The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-06-07 00:00:00

COURT OP
Third Session to ',

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Tvcsavr, Jtrxr 6.

Et TARTE ORIMSTEAD.—RE HOWARD AND GIRDS.
The Loan CHANCELLOR commenced giving judgment in this
case immediately after taking his seat. He said that he should
not, however, ' e Ole logo through the whole of it to-day. in emir.,
quence of the many particular circumstances connected with it; he
should, therefore, postpone giving final judgment till a future
day. At present he would state the leading, and what he consi-
dered to be the tartly matcrie; facts of the case. From the Faunae'
nature of the transactions insolved in it, he found it necessary to
go very fully into the evidence that had been adduced on both sides.
The main question to be considered was, whether the 40.0001. which
had been proved by Mr. Grimatead under the first commission,
and which he had offered to prove under the sacond commission,
could he an proved or whether the objection Of usurious trananc.
Lions applied to the whole of that sum, and thereby vitiated t4e
claim, and rendered it il:egal ? lie wished in lay out if considerS.
lion all those facts which had been Introduced into the case. but
which were entirely irrelevant to the question which it was material
for him to decide. His Lordship then entered into a variety of de-
tails contained in the documentary evidence Rfalhatt been adduced
to the Court, in illustration of the transactions between Mr. Grim.
stead and the bankrupts. He particularly referred to a bock that
had been put in, and which was known by the name of the pass-
book. In this booh there were various entries of annuities having
been purchased ; and the purchases of which, It was represented.
had been made by the bankrupts with Mr. Grlinatead's money.
The smeial half-yearly and quarterly payments made on those ac.
nuities were also entered, and there occurred from time to time other
entries gorier the word produce. His Lordship sho referred to the
correspondence that had taken plate between Mr. Gibbs and Ille,
Grimatead, which he said threw some light upon the subject. He
particularly adverted to a letter of Mr. Gibbs 's, dated 9.n October,
1319, in which the word ;trierest appeared to be used in a very die.
fermi sense from the word annuity. The word produce, too, used
in the proi-book, did not appear to hint to be capable of being in-
terpreted to signify interest on dnnuities. It was impossible for
any man to look at the account, contained in that hook, and enter-
tain any doubt that the money, stated as produce, was not interest
of money laid out in the purchase of annuities. This book formed the
principal documentary evidence in :he case: and the question which
arose from the facts that appeared by it, vas thin_did Mr. Grinstead
secede to an usurious contract; or, in other words, was it matter
of contract between hint and Messrs. Howard and Gibbs, that he
should receive more than 5 per et nt upon that part of his inorn•
*hick was not laid out in annuities? Was he cognizant that :U
Iris money was rot laid out in annuities? and being so cognizant,
had he acceded to any agreement for taking more then b per cent.
upon the money which had been otherwise applied by Messrs.
Howard and Gibbs? In order to make out this case against Mr.
Grimatead, there must be a contract on his part to receive more
than 5 per cent., knowing it to be a payment of interest for money
advanced as a loan. His lordship again adverted to thecntry of
receipts under the word produce, and said, that if any person would
look with attention to those entries, he would see that a larger rate
of interest was received on some of the sums titan on others, for the
some apace of time. In alluding to the evidence of Mt. Grimatead.
h s Lordship expressed • considerable degree of surprise. after
what ked actually passed, and after what that gentleman knew.
that he should still have employed Mr. Gibbs. But still it wou:sl
be too much to say, that because he did so employ Mr. Gibbs
he must neceasarily krow of =usurious contract having been pre.
viously entered into by him. Coming to a conclusien upon the
whole of the use, he was sorry to say, but it was his duty to say it.
that he could not believe one wend of what Mr. Gibbs had sworn.
Upon looking at his examination before the first Commissioners,
there was hardly a single answer that he gave that was • direct
answer. He (the turd Chancellor) had analysed that examinatton ,
and there was hardly an answer but upon which Mr. Gibba had o,
far committed himself as to justify a serloaa inquiry bring insti-
tuted elsewhere. The testimony of these two persons, therefore,
must be looked to with most minute and accurate attention, Ana
must be observed upon with the greatest and minutest accuracy.
There were always two questions with respect to matters of this
kind ; namely, first, "Tint was the proposed effect of the evidence
adduced ? and, secondly, If that evidence consisted of tl=
improbabilities, whether it was safe, in the managernehf of
affairs, and consistent with the proper administration of *tides
to act upon improbabilities so great as there improbabilities
been represented to be ? It was his duty to say whether they weed
truly and properly so represented. With respect to that part of this
case, he should go through it on Thursday morning,.aat bang
able to do justice to it at present.
VICE.CHANCELLOWS COURT, Tnitsiannohists C.
In the case of the Attorney-General against Keogh. •
The VICE-CHANCELLOR granted a reference to the litentse. as
he was of opinion that Mr. Keogh, as patron of thellviog, Illectiout
more from the curate than he was entitled to do.
SIR NAIR Y DE TEAR HUNT AGAINST BENNISON.
This was an application front the defendant to compel the plain-
tiff to make good his t'tle to the Isle of Lundy, in the Bristol
Channel. which lie purchased for 4,5001., and which was described
in the bill of particulars as extra-parechtal, and retort= King's
taxes and other rates —A reference was granted.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, TUESDAT,• JUNK 6,
(In Banco.)
FARRAR t. lIIITCHIN.
Thies ease was tried before the Lord Chief Juatice and a Com.
mon Jury, at the sittings last Friday, at Guildhall. It was at
action brought against a booking office-keeper, for'
of a mired. 11 had been
. trend tnt's can, t plaintiff
whom the goods bought,
siding at necktie, and t
directed. That
parcel was not d
admitted that
a nonsuit was
move to enter

