The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-11-11 00:00:00

it
1

air

this face of.tibiawnerd mitt a case as amid entitle him to relief. Ile
wished she so sehrert to what had fallen from his Lordship respect-
ing Omani's inserting matters in bills not furnished in their in-
structions.
The LORD CHANCX.LLOR desired he might be undevittood on
the point When tint he came to the Bar, an ninino.t S°lleit"r
brought to him instructions foe a bill, the whole of which he
elated were the coinage of his brain. He (the Lord Chancellor)
1-hem to have any thing to do with it, on which the Solicit* told
dist he did not understand his duty ; that it was necessary far:
; yetang man to begin with firing off a great gun, and making au
e Women: • Be told him that he might then take his gun to sun*
o ,e else, and get him to put the poker to the priming, as he was
set the person foe his purpose. lie must here repeat what had
0.,:e been said by Lord Thurlow to Mr. Madox, that it the abuses
it! !he Court of Chancery were to be !chinned, they could only be
sefk tined by the honour of Ceunsel who attended him, by not stir.
feting allegations to be introduced into a hill which they knew had
) Maeda/son in fact. if a Solicit* gave improper instructions to
Counsel, 4e *mild be acting in a way that the Court, if it detected
!t, would take a method to prevent his repeating.
His Lot4Ship then proceeded to give his judgment. In the cam
thin betote him, nothing could be inure clear than that the plain.
iiirr bill. might be amended ; though bills of this nature usually
stated thOli(le. which, if truly stated, would skew how the heir at
Jaw was entitled, though at the saint: tone he took it as a rule of
Court, th:.tjhe heir at law ought to know how be had become Ills.
iPhtfited.,:aa the quieting of titles was one of the favourite objects
oz the She, of the law. The plaintiff ought also to she* the t
none of the wellies who had been in poesession as heirs had so dealt
with the property as to bar his claim, as these estates were of such
a narree 0,11. tae whole of them might have passed by will or
bin it should be remembered, in the present cue. that
wes a &Murree to the whole bill, which could not stand unless
u.c whole otltlre bill be bad ; aid there certainly were some definite
distinct allegations in the present bill which were clearly good. and
w%ich ought to he answered. The general nature of such bills
was, that ss heir at law had a right to know how his title hail
been dhispgointed, be suggested that the defendant had in his pos.
session seenellceds which, although they might defeat his title in a
/.cart of Equity., yet they would not defeat it in a Court of Law.
It had happened in his own time, that the gentlemen of the Coins
neon I.ww, judging from King's leneh pleadings. had tiled bills in
tars Court. and had got answers which enabled them to procure an
interlocutory judgment, that such terms as were contained in the
a-swers shsuld not be set 119 a Court of I Ali. For his own part,
1% had always refused such' applications. In the case before him
them was an allegation that the plaintiff was heir at law; he
Ovught it might be doubted whether such allegation were perfectly
tut. The dMieulty in the case was, to discover what was truly
set mit he was happy to hear that the bill was drawn consonantly
'frith the imstemttions; that being so, he eerminly thought that there
weer parts of.it that required answering, and that the demurrer
ceald not stand ; he therefore decreed that the plaintiff should be
ali_uwed to amend it, coctinning the V iee-CLaticellor's decision.

VII3E-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, WEDSTPDAY, Nov. 10.

• WEALL V. streE.
Al Ilaiints stated the nature and the pleadings o! this use. A
7.1 r: theme, whose daughter was about to b: married to Mr. Henry
Rice, entered into an agreement, and contraeted to settle, either by
a cOrveyance in his lile.thite or by will, property to the amount of
2,01/oi. as a marriage portion fur his daughter. The agreement
stipulated that the money should be settled on her foe her life, and
attex her ditath to go to Mr. Rice and the children of the marriage,
their attaining the age of 21. The sum of 3.0001. was not set-
Cid by Mr. Greene in his lite-time, but the interest was regularly
gad by him to Mr. Rice and his wife. Mr. Greene was now dead,
and bad left a will, in which, among other things, he devised an
estate therein mentioned to trustees for the use of his daughter,
biro. Rice, during her life, with remainder to her husband during
:ire, on condition that he should, out of the profts of the estate,
••stain and elucite the children of their marriage: with remain-
dcr to the 6311:1 children on their attaining the age of !A : with re-
resieder to their issue living at the latter period ; and with remain-
ev to the testator's right heirs. This devise, the Learned Coen-
, el argued, *as intended by the testator, and must be considered
Ey the 0004 p) he a satisfaction and performance of the covenant
contained in the agreement. Mr. Rice, however, had been advised
that is had a right to compel the specific performance of the ag,• -
inent, and had therefore brought an action against the executors.
fin: execu tem, foe the purpose of defending themselves against the
the claim, had filial a bill in Court to restrain Mr. Rice from pro-
ceading with his action. To that bill Mr. Rice den:erred, and that
demurrer was for the decision of the Court.
Mr. SILIODEj: appearial in support of the demurrer. Ile con-
tended that the will of the testator was not intended to he a per-
formance cf the covenant. lie argued that it could not be a SSW.
:oaten, for that implied an intention on the part of the testator that
his bequest shoe:d satisfy his covenant: but no such intention wan
a?parent bete, The Learned Counsel supported his argontesta by
Oa wiles of ,3fat..eres v. Mathews, Faulkner v. Faulkner, and
Rases. v. Zlycoo, 1:,-usen's Iteperts.
PARDEII Was heard in reply.
•

