The Sun. — London, England, 1820-08-12 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIG,ENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, Aticusr t. The LORD CHANCELLOR came into Court at nine o'clock, and . disposed of. all his Bankrupt Petitions Wore one. ' ewt.ittA HOUSE. Mr.IIEALD stated to his Lordship, that he had -a motion to make of a pressing nature; it was in the case of the Opera Hon - Se, into which au exe cution had be6)_ put. C The Loan IIANCELLOR.-4 can't help m hat they put into the Opera IlouSe—but I hope they will Lot put me there. 'Let the motion be taken I;efore the ViceXhancell, r, ho understands the business 'of the Opera llous'e Much better than do. His Lordship, in the afternoon, consented to heir the motion. INFORMAL PETI'T'IONS. During the-morning an individual of humble, Litt decent appearance, handed a written paper the Lord Chancellor. The demeanour of the applica►:t was extremely correct, and (contrary to the custom in such cases established) he said - nothing in support of his motion. The Lotzn•.CHANcnnt.ott.-1. will read this mapper to-night, but • I an afraid uoth►ing- can be done it► Persons' who com►:e to the Court in 'this way com►ttonly attribute to a Judge powers ,wl►iel► he really do 6 not possess. Cif_ the petitioner 'ref& ing, his Lordship ob- served, that _applications lilre the present were .; far Too frequent, and that, 'from the manner in such petitions were drawn up, it was evi dent that they were ,prepared by persons who -.knew. that the Court could not possibly act upon them. Those persons, however, did not forget, he was afraid, to charge their unfortunate em ployers as well as to deceive them. LORD FRANCIS GODOLPHIN .OSBORNE J. LORI) COL.. ciiEsTmt, SIR RICHA H D RICHARDS, LADY CHAR- LOTTE ELIZABETH OSBORNE, AND OTHER. Air. IlonN applied to the Court under the fol- circumstances : The plaintiff,. Lord 'Francis Osborne, was married in the year 1809 to the present Lady C. E. Osborne, who was a • daughter of Lord - Auckland. Previous to that ;marriage a deed was executed, by which a sum of 20,0001., then due to Lord F. Osborne from . his brother, the Duke of Leeds, was assigned to the late Archbishop of Canterbury, the late Lord Hobast, z-.nd the present defendants, Lord Col tcheSter and Sir Richard Richards, (Chief Baron of the .Exchequer), 'Upon trust to lay out that. •sum either in mortgages or in such other secu rities as theyshould think fit, as an accumulat ing fund for the benefit of_Lady Qsborne and of the younger children (if any) of the marriage. The fund_ was to continue to accumulate during: 'the joint lives of i Lord.F. Osborne, and of Lady Osborne, until it should amount to 50,0001. ; but if, during the joint lives of those parties,, it . should increase to that amount, then Lord F. Osborne was to be entitled, during his life, to ;the current dividends or interest arising from the Tiinti o :Lord F. Osborne, by his petition, now . s . t . a..ted that the fund had increased to 68,0001.; iand prayed that the overplus above the specified 60;0001. might be laid out in such manner as he should desire ; and that the interest arising from the whole amount, which was vested in the 3 per cent. Consols, might from time to time be paid to him. The LORD CILINCELLOIL—Who appears for the trustees ? Mr. MtItRIVALE appeared for the defendants (Lady Osborne and her children), who did not 'dppose the petition. SIMEON believed that the Attorney-Gene ral, who was not in Court, appeared for the 'trustees. 'The Loan CHANCF.LiOR.-I will make no or der in this case unless the trustees are before me. 'The 'Lord thief-Baron can decide the matter as B ell as I can. Mr. 5131E6N.-LlVill your Lordship allow me 0: hand up the opinion given by Sir Arthur Piggott ? ' LoYt'D CuA:sTeaion..—No. I f Lord Col- cbester and the Lord Chief Baron are' satisfied with Sir Arthur Piggott's,..apinion, why do they come here ?. In a casee - where such authorities en tertain doubt, I ought to have that doubt before me. Suits shall not_, ie,instituted here merely for the sake . , of asking`triy, opinion. As C onn i e ' `a'l'e "not . prek! . nt . on the Part of the trust ees , l e t 'tie petition stand over.. i. ,OPE.RA ,FIO.USE. 'Mr: ItEALD;al7ter adverting . .to the protracted f'to c.eeditgs of this interminable case,, and pro iliesyino- its endurance in full health and vigour or at least ten years to come, stated to the Court itiat' Mr. Waters having assigned ; the Opera-house (without 'pacing for it), for a - debt . of .5-1,0001., to hlE>ssrs.' Midi and Obanifiers, Bankers, of Bond treet, those Gentlemen had taken possession of il4'. property ; and thatifie Sheriff, being duly . .. indeinnified,"was about to'sell the scenery, rp4- etiinery, dresses, ' &c., in Satisfaction of their Claim. Against these proceedings, which would put the Opera-house - (Still in equity, the property 3!:,141.