TheCcu wow
•hy the nonsuit rl
in order that the.
importance, might
Rule granted.
MARSH,

action mourn against a booking office-keeper, for the nue-delivery
of x totreel, value 8!. at Hackney. which had been booked at the
. trend .nt'e office, to go thither. The plaintiff' was the person of
whom the goods in the parcel had been bought, by a permit re-
1
siding at Hackney, who had paid for them, and to whom they were
directed. That person vu called on the trial, to prove that the
parcel was not delivered to him; but in his crom be-eaaminatlon •
admitted that he was in the nature of a consignee of the pima, and
a nonsuit was entered, with liberty for the Common Sergeant m
move to enter a verdict for 8!.
The Con/WON SERGEANT now moved for a rule to altar eat*
why the nonsuit should not be set aside and a verdict ao entered.
in order that the case, which, though of little value, wee of grew
importance, might be considered by the whole Cow?.
Rule granted.
MARSH, STRACEY. ANI) FAUNTLEROni_
111111:
COMMISSION.
DUGAN, CLERK. v. ROLLAND AND °TRICIA. ASSIGNEES.
This was an action Wyatt by the CeallielSliatteee fee paving
the caste of Joseph Lucas, 'sq. under 3,d of Perlimnest
in the year 1810, to recover from the Ammo. of Ileum paced
Asha

;

i
II

I~

(Sittings in Banco.)
FAWCETT V. lIICHARDSON.

PACK I MOTON V. WILLIAMS.

