Nov. is. W. Gould and F. Greasley, Maiden Lane, %rood Street, hosiers—lL Higgin„ Liverpool. mariner—W. L. Bryan, Poultry, ) , rioter --J. Brain well, I.eadenliall Street, hatter—J. Westerdsle. Kingston upon Hull, grocer—J. Nash, sen. Clandon. Surrey, fsttuer—M. Sharp. Liverpool, master mariner—T. Browning, seas. East Mailing, Kent, farm. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY. TvERDAy, Nov. 3. The Lord Chancellor came intu Court at twenty minutes after teo TUE l'oßTSslorTll CASE. Tb Attornry General stated, w the matter of the Earl of Pnriamundi, lie undiirstood that a considerable number of afli• 11A. 04 in uppnaltiou to the petition had been tiled yesterday.— i,.• Counsel f.r the pet lion had not yet seen them, and it might be nec,sio! , to anaa , er them. lle bad therefore to request th:it tut Legcai; of the petition should be poslpuuetl to Tuesday beat. Mr. Horne said, he, as counsel for Lady Portsmouth, con curnrd in the propriety of the bearing of the petition being post you'd ; but trusted, after what bad passed, that his Lordship would agree with him that Thursday was too early a day fur Hilt purpose. 'foe Lord Chancellor observed, that he bad read the a6tda ♦its of the physicians, and he foaad nothing in them to prevcut the petition being beard on Thursday. He had also read all the affitico its which had been tiled yesterday, and be found the cadet he had made had been completely frustrated by that hitit, which never ought to have taken place. He 'dialled to draw the attention of Mr. Horne to the affidavit of a Mr. Bing, rela tive to a communication made to him by a lady. He would Land the learned counsel the allidavit, fur it contained highly liutHrista winter. Air. llurue—'. Ate your Lordship fixed Thursday for the 6eeria ." ' rd.: Lord Chancellor—" Certainly." 0111.16 , 1T10N OP RKTAINEIIS. The rest of the day was occupied in discussion whether Mr. Bail Montague had taken • brief improperly in ■ cast against vtloch he bad received a retainer. It was introduced to i.e; COM t he Mr. Horne as the petition of Mr. Lloyd in the matter of Clover. In the bankruptcy of Mr. Glover, Ir. Uoyd was • creditor to • considerable ■mount. Mr. Lloyd took the opinion Mr. Mont rue in the matter, and gaev him • retainer. Mr. Muatague attemied 12 meetings of the Comrnis,iuners in the haracter of cuensel fur Mr. Lloyd. On the 22d of February last there was a final examination. On the 211th preceding there was a retainer given to Mr. Montague for the bankrupt, and on the 21st a brief and fee. Mr. Lloyd baring • debt to prove agsiii,t the hatiLrupt's estate, bad nut intended to give a brief to Mr. Montague for the meeting olCutninissioners, but he cumplained that Mr. Montague took a brief for the interest soil:lst which he had been contesting, and had received a retainer. The Lord Chancellor, after having repeated all the circam st axes of tho case, gave it es his clear upioion that no blame could be attached to Mr. Montague. It appeared that Mr. attorney did in f,ct know that a brief was given to Mr. Nuotagne, and did not biwwelt mean to give him a brief. Here the retainer had brCII an a 111./ettr al tewiliruptcy. By the way, tile ',our bbilsiupt gave a large, fee than the rich creditor.— It was quite cin.siteut to hold the retainer for the bankrupt, avid for Llm - d. The observations of Mr. Lee, attorney fur the bankrupt, ought nut to have prevented Mr. Reddish from row. inunimaing with Mr. Montague. There could be no obligation of in sneli a transaction. Mr. Montague, too, men tions,' to the cumnthoitmeis at once the painful situation in womb Ur stood, and offered to refer the rear then. ?iu blame lki,:rtever ouuld be imputed. Muata4ue said he dif ant ask coats. THURSIM . Y. NOY. T. 7111: PqßTSafie @APSE. rie Attorney General op:uttil the ease of the petitioner, Heavy 11 al.up Yeiluwes, nephew ui the Earl of Purtstitooth.— Tim prayer of the platttuu was, that a couunissima of enqairy tuuhl er nomed, to ascertain whether ihs Lordship was of s Pu.s4 mind, rod sepal& of managing his own pet MIS and pro ke.ty. T.e teaser,' gantlantu detailed at great length the 434 woe' ' ' . ,11.1 k 4 - REGISTER ATIONAL admits which were fled is &sprint of the prayer of the petition. Mr. Wetherell follovrel on the same side, entil he was inter rupted by his Lordship at half past two. The Lord Cltaucellur said, that this was a ease which so urgently required the earliest possible decision, that be would plueeed wilts it again to-morrow worming. At the same time he wished to suggest that in a case of such great delicacy there ought to he no publication until the case should be fully heard, winch request is