-r. Taylor, the purchase-mon e y . not being aaid) ..horsrde combat as a theatre, he now prayed injunctio n . • Vlie Loit'n'CtiAx cE i.t.O'n did not s ee hOw h e could" MesS rs .' Bi rc h and Chambers from . . .. s oli ng the interest of Mr. Waters in the property, .. , siibject to the obligations of that Gentleman ; but would restrain them from selling any thing else. ... ''Mr. lidoper:.-- 7 .A . n'd . from removing th e pro .r.. lielily` without ,ttie . fuqllFr direction of the Court? ' 'The Lotto Cii,o4l CELLO R.-Let Messrs. Birch and Chambers be restrained from selling, under eiViseXectitidn; any - thing, except (he interest of Mr. 'Waters ln the proPerty ;, or from removing .... Or 'doin g any . act inconsistent with, the empjoy in'eint ;of the property necessary to the carrying din of the' toriceim. . . ' t - :ICE - CHANCELL'OR'S COURT, A vourr 11. WE . iICKAON AN'D 0r11RS• qqr. BPJ.T.ititi;ttetilo the Court, 'Yepon the pe tition of Mr. J. Hunter, to expunge a debt of q,:500/. improperly proved against the estate Messrs. Jackson, Goodchild and Co. The circtn of the case were these :—ln the gar I'Bls, Messrs. Crosby, of London, South-Ameritan merchants, became embarrassed. - Believing their difficulties to be only of a temporary nature, they applied to their friends for assistance, and a number of houses, among which were the firm of Messrs. Jackson, Goodchild, and Co., and that of a gentleman named Rayner, agreed to support them to the ex tent of -10,000/. The aid so afforded, how ever, Iva§ not given in cash, but in bills at two inontlts' date, drawn by the several auxiliaries upon each other, K hick bills the Bank promised to dis count, and to continue such: discount for I.q months, the paper being renewed from time to time as it should become due ; and as a security to their supporters, Messrs. Crosby executed a decd of trust, by which they assigned to them certa'n valuable American produce ; with a co v(..nant that if any one of the a:ding parties should, by death or bankruptcy, become,incapa ble of continuing acceptances 'from time to time, such party should 'be excluded from the benefit of the deed in question, while it should be com petent,• to the rest of the securities to put some *ufficient person in his place, giving to that per son the interest which his Predecessor hail for , felted. In the month of J uly, ISI6 (the 12 months being to expire in September), Messrs. Jackson, and Goodchild became bankrupts; and a bill drawn by Mr. Rayner, upon those gentlemen, for 2,5001., being part of the ad vance to Messrs. Crosby, was in consequence re turned by the Bank to the drawer. .Mr. Ray ner, instead of paying that bill in cash, exchang ed it for another bill accepted by a person of the name of Thornhill; not at that time making any claim under the commission of Messrs. Jackson and Co.- Subsequently, however, Messrs. Cros by themselves became bankrupts ; and Mr. Ray ner proved the debt of 2,500/. against Jackson's estate, and received dividends upon his claim. On the part of Mr. Hunter, as assignee of time estate of Jackson, Mr. Bell now prayed that the proof of Mr. Rayner's debt might be expunged. Ile prayed this upon various groUnds ; but first and principally, upon the around that the pro ceeding of Rayner as to Jackson's acceptance had not been a payment, but merely a substi tution. Mr. AGAR, on the other side, contended that the exchange of the bill had amounted, to all in tents and purposes, to, a payment . . It was the same thing as if,. the bill being brought to Mr. Rayner, he had paid it by a check. , The VICE-CHANCELLOR being of opinion that the:re had not been any payment by Mr. Rayner, but only a substitution, ordered that the debt should be expunged, and that the dividends re ceived should be refunded to the assignees. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. SUKREY.—GUILDFORD, Auo. 7. CIVIL SIDE. Before the CHIEF JUSTICE and Special Jiries. THE KING V. SELMAN. This was an indictment against the defendant, for a nuisance, under the 26th, Geo. 111., for re gulating the Toads in St. George's-fields, in hav ing erected an additional building to his dwelling house, contrary to the provision of that Act. The prosecution was conducted by Mr. Gun" NEI- and Mr..CniTTY, and the defence by Mr. MARRY AT and Mr. ANDREWS. By the Act of Parliament in question, it was provided, that the main roads leading from the south side of Blackfriars-bridge, by the Obelisk in St. George's-fields, to the spot on which the notorious Dog and Duck tea-gardens formerly stood, and now the, site of the New Bethlem, should be of a certain