btricey, and Co. the full amount of 1,99111., before all other ere-
ctile's under the Commission. which had been paid into the house
of the bankrupts, as blinkers to the Commissioners. The eireum.
stances of this case were precisely the same as that in which the
Commissioners for paving the north-west division of the parish of
Pancras were plaintiffs, against the same defendants, which
as reported in our paper of haturday last, with these exceptions--
that the house of Marsh, Sqacey. anti Co. had never been sp.
pointed bankers to the plaintiff, though Mr. Fauntleroy had been
appointed treasurer. His appointment, however, was contended to
be invalid, as by the Local Act it was required to be made under
the halide of five Con:mbuloners, whereas it was only under the
hand of the Chairman. There were two counts in the declaration.
the one claiming from time defendants as assignees Of the general
effects of Marsh, Sucaecy, and Co. ; the other claiming trom the
defendants as assignees of the separate estate of Henry Faunt-
leroy. The amount gone for in the action was paid to 'lr. Fount-
teroy, 24/. in Bank Notes, and 1,7301. in Exchequer Hills, which
were diseased of by him to some person. The case came on for
t?tal before the Lord Chief Justice, at the Sittings here after last
Trinity Term, when it was turned Into a special case upon the ful.
I,,wing Niels
Ist. Whether, under the provisions of the Act of Parliament,
the plaintlfti were entitled to recover the whole amount of their
tick from the defendants before all other creditors, the bankrupts
havmg eever been appointed bankers to them.
2dly. If the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, whether it was
from the joint estate of all the bisnkrupts,or front the separate estate
or Mr. Faantleroy ?
Mr. F. Possocx now contended, in behalf of the defendants,
Brat this ease was clearly distinguishable from the case of Foist r.
Holland, decided against the defendants last week. There the bank-
rupt. had been specifically appointed bankers to the Commissioners,
i• etriur.g. Here, however, there was no such appointment.
Neither could the bankrupts be brought within the meaning of the
words " other persons," used in the General uletropolitan Paving
Act, because those words, cx vi termini, meant persons connected
with the Commissioners in their official capacity, and not mere
bankers, with whom they were in a common course of dealing; as
temporary depositories of their money. The beamed Counsel
elucidated this position, by supposing that the Commissioners had
heeded this money tot person not holding any office under their ap-
pointment, for the purpose of being paid into a bank, and that that
person bad become insolvent, it could never be contended that such
a person could be brought within the meaning of this Act, so as to
give the plaintiff. a priority of claim before all his other creditors ;
and so, if the money haul been paid to a stockbroker to be in-
vested. As to the second point, if the plaintiffs were to recover from
the separate estate of Mr Fauntleroy, they could not have the pre.
terenee over all ether creditors specified by the Act of Parliament,
unless the money received by him arose out of rates collected ; and
two coastal, it might have been derived from loans, as the Commis-
sioners hail a power under the Act to borrow. The ',earned Conn.
eel urged that if the Court were against him, as this was a very int-
portant case, it ought to be at all events turned into a special yet-
atct.in order that the defendants might take the opinion of a Court
of Error. _ .

Mr. CHITTY contended that this case was not distinguishable
from the case of Frost r. Rolland and others, decided on Friday
last ; because, though the bankers here were not appointed such, as
they were in that case, yet it WAR a tact found by the .ipechil case,
that b' they were the bankers employed by the plaintiffs ;" and,
therefore, they came under the authority of that ease.
On the other point, it was agreed by all sides, that, if the Court
ICCIr of opinion that the plaintiff's might to recover the full amount
of their claim, it was unnecessary to argue out of which estate the
motley was to conic.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE. after consulting with the other
Judges, said that this case certainly differed from the case of
:'rust Rolland ; and, therefore, the Court would consider of the
IV It ter, and deliver their judgment on a future day.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
TUC PING V. HURNDON.
The Coat NON SERGEANT moved for a rule to show cause why
a criminal information should not be filed against the defendant, a
gentleman residing at Ifinclielses, for having said of and concern-
ing a Mr. Powell, a Magistrate residing at that place, in public
vestry, that he had granted summonses against several persons
merely for the purpose of putting money in his own pocket. Mr.
Powell, by the affidavit shirts he had sworn, and on which this
application wu founded, negatived any pretence for the imputation
mast upon his character.
'.Vhe LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—Take a rule to IsIICW Cause.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, TUESDAY, Juxx 6.