isiteuded to he complied with. . THE N. FRIDAY, NOV. 8. This day Mr. Wetherell resumed his address, and after ex patiating on the various topics consented with the ease, con cluded A:tout twelve o'clock. Mr. Shadwell also addressed the Court. Before the Lord Chancellor left the Court, be stated, that he would inform the bar, either to-morrow, or on Monday, on what illy he would he prepared to give judgment iu cases in which he has bad for some time the papers. VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT. NONDAV. NOV. 4. PRACTICE OF THE COURT WITH RESPECT TO INJUNCTIONS. COURT AND Co. I. MoIONTJoY Altp Co. Mr. Hart moved for an injunction against the defendants under the following circumstances Majesty is seised, in right of the Crown, of the Forest of Dean, in Gloucestershire, which contains much iron and coal. Any person who may be desirous of working a mine in the forest must make application to the King's Steward of the Forest, who, it he think lit, will grant the person so applying a tract of land fur that purpose.-- In thOU the plaintiffs obtained the grant of a piece of ground, and the defendants were also pat in possession of some contigu ous land. The respective boundaries of each tract offend were accurately defined. The plaintiffs lately had reason to suspect that the defendants were encroaching upon their boundaries ; and on the 20th of Aug. they had the ground dialled, when it appeared that the defendants had entered the boundaries of the plaintiffs, and were about to sink a pit there in order to dis charge the water out e their own mine into that of th►.ir neigh bours, the ace of which would he the complete destruction of the works. The injunction be applied for was to restrain the defendants from proceeding with the construction of the pit. The Vice Chancellor observed, that the Court was always unwilling to issue an injunction on an experts application, male►' the absolute necessity of the proceeding were evident. In the present case there certainly was prima foie evidence of neces sity, but at the same time, if the learned consul bad reason to believe that no irreparable mischief would from the delay necessary in order to give the defendants notice, the Court would not grant the injunction. but let the case stand over. Mr. Hart said lie was informed by his clients that the most enfortunate results would ensue to them if t►e injunction did not immediately issue. The Vice Chancellor said, that ander these circtimatanses, and because the rule laid down by the Lord Chancellor was not generally known, be would grant the injunction in the present instance. PHONY V. NICHIOLs, DUTLERWORTH awl) °TREKS. Mr. Wilson, on the part of the plaintiff, applied for an in junction to restrain the defendants, Messrs. Nichols, Henry Butterworth, and Sicepkin and Marshall. front publishing and selling a work entitled t. A Treatise in the practice of the Court for the relief of Insolvent Debtors." The fasts of the case, as stated by the learned gentleman, were as follows :—ln the year 1821, the defendant, Mr. Nichols, an attorney, wrote the work in question, which the plaintiff, who is a bookseller in Temple lane, undertook to publish at his own cos'. The number of the first edition was 500 ; all of which, with the exception of IS copies, which west to Ms. Nichols, were to be sold for the benelit of the plaintiff. The copywright of the work was vested in Mr. Nichols, but it was stipulated that he should not publish a second edition, until the whole of first had been sold. The plaintiff charged, that on the 31st of October last, Mr. Nichols, iu violation of his agree ment, gave to Messrs. Butterworth, of Fleet -street, and Simp kin and Marshall, who published it, a work, the same in title, and essentially the same in substance, as that published by the plaintiff, who had not yet disposed of his first editions— The plaintiff supported bis statement by alidavits.—lujunction granted. COURT OF KING'S BENCH. TUMAY, NOV. 5. The Lord Chief Justice sat, according to appointment, this day, at Westimuster, to try the following prosecution► THE KING H. SETON,I;4I. This was an indictment against the defendant for wilful and corrupt perjury, alleged to have been committed in an answer put iu by the defendant to a bill in Chancery. The Solicitor-General stated, that the prosecutor carried on business in the Island of Martinique, under the firm of Buckley, Farquharsoo, and Co. This prosecution arose out of a bill filed in Chancery, in 1818, relating to mercantile transactions carried on between the prosecutors sod the defendant. who was a mer chant of great credit and respectability in the Island of at. Vincent. The original bill was amended, and an answer put in by the defendant; on which the assignments of perjury were laid in the present indictment, viz.