The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-07-29 00:00:00

aeration of the Jury, fur damages they Were bound to Not-
withstanding the great good humour and the distinguished talent
which had been just now displayed by Mr. Brougham, they niust
not be laughed oat of Court. They were bound to view the case
with gravity and with temper, and to give such damages as the
justice of the ease required. Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
Thirty Pottudis.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, TUURSDAY, JULY 28.

CONST D. HARRIS.
Mr. HEALD said, that in the above case, which related to the
snits of Covent-garden theatre, he had to make a motion. lie
did not, however, consider k to be of a very urgent nature, and
should aot, therefor% mail k Datil Celt term.

)MORRIS v. ROTHWEI.L.
Mr. Pr 111151MOte. on behalf of the defendant in this case, made
an appliration to the Court to discharge an order of the Vice.
Chancellor, by which defendant was directed to pay a sum of SW.
pursuant to the terms of a deed of settlement. The defendant was
a gentleman engaged in business at Liverpool; on his marriage,
he entered into an agreement to settle upon his wife, within sir'
months after her marriage, the sum of KN. and in case of her
death, the wen to be paid over to her children. This had not been
done, the wife being dead. and as the trltsteea for the children
had refused to act, the plaintiff, as their proehein arty, had
made the application to compel the defendant to perform his co-
venant,
The LORD CHANCELLOR refused to discharge the order. It
was the duty of the defendant to perform his agreement. The motion
was, therefore, discharged with costs.
AI'LEAN V. WRIGHT.
•Mr.Lovsvr. moved fur the discharge of an order made by the
Vice Chancellor, in the year 1822, calling upon the defendant, Mr.
Wright, to say whether he was able to make out a good title to a
piece of ground sold by him to the plaintiff, and why he did not so
do. The piece of land wan situated near Sudbury, in Suffolk. and
was purchased by the plaintiff, Dr. WLean, fur the sum of 2101.
The defendant's wifelitated, in her answer, that at the time of the
wale of the said land, it was worth 100/. instead of 2101. and that de-
fendant had offered to repurchase tt, and to give 1501. in addition
to,the 2101. which was the considevatiort 5o paid. The question
was, whether a man could be compelled to procure his wife to levy
a fine for the purpose of making a conveyance of land. There
were grave doubts on the 'abject, and even his Lordship himself had
stated, that he considered it to be a question that might be carried
so the House of Lords. The defendant, however—submiued,
that under all the circumstances of the case, the land being worth
dOO/. instead of 2101. his having offered for it nearly double
which was originally paid, and that before the purchase then had
base no valuation of the property, he ought to be placed in such a
sitqation as if no agreement had ever taken place. An application
had been made to the 'Vice Chancellor to dissolve the Injunction;
but he had refused so to do, and had directed the case to go be-
tore the Master, in order to ascertain whether a good tide could be,
made out. For want of an answer having been put in, in the first
instance, the injunction went, and that injunction had continued.
But from that time to the present, no steps had been taken by the
plaintiff, who remained in possession. Under these circum-
stances, the defendant applied to his Lordship to dissolve that in.
junction.
Me. COOPER, in reply, cited the cues of Emery v. Wade, and
Withers r. Petro. In the latter case, his Lordship had Counsel,
and the decree that had been then obtained, had never been carried
into effect. All that the plainttff in the presses die asked for, was
to havethe injunction continued.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that the better way would be
for the parties to make some bargain, and come to some amicable
arrangement.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, THURSDAY, JULY 28.
His Howovn was occupied the whole of the day on motions of
no public interest.

COURT OF CHANCERY, TrEIDAY,Ly 28.

[CORRECTED REPORT.]
STEAD V. POLE, BART., AND OTHERS.
This was a motion for the production of certain letters and
documents. scheduled to the answer of the defendants, Sir Peter

Pole and Co., u relating to the matters in question in this cause.
It appeared, on a fo►mer hearing of the motion, that the papers had
been produced and inspected by the plaintiff', in the hands of the
defendants' Solicitors, under an order which had been obtained
for that purpose; but that pursuant to the liberty given by that
order, pars of some of the documents, and also the whole of,
certain letters, had been concealed. The plaintiff' being dissatisfied
with this production, required that the documents should be depo•
sited in the hands of the C)•rk, In Court ; and that the defendants
should afterwards make affidavit that the parts concealed did not
relate to the matters in question in the cause; and the Lord'
Chancellor bad desired that the motion should stand over, in order
that an alllda%it might be made, explaining the reason why
some
of the letters had been wholly concealed.
:11r. Kw IGIIT was about to mention the case to his Lordship, on'
behalf of the plaintiff, when . . .