Mr. Sergeant WILDE had, on a previous day, obtained a rule to
%hew cause why the defendant, who is the agent of Gregor Mac-
gregor, and who had been'arrested for upwards of 6,0001., should
not be discharged.
Mr. Sereant VAUGHAN', upon affidavit, 'hewed cause against
the rule. The claim of the plaintiff rose out of Poyais bonds issued
by the defendant, as agent of Macgregor. The commission of the
deoeudant professed to be sealed with the "sal of legation," and
was drawn up In most pompous terms, such as—•• 11'e, Gregor
Macgregor, Cacique of Poyais, Major of Gorse, Commander of
the Order of the Green Cross, Charge d'Afriires, fcc.;" but, not-
withstanding the appearance of these high-sounding titles, it was
set fo; th in the affidavit that no Government ever existed such as
that the defendant represented himself to have received his appoint.
anent from, and that he knew at the time he was getting a loan on
these bonds, which were to bear an interest of live per cent., that
there could not be property of apy description forthcoming to meet
them. This, them was a fraudulent transaction. The Learned
Sergeant contended, that if the defendant were discharged, he
would gn to his Government of Poyais, and the plaintiff would be
left without any remedy. Some of the bonds had been executed
atter the defendant's commission had been recalled, whkii was in
1623: it was true they bore this date. but it was discovered that
the water-mark of the paper on which they were drawn was 1824.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE argued in support of the rule. lie did
not think the transaction touch to the credit of any of the parties
concerned ; he considered, however, his cheat entitled to his dis-
charge. The defendant had been before discharged from arrest, and
the plaintiff was the deponent in the former suit. It appearedfrom
the affidavits of the defendant, and was shewn by letters from the
plaintiff, that the latter admitted, on the 12th of April, he was in-
debted to the defendant to the amount of between 3001. and
4001. on over-due bills; and in those letters lie asked for
time, and repotted to make a satisfactory arrangement. If this
fraud, as the transaction of the bonds was called, had been prtc-
!Used upon him, he would not have made such an admiuiun as
this ; he would at once have set up his client in opposition to the
defendants. It had been decided by the Court, to prevent seas.
tious arrests, that it would discharge all individual arrested, after
such an admission, unless the plaintiff could anew that cause of
action had arisen between the date of the admission and the sulise-1
quern arrest.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE said, the difficulty here was, whe-
ther the plaintiff was acting for himself or for himself and partners.
lie recollected a ease in which there was an extraordinary arrest for
10,0001., and it was referred to the Prothonotary; but to adopt a
similar course in the present instance would be to appoint' the Pro-
thoratory to try she cause.
Mr. Justice P.cae.—As it will he about six months before next
November. it the defendant thinks lie hiss a good defence, probiddy
he would not object to the cause being tried once.
Mr. Sergeant %ViLDIC assrnted.
The Loan CHIEF JEW/ICE—Then the cause shall be put at
tt.e top of the paper, so as to be tried the first day of the sittings
after term ; and let a rule be made out for the defendatit's
dis-
charge, if In my judgment this should seem fit.
COURT OF EXCUEQUER, TUESDAY, JUNE 6.