— fhe bill stated, that i• January, 1797, sod subsequent thereto, the defendant had ear lain dealings and transactions of a commercial statue relating to West India produce and bullion with the prosecutor►.—The defendent denies in his answer having bad any such transactions, but was only connected with them as related to a mortgage on the Dunfermline estate in Scotland, the property of the defen dant. Ihe bill stated, that the defendant had received 21,2001. and 4,1801 The defendant, in his answer, admitted having re ceived from Farquharson, Buckley and Co. certain sums, but denied his receipt of the particular sums mentioned. The learned solicitor said he should be able in show that the defen dant bad bad extensive transactions with the house of the pro secutor, through the medium of Luis Ferries, • partner in that house ; and that he, the defendant, stated that it would be • matter of reciprocal advantage to open a house in London the firm of Cheap end Lea, which suggestion was adopted, and business carried on by that house to the ■mount of between 700,0001. and 800,0901. Now the specific fact to which the defendant lied sworn, was his having had no transac tions with this house prior to 1707, and that only relating to the Datnftrline estate. He should, however, be able to show, thst in May, 1796, • contraot was entered into be tween the parties forming a partnership engagement to a certain extent. The business to be chiefly conducted by Buckley and Co. in which it was stipulated that they were to receive two fifths of the profits, and the defendant three-fifths. The elus ion was, whether the defendant bad given his answer with his eyes open, and ■ clear knowledge of the proceeding. After having for days together carefully examined with great anxiety the bill and replication, be was bound to state, that he must eodne himself to the first wignmeot of perjury, and abandon he rest. the bill and W. Smith, from the Si: Clerks replication. The Lord Chief Justice was of opinion, that the answers given by the defendant to the interrogatories on which perjury was assigned, were in themselves so irrelevant, that the dt dant might not have given his answers so deliberately and cos siderately, as if he had considered them to be of isleruice to the matter at issue. It would be too much ►o say this was wilful perjury. The Solicitor-General said, from what had fallen from his Lordship, he should decline pressing the matter further. The Jury, under his Lordship's directiou, immediately pre. trounced the defendant—Not Guilty. WEDNESDAY, NOV. 6. This being the first day of Michaelmas Term, the Judges took their seats with the usual forms. The returns of the convicts at the Penitentiary, Milbank, Sheerness, Climb .m, and Portsmouth, were read. THOMPSON P. BENSON •ND ANOTHER. Mr. Scarlett moved for a rule to show cause why jodgmect should not be entered for the plaintiff, notwithstanding a verdict for the defendant bad been given in two pleas. The second and fourth pleas were for the defendant, and the success of his motion would depend on the opinion of the Court respecting the validity of those pleas. It was an action of trespass, breakiog and entering the manor of the v1.11'1,611; mot committing certain trespasses on the river Darrow. The flint plea set forth that a work existed within the plaintiff's macor at beetoo, for the preservation ul the river, and on the refusal of the plaintiff to repair the said work. the defendant f utereu Ifs do the necessary repairs. Thin fourth plea was the saute in sub stance, and Mr. Scarlet( contended both were bad. The Court granted a rule to shew cause, but wished the question to be put in the form of a special cue. Mr. Blackburn moved for a writ of ftlandrmus, commanding the Arch Deacon of the Arch Deaconry of York to swear in a person, named Daniel Hale, to the office of Chapel Warden. The application was made on affidavit, stating that the pima had been elected to the office according to custom, and the Arch Deacon refused to swear him to the office. The Conti granted the writ. IN THE MATTER OF GEMIGE JAQUIA. Mr. Brougham moved for the judgment of the Court on the defendant, declared guilty in the Master's report of having , practised as an attorney in the name of one Thoekery, en attot ney, contrary to the provisions of de 22d of George 11. Mr. Brougham, one former day, brought the matter before the Court, and the Judges referred it to the Master, who decided chiefly on the following fact. It was stated that Thickery re