width, to wit, eighty feet, including ten feet' on each side for foot paths, and that no building should abut thereon, so as to diminish the breadth of the foot-path, without being subject to an indictment for a nuisance. Less important roads in the same district were limited to the width of sixty feet, including a like allowance of ten feet for the foot paths. The indictment charged that the defendant, a carpet-manufacturer, had carried out his shop nine feet beyond the front of his house, so as to leave but one foot of path between the building and the carriage way, contrary to the provision of the Statute. llis shop was in what is c a ll e d the London-road, leading to Newington Butts, and the maim question -raised was, whethe r the case came within the words of the 46th section of the Act. The CHIEF JUSTICE was clearly of opinion that it did, but inasmuch as there was a misde scription of the road set out in the indictment, as referred to in the Act, his Lordship directed the Jury to acquit the defendant, and they accord ingly returned a verdict of Not Guilty. ALLEN V. TURNER. • • This was an acti on t o recover ' a com pensation in damages for a malicious prosecution, carrjed on without reasonable or probable cause by the defendant,'against the plaintiff, 'on a charge of embe7zlement. The plaintiff's case was conducted by Mr. GURNEY, Mr. COWLEY, and Mr.' An'or.rnus, and the defendant's 'by Mr. Berjeant ONsLow, MAlllt VAT, and' Mr. Nor. As. The case opened and proved on the part of the plaintiff was in substance this :—The defen dant is a person of smile publicity as a vender of shoe blacking. 'The plaintiff had been one of his riders for. about two years, and in the month or April, 1818, be voluntarily gave . up the em- Ployment. On the settlement of his accounts, he claimed a balance of 36/. of the defendant, Who, on the other hatid; insisted that he was en titled to a sett off of 30/. This 'became a matter of dispute, and' was in the progress of 'adjustment by minute .'investigation of the' accounts, when the plaintiff entered the service of 'Mr. Warren, another blacking-tnanu factuter 'of equal publicity with the defendant, i n th e sa me capacity of r id er . 'lt was alleged that the 'defendant became so in ceased at tniS criCtitnsian&?,- atat he immediately shifted his ground, went before a Magistrate, and charged the plaintiff ith three several acts of embezzlement during the time helva - ,. - in his ser vice, and caused a *arrant : to - ,be_ issued for the plaintiffs apprehension, in order thereby to injure his character, and frustrate his active exertions iii favour of Mr. Warren, which it was supposed would be injurious to the defendant's trade. Great.zeal was manifested on the part of the de fendant to have the warrant executed, and it was ; sworn that he had offered bribes_to some of Mr. Warren's servants, to let him know where the plaintiff was to be found, and that he declared the satisfaCtion he would feel in having the plain tiff itt tonfinement, if it was but for a single day. The plaintiff w as'a t length apprehended and taken before the Magistrate at Union Hall. When first brought up for examination, the defendant was not ready with his evi4nce, and the Magis trates Suffered the plaintif to depart upon kr. Harmer's undertaking for his appearance, On seven successive occasions the plaintiff was taken before the Magistrates on these charges, but the defendant not being able to bring forward his evidence, the information was finally. dismissed. Within live Minutes after Wards the plaintiff was arrested for 301. at the suit of the defendant, hut immediately put in bail, and the defendant after wards discontinued the action. The plaintiffan ticipating that the defendant would still proceed criMinally against him, gave him notice that, in case he should indict him, at the ensuing May Sessions, he would be ready to surrender and take ' his trial,. No indictment, however, was preferred at those Sessions ; but at the,fol lowing October Sessions, the defendant went be fore the Grand :fury, and preferred two Bills, on two several charges of embezzlement, which were found by the Grand Inquest. The plain tiff immediately gave notice, that he, would ap pear in •the January Sessions and take his trial. He accordingly did appear, and when the Coun sel for the prosecution had opened the case, the Learned Chairman who presided, Mr. Harrison, interposed, and said, that supposing all that had been stated .were proved, the indictment could not be supported. The plaintiff was therefore acquitted on that occasion. Under these circum stances the present action was brought. In fur ther proof of the defendant's malice, it was stated, that he had employed two police•repor ters to attend