An action had been brought by the plaintiff against the dam.
dant for killing a deer ; and no trial, the Jury summoned by the
logien-Sheriff, gave the plaintiff only one farthing damages.
A rule had been subsequently obtained to thew cause why the
inquisition should not be set wade, on the ground that the Jury
--••• illegally summoned, and why the Slitriff of Worcester ought
'ry the costs of the application. 1
'AV NTON appeared to day on behalf of the Sheriff, to re- 1
.: payment of costs. He had nothing to do with the original
1. It would appear from the affidavits iii support of the rule
there was no Jury Book, and that directions had been given to
inder.officer mammon the Jury ; but if it should turn out that
Under-sheriff had been negligent in the discharge of his duty.
'gr. Taunton) apprehended that the l'ourt would not visit.
Sheriff the delinquency et his officer. The affidavits
to state that many of the jurors were Sheriff's officers, and
r of them was the Common Crier. But that was not a suf.
objection to the juror.. The deponent, in the same affidavit,
rn to say that Ire believed, if the ease had been tried before a
jury, that greater damages would have been gisen, and that
expressions would not have been used as the jury, on that pe-
on, had thought proper to mike. Now, with respect to the ob.
rations alluded tkt in the affidavit, reflecting on the character of
plaintiff, and which tad first appeared in the Iroreeder Ile.
1, the Ceder-Sberiff disclaimed all knowledge of their public-a-
-t; he del not communicate them to the paper in question. it
i Id be better if such things were not so often admitted into the
.spapers, but, in the present instance, the Sheriff and his officer 1
re totally exempt from the blame of the publication.. He also
,ended that the plaintiff's attorney had not !eft it in the power
':nder-Sheriff' to comply with the terms of the .tot of Par-1
. in summoning the jory. not having allowed him sufficient
The plaintiff's attorney was present, too, when the jury was'
.urn, and made 110 0 bje ct i on then. lie first took his chance of
damages, and, when disappointed, be made Iris complaint. The 1
--ere affidavits staged that sigh: of the jurors were freeholders.
_ 1 or respectability, and the others were men of credit and in.
teffigeeee, and net related to the defendant.
Mr. RICKARDS, on the part of the defendant, contended that the
-• ought not to be disturbed.
',user 1., in support of the title, insisted that none of the
... allegations reepeethig the Jury had been denied ; it was
denied that the July as not legally summoned. nor was it
lied that the summoning officer was a relation of the defendant.
me made of summoning a jury was marked out with preciUou in
tr. 6, Gee. IV. cap. he, which required that the jury list should
mired by the Petty Seidl= ; to that list ihe Slitriff ought to
• his pry, and no where else; but he relied chiefly on the law
...e that Act, which was, that the jury should be summoned by
ear
inV A tot mom ifs the Court would think dist Sir
/ohs wow the right course, to vindicate his
elsarbesse fibs she KM Injurious publication.
Ifithesosser wiewthonthethis that the rule should be made ab-
aft/MU A its mos. The tract was dearly not consistent wkh ,

the justice of the case; it was therefore held to exonerate the
Sheriff from the consequences of his negligence, or of that of his
officers. The Courts were accustomed to look at the Act of
Geo. IV. respecting juries, as one of great importance. Previous
to that Act many persons used to earn their bread by sitting as
jurors on writs of inquiry. Although a man might be very re-
spectable in his own class of life, he was no on that account qua-
lified to deride the amount of damages In questions of importance,
or to resist the eloquence of Counsel.
Rule made absolute.
.31r. Ric tt ARDS made an application for the defendant's eats,
which was refused.

•
. .
,
,
t I
1
„
. ,
I
1 1.4
;.,
, 4.4 , '
1 'l4
il
I
';•P . l Ott
l'
1 1 i
1

I 1 An action ha
I dant for Idfling
Under-Sheriff,
A rule had '
inquisition shell
were !Regally a
• trot to pay the ,
i 1
Mr. rAVNT
i I
fist the paymer
action. It win
that there vie
an index-office
I' ( iri, the Under-nhe.
t., , 1 I,I he (Mr. Taun
on the Sherif
'I
.1 wont on to stat
. , pi •,
1,. I that or.e of th,
hzieot objectio
Went on to say
' b • proper jury, th
I • 0 . MlCti expr•-ssia
, '' casion, had the
4
i • berrations allu4
I
' the plaintiff; a
. raid, the Undo
fiat ; he d,d i
' would be bate
newspapers, Cr
• were tutany ea
con.ended that
ut the Under-t
fitment in sun
tune. The pl
sworn, and a
damps, and.
adverse affidai
and inaa or tee
tellifeeree, and
4 mr. RICNA
,
i werthci ought I
. 51r. Rusae
. r .
.. • material allege
. . .
• non denied than
i dented that the
Tie to of a
li Sta. 6, Geo. I
• • ' be revised by t
4, ' ito foe his jlary,
beim deo Ac,
a. i sdgasiriwem•i•,B:r
rO4 i
1:1 ~ g
;I 0 • •••
'''4 ' •
. li' i'.
7464:111-5-11
.0 ;10...........,_ , .