Mr. PEers observed, that he might save the time of the Court
by stating that since the motion had been first made, the plaintiff'
had amended his bill to the extent of 700 'Or 600 tolios, and had
introduced such comprehensive matter, that those parts of the let-
ters *lnch had been concealed, as not relating to the matters in
question in the original suit, would be found to relate to time of
the numerous matters referred to in the amended bill ; and there-

fore, as. the defendants would ultimately, under this amended bill,
be ailed upon to produce the whole of the letters, instead of those
part:sot* which, as the case formerly stood, would have been
sufficient ; and as it did not matter whether the plaintiff had the
inspection of the whole of those documents wow or at a future
stage of the cause, when lie would be mailed to it, he would, on
behalf of the defendants, consent to the inspection at once.
Mr. K wtrirsx insisted that the papers ought to be brought into
the hands of the Clerk, in Court, and that an affidavit should ac-
company them, distinctly declaring that the letters produced were
the whole of those which had been concealed. There had been
great Incaution in swearing in the case; and difficulties had been
thrown in the plaintiff's way, the concealment of whole letters be-
ing at variance with the defendant's answer in the sdiedule to
which they were contained : and the defendants ought also to pay
the costs of the appEcation.
Mr. Peres thought that, after the inspection of the whole of
the papers had been conceded, such remarks as his Learned Friend
had made might have been spared ; but after the statement which
Mr. Knight had made, he felt obliged to enter into the facts. The
letters were numerous, and were scheduled in bundles. The defend-
ants had not time to read them over previous to putting in the an-
swer. though their Solicitor had clone so. When the letters were
examined, several were found in the bundles which did not relate to
the matter in issue, and were therefore concealed ; but even these
should now be open to ir spectinn. so that instead of having lees, the
plaintiff would have more than he had a right to. If the plaintiff
had the inspection of all the letters scheduled, was it neceuery that
the defendants should part with them ? The possession was neces-
eery to enable the defendants to put in their answer. With regard
to the affidavit required. he (Mr. Pepys) reser heard of such an
application. The schedule identified the documents; an affidavit
would therefore be superfluous. There was no pretence to ask for
coma, as lie (Mr. Pepys) made the concession—not because the
creme Agresti,' pursued had not been correct, but because the plain.
tiff would, by amending his bill, become hereafter entitled to see'
the whole of these papers. and it was to prevent the repetition of
applications that lie had adopted that course.
The Loan CHANCELLOR—Suppose you deposit the papers,
with some third person.
Mr. Pr:res.—They are now deposited with Messrs. Knight and
Tyson, the Solicitors, where they may be seen at soy time.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—I think you may try them in that
way, Mr. Knight.
Mr. KNIGHT observed that he would not press this matter, but
he sane peculiar circumstances in this case. The affidavit of s;r.
Dawn was merle on the 3d of February, and no person was allowed
to Inspect the papers until the 25th, nearly three weeks after;
net cant fat some concealment might not have taken place in the in-
terval.
Mr. PERTS then offered any affidavit the plaintiff desired on
that point.
Mr. KNIGHT wished to have the affidavits of all the defendants.
Mr. PEPYS—This is the very object of the other side ; they
le not to give all these defendants the trouble to read the whole of
elope paper&
Mr. Kerner —I acknowledge that it is my object, in order that
they may know to what th swear ; and lam besides cnnviadds
that if these respectable gentlemen did know the real circumstansins
' of the case, the cause would be at an end.
Mr. Peers said the affidavit of the person wko covered the con-
cealed parts of the papers would be sufficient.
The Loan CHANCEL Loa (to 51 r. Kuight)—l think you should
be satisfied with that for the present.
Mr. KNIGHT—We should have the emits of this application ?
Lunn CHANCHLLOR—No, I will not give the costs now.l
Take the inspection. f may hear fecal you again, perhaps.
Mr. PEPS'S then said he had to move m the same cause that the,
defendants might have further time to put in their answer to the
plaintiff's ameoded bill. The plaintiff in this Court was defendant
at law; and, as the proceedings In equity delayed those which had
been commenced at common law, it was the defendants that were
injured by the delay ; and as there could be no trial till November,
and the plaintiff, by an order of this Court, was entitled to have
three weeks time before going to trial after a full answer by the de-
fendants was put in, the Learned Coursel did not suppose the
present motion could be refused.
The Loom CHANCHLLOR—Do you object to that, Mr.
Knight ?
Mr. KNIGHT—I do, except upon terms. These terms should
that defcruhune - the - "