The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-06-07 00:00:00

• •
LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, MONDAY. 'viz 6.
ow WALTER ROBERTS V. ELYARD AND OTHERS.
Mr. HEALD said, this was a bill filed by Sir Walter Roberts
and some of his creditors, against the defendants, who are trustees of
Sir Walter's estate, stating that there are various clashing claims
on the estate, and praying for an order to compel the trustees to sell
the estate according to the terms of the truss, to satisfy the incum-
brancent. The cause had been before the Court on a former occa-
sion, end therefore Mr. Heald did not deem it necessary to go at
great length into it to-day. The defendants had put in an an-
swer now, and submitted to act under the order of the Court.
Ilia Howova considered the object of the Bill to be. to get the
estate sold, all partieseonsenting, and the trustees being indontnitied
by the Court; therefore he would order the Master to take an ac-
taunt of all incumbrances, to sell the estate, and pay off according
to priority,
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MONDAY, Jews 6.

swain in TARRATT AND ANOTHER.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff' for the benefit of his
creditors, to whom he had assigned all his effects, against the de.
fendants, for goods sold and delivered. The cause was tried before
Mr. Justice Ho'toy& at the late Assizes for the town of Notting-
ham. It appeared by the evidence at the trial, that the defendant,
tcleuifetnittiatnhta; yearwilo
John Parrett the elder, had been in the habit of dealing with the
.14ri.n.Jforhnfolria tuatntyt he ei
elderparinoci ioi st sh]einyfetalrieloBtlh6er;
had just then attained his age of 21 years, went to the plaintiff's
I warehouse it'd purchased some goods to the amount of several
hundred pounds. The goals were sent to Liverpool to be shipped
fur America, to which country Parrett the younger went for the
puti•ose of disposing of them. In 1819 an account current was de-
livered by the plaintiff to the defendant, Parrett the elder, and
application was made for part of the balance, which amounted to
1176/. M. 6d. A latter was returned by that defendant, apologis-
ing for his cot being able to let the plaintiff have any mowy just
then. A second application wile shortly afterwards matte to him,
requesting 1501. immediately, and stating that if it was not con.
eenient fur him to pay that aim, that he should send the title deeds
of his house at Staplcford, upon which the money could be raised.
The deeds were accordingly sent, and the plaintiff' obtained an
advance of NW. upon them. Subsequently to these transactions
with 'the elder Parrett, in England. the plaintiff made application
to the other defendant in America, and finally went to that country
and commenced an action against him for the balance; but the
plaintiff not having been satisfied, the present action was brought
against both the defendants jointly, as partners in trade on that
particular °eraser]. The defence was, that the goods were sold to
Parratt the younger, and that the father had nothing to do with
them, except as agent. Several letters to the defendants were put
in to prove this; it being contended that the contents of those
letters clearly showed that the plaintiff considered and treated John
Pariah the younger as the only principal in the transaction. One
of those letters was from 11r. Phomaa Hare, of Liverpool, to the
elder de'endant, intertning him that lie was about to ship the goods
in question (they having been previously sent from Nottingham by
the plaintiff') to his son in America, and dr_aing to know if he was
willing to become his son's guarantee the the amount. The plain.
tiff's books were also produced, by which it appeared that the
plaintiff had entered the goods sometimes to "John Parrett" alone,
and sometimes to " Parrett and Sun," but a doubt was entertained
as to the words " and Son" being written contemporaneously
with the other parts of the entry. Upon these facts a
verdict MP found for the plaintiff for 9311. 86., subject to a motion
on the behalf of the defendants to have that verdict set aside, and •
nonsuit entered, or a new trial granted, on the ground that there
was not evidence sufficient to prove the fact of the partnership
existing at the time the goods were sold. A rule Nisi was accord.
ingly obtained by Mr. Clarke last term. One of the grounds upon
which the beamed Counsel, on applying for the rule, contended
that • new rule trial should be had, was, that the cause was tried
at Nottingham, where the plaintiff being so peculiarly connected
it was fair to presume that a jury would be unduly influenced. He
further argued, that the fact of the plaintiff having authorised his
.Liverpool agent to apply to the elder defendant for a guarantee was
altogether inconsistent with the supposition that the plaintiff consi-
dered him to be at any time a principal in the purchase of the
goods; and as a further proof that this was not his opinion at that
time, he had even gone to America, and instituted proceedings
against the younger Barrett separately for this very balance.