ceived from Jaques a guinea a week fur permission to practise in his name.. The charge was denied, but a book ens produced, in which entries bad been made of the money alleged to bate been paid. On the motion of the Master, Thackety was struck oat the Rolls of the Court, and Jaques in this instauce appeal t d to recei►e punishment for having exercised the right of ■u attorney. The affidavits Mowed a series of acting by Jaques, in the name of Mockery, for his own benefit. The defendant appeared is Court. Chief Jmitioe—You are the person named Jaques t —Yes, my lewd. Are you aware of the application that is made alpine. you ? Yes. Then you are to show cause why the Court should oot •it you. The defendant wished to have a long written defence read. Chief Justice—Have you any bedavits ? The defendant acid lie had very long affidavits, and be wu led to believe the Court. could not get thr. ugh them that day He complained that it had bee■ referred to the Master. It wu an alleged offence arising out of a particular statute, and the Court ought to have decided it. Mr. Brougham said, the defendant's Counsel, Mr. Surfeit, consented to go before the Muter. Chief Justice—There is no doubt this Court, in the examina tion ofa matter of feet, could proceed by reference to the AI eater, Mr. Brougham then directed the attention of the Court to the facts proved before the :Suter. The Lord Chief Justice observed, that the Coart ought ta have the book before them wheel' the Master bad examined. Mr. Brosgliani then suggested :hat the matter might I. brought on again epos motion when the book was in Court. The Lord ChiefJustice—Let it stand over till to-morrow. Jails. woo owds.red so 'Mod to-morrow. Mr. Justice Hoiroyd took his pest this morning in the Bail Court, sod a great number of actions were jubtified without op position. Re YOONS att. BLACHFORD. Mr. Walford addressed his Lordship at considerable length, and submitted that the bail could not be allowed to justify, fur the following reasons the first place there had been a change of attorneys since the commeucemot of the amine, ai.d in the next place it was • bail by Habeas Corpus, and the writ ought to be annexed to the bail piece ; be submitted that the present attorney had no right to the returns, his name not being affixed to the proceedings connected with the cense of action. His Lordship ordered the writ of Habeas Corpus to he ft tcLed, ia order to ascertain whether be had that jurisdiction which 31r. Walford contended was nut tested in bun, because if he bad not that power he should be admistering ao unlawful oath. In the course of the morning the writ of Habeas Corpus was produced, when Mr. Watford contended, that it ass nut pr.- cared by legitimate means. Mr. Justice Holroyd said, that although the learned gentle man (Mr. Walford) doubted bin power, be should exercise it on this occasion, and proceed to justification. Mr. Walford said, that if such was Lis Lordship's determi nation, he should not oppose the bail, as his objection rested ou pointa of furor which the Court had ever-ruled. TIIE KING, ON THE PROSECUTION OF VIII T. CIIANIPNEYS, BART: V. aIESSITER, GENT. This was an idictineut tricd at the last Assizes for Somerset. for attempting to induce witnessea to swear falsely, in au action of defamation, on which the defendant had been found guilt. Mr. Scarlett this day mused for • rule to show cause why there should not be • sew trial, or an arrest of judgment. In his opinion, the Court would hardly think it worth wile to grant a new trial. - nil-Court granted • rule to drew cause. Mr. 'attains, the prosecutor's Counsel, then said, be was instruct to more for the judgment of the Court on the deten dant. but ftrr w hot had occurred be should consent to his being hale on his own recognizance to appear when called on. THE RING v. &MITI!. Mr. Brougham moved fur leave to file a criminal infatuation against John Smith, a person residing at Appleby, in the county of Weitmoreland, for outrageous conduct to Mr. Thus. Brigga, Deputy Sheriff* and Jud,t , e of the County Court, aino residing at Appleby. The application wkr invie on the affidavit of M r. Briggs, detailiag the circumstances. Mr. Briggs was bolding 11l County Court at Appleby, in August last. On that (mamas r _ The So in this cam action to r 111. cap. 1 :41r. Sergt to - tutctuo, I. ctilitt 4 011 ILA Vid o lice ut I fOT t .e delete too • why 'a T.,e sour WI eourtalet V. lite 11 tal I :•ust.tm WMS ttie Jury rou JaJ ot; and MOWN Serf vent ic side, It , a silted al and lie a publi The ddi‘or Oue and the Just Judge the Jut The Jud :e to %tarn Mr. J Srrg Mr:. for then Mr. the grot The 4 Mr. / the : laii