TLe stud that there were many cares in
:hose qumeti respectine the circumstance differ.
erica, shich the Court would call slight. Pe should take some
time to look into theme cases, and take an early opportunity to give
411d7nlont.
VANNE L. CALEI(DER.
31r. 0/IDLVITOXI: tinted that the plaintiff applied for an In-
..',l:etion to torreist the .defendant and two other persons. named
Fleming and Charity, from passing certain bills of exchange, which
i:e alleged Isere given by him without rcc:iving any value, but
merely as a gambling debt.
:t appeared that an iiiirertinent allegation had crept into the bill,
and leave was therefore given to amend it.

CATT OF KING'S BENCH, WEDNESDAY, Nor. 10.

sitars' AND CARIE, ASSIGNEES OF C•IIIS, V. JACKSON.
1!r. BROUGHAM moved fix a Oil how cause why the verdict
ie. tide case should rot be sat ult.!, And a nonsuit entered up.
The point sought to be established Ey the Learned Gentleman was,
that a receipt from ore of the co.plaintiffs to his client (Jackson)
MSS binding on both, and an eatoppe I to an action, as Ira as the
wain for which It had been passed. It appeared that the plaintitfi
sera a certain stock of the assignor, and that defendant got into his
pactiwision part of the produce of the sale, and other soma, to the
amount, in all, of %Of. At the trial a receipt, pissed by ('arla,
uric of the assignecs, to defendant for 12IL, was set up, and the
moat satisfactory evidence, under the circumstances, way givcn of
aottienticity.. Tie handwriting of the subscribing witness, and
the Let of his beicg shipwreckof on a voyage to the 11" tat
were mimed. lie 13Ir. Brougham) submitted that the receipt must
be considered valid. Iktendard was, ab Ir:ilia. indebted to plain.
lift's, as partners, and therefore an acknowledgment from one n:ust
ie nod as •gninst Ina+.
4r. Justice LIS T DALE—izupploe You owe two llY.diVidatlll
leer. and get front one a receipt fin is the faith of your paying
the. money on the following day, and that you break trust, du yott
tack on nub a receipt as a bar to a 7: action ; or suppose he gave a
parnic ackrowliwigmoit.
Mr. WWI/ GRA IL did reit corisider the cases in point: v. ill: respect
tv the parole achnowledgmer,t, it was quite distinct, as that might be
:nark wittiest due 4:Admire:kin ; but a person giving a ieceipt must
Always be mere or less on ,;unit.
LOBO Chief? JUST IC the receipt were fraudulently had,
whit would be its vidu„ ?
Mr: Bitoooytax conceived is validity could not be affected by
ti;as, circumstance, as it was not competent for a party to set up
his own fraud in a .s we: to :dm document he uiigh:. have execute'.
In support of this point. he cured a variety of caws, among ethers,
one tried before Lord Elio :borough. and reported in lit Campbell,
3:01. and the case of Iltinderson v. Wilde, 2d I. ampbell, Cls ; and
further. if plainttais intended
.to impsign the receipt on the pound
of its bring obtained by coitus:on, the true way to proceed would
be to call as a Court of Equity, Cr even on this Court, for its inter.-
Fus.tion to prevent tleferthints from ufferire it in evidence.
'll/e Loan CD I t• J t sine: E—l'hough the receipt be good
against Carla, it certainly cannot be to against the ciliar plaintiff,
and be of necessity must join Canis in the action.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALL-11e3rly ; a man cannot vet up Iris
awn fraud to relvemtage himself : but in this case is no eel.
dente to connert hkaif with the collusion ; the panics tlicreh,re
nut 4a Justice
Mr. Justice BAY LEY—Upon what grounds can defwtiientevil
foi a sonssit ? There TCUlaill 3111. Stirs due, without considering tha
1211. for which the receipt is pa3001.-31ctiun refused.