at the Union. Ilall Office, take notes, and cause an ex-parte* statement of the de fendant to be published in the Newspapers, in such terms as would be most injurious to the plaintiff's character. It was also proved, that he had published advertisements in an Evening Newspaper, intimating to his customers that the plaintiff had left his employ, and warning them not to pay him any money on his (the defen dant's) account. This was the case for the plain tiff, who claimed very large danages at the hands of the Jury. , Mr. Serfeant ONSLOW addressed the Jury with very considerable ability, on behalf of the defen dant, in reply to the plaintiff's case, and contend ed, that if he shelved by evidence that the de fendant had reasonable and probable cause for the proceeding against the plaintiff, his client Would be entitled to a Verdict. The following facts were proved in support of the question of the reasonable and probable cause :—On the 21th of January, 1818, the plain tiff received the sum of 41. 15s. of Mr. Joseph Ball, a perfumer, of Northampton, for blacking, on account of the defendant, which sum was ne ver credited in his accounts. On the 19th Sept. he received the sum of 21. ss. of Mr. Peter Gar diner, of Gravesend, on a like account, and this sum was never brought to book, or paid to the defendant. .On the Bth of August, 1817, he re ceived the sum of 13s. of Mr. Williarn.Stewart, a shoemaker, of Maiden in Essex, on, a like ac count, and that sum was never accounted for to the defendant; and on the 3d of February,lBl7, 'he received of the executors of a Mrs. Carey, of Shepton Mallett, in Somersetshire, the sum of 31. Gs. Gd. and only accounted for 11. 10s. 6d. The CHIEF JUSTICE interposed and said, it seemed to him, upon this evidence, that there was probable cause for the prosecution instituted by the defendant against the plaintiff, although, in the result, that prosecution had failed. If, un der such circumstances, a man were liable to have an action brought against him, because the prosecution had failed, the course of public jus tice would be obstructed, and no man would proceed against a servant whose conduct he sus pected. The case opened against the defendant was strong, and his Lordship would have called upon the plaintiff, in the first instance, to nega tive any ground of s , :spicion against his conduct, had it not been for the evidence given, spewing the defendant's anxiety to publish the case in the Sewspapers ; but under the circumstances now proved, his Lordship was clearly of opinion, in point of law, that probable cause was sufficiently established. Mr. Gu!tXEy•offered now to go into evidence, to explain, in_ the most satisfactory manner, all the transactions brought forward by the defen dant ;- hut The CHIEF JUSTICE said, be thought such evi dence was not admissible, upon the question of probable cause, because the plaintiff was not now upon his trial. The issue was, whether the de fendant had reasonable ground for the proceed ing he bad adopted. Mr. GURNEY elected to be nonsuited. KEENE V. WIGHTWICK, ESQ. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a farmer, residini , at Chertsey, in this co un ty, t o recoe r from th:defendant, a Magistrate of that District, a - compensatiOn in damages, for a pro secution instituted against the. plaintiff, for a nui sance, the proceedings under which prosecution were alleged to have been founded in malice. The case submitted to the Jury, on the part of the plaintiff, was in substance as follows :—ln the parish of Chertsey, and by the high road side, was a stream of water called Deep Ditch, which, frOm its depth and peculiar situation, was catcUlated to endanger the lives of his Majesty's subjects ) as well - as to risk the safety of their cattle and carriageS on the road ; and the plainti ff erected a large bank, projecting. on the roadside_ a considerable distance, for the alleged purpn s i e of preventing these effects. The defendant f eel , ing a local interest with respect to the spot, au,us harbouring animosity, as was alleged, tow ar d the plaintiff, 'exerted' the functions of his !nag': sterial 'office to remove this bank, alleging it tolr a nuisance, presenting it as such, and twice P r ?: ceeding against it at his Own expence, but final' , shrinking from the trial of the indictment, iron: consciousness , that he could not succeed. T l ',, plaintiff's ease went on to shew that he had be e vexatiously put to considerable expence in bei .obliged to defend the .proceedings institute d , against him, for which he now sought a comp el ' sation in damages. On the part of the defendant it We . clearll estalAished that the bank in question had beel; repeatedly presented at successive Sessions by High Constable of the Hundred as a n uisancej that,manY . tither - Magistiates of the district had considered it as such, and felt that their autb ° ' ' rity was trifled with when it had not been r.