The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-02-08 00:00:00

JULES V. FOLKSTONE.

Mr. SPEWCE moved for a special injunction to restrain a partner
from meddling with the property of the partnership contrary to
arreement. The plaintiff had given acceptances to the amount of
Ulf., in the understanding that the proceeds of a cargo, specified
in the agreement, should be applied to the discharge of these ac-
ceptances. and that he should be admitted as partner in that cargo.
He had also been admitted a partner in a quantity of pipe staves,
on which he had given acceptances to the amount of 615/. Various
shipments of these had been sent to different quarters, of which
Folkstone held the bills of lading. The plaintiff stated, on affi-
davit, that he verily believed that unless Folkstone eo.r!d be
stopped by an injunction he would apply the property to his own
use instead of discharging the acceptances, and that the said lily.
Folkstone was in fact insolvent.
. .

Ihe Vtce-CHANcer.con—The injunction motions c.r park
increase to such a degree that they must be put a ..op to. This is
surely a cise in which notice might have been given to the patties
complained of. The plaintiff' has had the power of making 'hie
application ever since the agreement. Why did he not come
before ?

Mr. Sri ecE 'mid the fact of his insolvency had not been ascer-
tained till the 27th of January. An unsuccessful attempt had
since been made to declare him a bankrupt, which accounted for
the time that had since elapsed.
The VICE-CHAXCELtott said he never would grant an injunc-
tion without notice if he were not perfectly satisfied that an erre.
Parable mischief would otherwise take place. There are now about
twenty motions of this sort where there used to be but one. Such
injunctions do ten times as much mischief as good. The Court of
Chancery at this rate will become a source of great oppression to
the ptthlie. Let me see the affidavits. I shall not grant the In.
ju;N:on unless I am perfectly satisfied that this is a case of irre-
parable mischief.
KPIOUT rose to make another ex parte motion.
The Vice-CuAwctLcott said coming to this Court to restrain
a party from the use of his property without giving him notice was
a most dangerous practice. VI ould any person a year ago have
thou gut of making a motion of that kind ?
31r. Kis tour —I think this is a case similar to those in which
injunctions are usually granted.
The Vic E-CurNC I:l.l.o9—Did you ever hear of such a motion
• year ego ?
11 r. KNIGHT—I think I have; bot if your Honour should
think this a proper case for a notice perhaps se might make a
motion for an injunction and fora receiver at the same time.

The Vt‘B-Ctlanet:t.t.oa—No certainly not.
Mr. KNIGHT tiles agreed to give notice of mutt t.

COURT OF RING'S SENCII, TUESDAY, FEL 7.

CRIMINAL INFORMATION
UE KING V. POUCUEE A\D,OTtl ERB.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved for a rule against thedefend-
sins, who are the proprietors, printer, and publisher of a Sunday
paper called the Rueis.si Gewtternax, culling on them to show
cause why A criminal lamination should not be ivatitited Nativist
them, for publishing' libel in that pope►, en the ch:.ractrr of Mr.
Rothschild. The libel was contained in a long article inserted on
the 111th of Deceinbtr last, In the course of which the folio:16,1g
pustules necurral:

•• Again sod spin ad repeat, that an attanpt against th,. credit
of the banking-house of the first capital in *c world has been made
by the bultionists, and how has at ended ? lo proving that tit,'
Bank hes quite gold enough ; the bankers quite gold enough; and
even the boLses which have been violently stopped quite
.gold
enough to pay all emir *editors, and retire in disgust to private
conscious of their own integrity.
•• To us simple felluws, who laugh at what is *llea political
economy, and have not the best opinion of Mr. Rothschild, and all
the Rot.•ccltidren in his train, the whole affair eppears to us to have
been a rite artinst liter, and nothing more. shich Pole and
Co. or Wilton.* and Co. could have paid in a w,11., tl.ey could not
pay in one dey; newt, if Cod payircmi so demanded were waded rot
no useful purpose, who is the wanton inflicter of the Injury ? The
tun unjust and the cowardly customer.
" We cannot rout to mention UM a revert which is in every