‘- moved after repeated presentations;- that M r : Wiglitwick,acting in obedience to a conselenti oa feeling, that .the bank in question was a nuisancel, and perceiving that it was likely those who n a i dertook the prosecution founded on the fepe. 2 t t 4 presentaticns were likely. to suffer, he gra tui ton s 'ij offered•to guarantee the solicitors from loss; o a t it in fact appeared, that the. prosecution was n° followed up to its fullest extent, from_ the ace:, , dental absence of the High Constable of Ch eri sey from the Assizes there this time two yea ," ; having mistaken the period at which the As 9s was to take place: The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE expressed hou-e clearly of opinion that the bank in question an obstruction to part of the high watt-; an d rul e in point of law that the strips of waste land 1.1 1 , the sides of roads were'clearly parts of the way. Such being his opinion. in point of 1 3 , 1% ';, while on th e one h a nd h e could . not think bank_in question other than an obstruction t 0 highway ; he was of opinion that Mr. Wig-110% 1 ' 1 had acted in strict conformity to his M a g-ister! , 3 ll duties, and had been actuated by no other `c! - - than a desire to discharge the functions of office with fidelity and impartiality. At tl same time he suggested to the defendant the P r( priety of his consenting to a 'Juror being w iti:, a drawn, to prevent the plaintiff (who was a P ° man) from being probably saddled with costs both sides, should the verdict be against Bite' Mr. Wightwick, who was in Court and whom the appeal of the Learned Judge w as r e ‘ , sonally.made, instantly acquiesced in the 56 gestion. A Juror was accordingly withdrawn. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE expressed his o t P he nion, after the Jury had been discharged, following . manner :----" I think Mr. Wightio has acted' most honourably in acceding to i b t 'recommendation, because I could have no cic ds of what the result of this case must have bet had it gone on." The subject of dispute was then left to the are titration of Mr. Barnewall. the Barrister. Thursday night, as Colonel Bc.vnGT: s / Gloucester-place, Portman-square, and his , were returning, to London in their travelling ci er riage, in consequence of the heat of the we 3t .j e , the Colonel suffered the servants to get iti,':;(gr , whilst he and his Lady rode outside. -' 4 - he Blackheath some villains contrived t o cut ' e l straps which fastened an imperial on the top be the carriage, without attracting the notice of t it Colonel, and succeeded in carrying it off• e 7? contained contained some valuable jewellery, 601. in n Ol and a great quantity of wearing apparel. ft BIRTHS. muttldor' On the Ist instant, at Bath, th e Lady o f Dr. 4 of a (laughter. On Tuesday last, at Northteet, i n K en !, the wil t 0. 00 Pitcher, Esq. of a daughter. MARRIED. fed' el , ft , On Thursday week, at Tinton ) c hurch, County 0 f of riiiiba the Key. William Frazer, Rector of the Union - ter in the Diocese of Waterford, to H e len, e ldest (ag' ) p c , Rev. W. Archdall, of Seaview„ o. o r ° ouTlitusday last, at I lammersmith, the Rev. • f the • of liontingford, Herts, to Mary, eldest daughter Mr. John Salter, of Hannuersioit h. rr DIED. T o a e On Monday, the 7th inst an t, at hi s house at t 3 7, John Urquhai t, Esq., of the Ordnance Office, arS d so trePpi' On Tuesday last, at his seat at C o ombe-bOO% f the the G4th year of hi s aze, Beoston Long, Esti" rectors or the B an k of Engla n d. r f r n O Thursday morni ng l as t, i n th e 14th Elizabeth,daughter of James Fisher, Esq. 1)„,," 1 "," On the 2d i ns t an t kl ,at Swinhurne Castle, oc;.;;;;tr i General L eonar d S ha f to Orde, Magistrate and tenant for the County of Northuniberland• ;$ ° r LONDON: Printed hyJ. B. CARSTAIKS, o f O. IV by sr , m Orond-street, Queen-square: and publi she SCRIPPS, of No. 7, S o nt h Mo en ltr-street, a t 1 t " 00 Ottice, Nn. 112, strand ; where A dreitis e r eP Letters, &c. (post-paid) must be aldrcsiew COURSE OF EXCHA.":GE, Aucusr 11. Anistettlarn Ditto, at Sight Rotterdam l2 7 Antwerp l2 S C§ Hamhurgh 3/ei L't - 6 ; lo Altona 0 Paris, 3 Day's sight 25 70 e) , Ditto Bourdeaux, ditto 1 el Frankfort on the Main Madrid Cadiz llilboa Barcelona Seville Gibraltar 3O Leghorn Genoa 4;4-Venice, Ital. Liv. 27 60 Malta 45 -Naples 3Si Per OP Palermo Lisbon Oporto Rio Janeiro Dublin 7 Cork 8 per Cent. ver oi BULLION Portugal Gold, in Coin i 0 0 O. . - Foreign Gold, in Bars a 17 101 New Doubloons New Dollars e) 4 OS Silver in Bars; Standard 0 5 0