Mr. COMMON SERGEANT this day showed cause against the
role. He contended that the evidence on the trial sufficiently
preyed that the goods were purchased by the defendants on their
joint account. It was but reasonable that the plaintiff should
make application to the younger defendant for the money, as it was
well known that he had gone to America to sell the goods for which
this action was brought. But was it probable that the elder Bar-
rett would have sent his title deeds, and allowed them to be depo-
sited for the debt of another ? One of the letters from the plaintiff
to the younger defendant had been cut in the middle, for what rea-
son it did not appear, and the upper part was not forthcoming. It
was fair to presume that on the part which sat not produced there
was written an invoice of the goods, meet probably in the
name of " Parratt and Son," which would have at once
determined the question ; at all events there was something
very suspicious about this mutilated piece of documentary evidence.
As to the application by Mr. Thomas Eyre for the elder defen-
dories guarantee, all that heshould say upon that point was, that
it was no act of the plaintiff's, it was never authorized by him, but
he on the contrary totally disclaimed it. The production of the
plaintiff's books was done by consent, after he (Mr. Common Ser-
geant) had left the Court. and he therefore could not speak with
regard to their contents, or as to the nature of the evidence they
might have afforded either one war or the other. The letters written
by the elder Parrett to the plaintiff were clearly those of a debtor to
his creditor; and mot those of a person to whom application had
been made for an advance of money on another person's accouut.
In addition to the acts of the defendant, Parrett-the elder, there was
the evidence of persons who saw both the defendants at the plain.
tiff's wartbouse at the time the goods were purchased. With re.
spect to the action being brought solely against the younger defen-
dant, he would state, that in America there was no such thing as
a plea in abatement, therefore the non-joinder could not be taken
advantage of ; but the party spinet whom the action was brought
was left to his remedy against his partner, for whatever sum he
might pr beyond his own proportionate share for which lie was
liable. IVith these observations he should submit to the Court,
that the verdict ought not to be distut bed ; or at all events he hoped,
if their Lordships should send the cause down for a new trial, it
would be upon site defendants paying the coats.
Mr. Justice BAILEY said, it seemed to him that a private inves-
tigation would be a much more likely way to obtain juesice than by
sending it to a jury, for then the parties could be tnade to produce
their letters, and all other documents connected with the accounts.
Mr. READER and Mr. CLAIRE acceded to this suggestion, and
the rule was drawn up accordingly.
THE It IWO V. HAMMOND AND OTHERS.
The ATTORNEY.GENERAL said this was a rule obtained by
Mr. Scarlett against Ale. Hammond and several other persons, call-
ing on them to show cause why a criminal information should not
be tiled against them, for flaying caused wpm printed and'.publiehed
• certain libel against John Mawle and others, who described them-
selves as the Governor and Directors of the parish of Greenwich.
The libel purported to be a Report of a Committee held on the sth
March last, appointed by the parish to investigate the parish ex-
penditure, and in the coarse of which Report there were some strong
animadversions matte on the conduct of the said Governor and Di-
rectors. The history of the transaction was brief, notwithstanding
the volumnious affidavits that had been filed by the parties making
this application. It appeared that by a private Act of Parliament,
certain persons were empowered to provide for the poor of theparith
of Greenwich, and to act as Commissioners for the lighting, watch.
ing, and paving that parish. One of those persons was a 31r.
---, who acted also as Solicitor for the Commissioners. The
principal affidavit filed in support of the present rule was made by
that gentleman, who had also brought an action against Mr. Ham-
mond for a libel reelecting on himself individually, and arising out
of the same publication now complained of, and which was tried at
the last Kent Assizes. It appeared that there had been no less
than 13,0001. raised in one.year for the relief of the poor, besides a
large rate ter paving, watching, and lighting the parish ; the inha.
bitants of Greenwich being of opinion that more money was raised
than was necessary, thought that some inquiry should take place.
A Vestry was accordingly assembled, and the Vicar being in the
chair, it was determined that a Committee should be appointed for
investigating:the expenditure of the parish The gentlemen agatnist
whom this motion is made were appointed a Committee, and they
immediately began to require the production of documents to enable.
them to examine into the parish expenditure; some were produced,
but others were not forthcoming; notwithstanding that, they dis-
covered that the sum of 1,1901. had been charged for the main.
tenance of the out of door poor, although it appeared that no more
than 280/ les. 74. had been actually expended for the benefit of
those poor ; that 239/. had been paid for bills of eating and drink.
ing for the officers and chnrchwardens and others of the parish at
their meetings, and that 343/. was charged for personal and other
expences attending appeals against orders of removal, a great part
of which had also been expended upon eating and drinking. That
was the first discovery made by the Committee. In the progress of
their inquiries they found that 1,1061. had been paid to Mr.— on
account of law expences that year, and that no less than 7001. odd
of that money had been paid without the assent of the V estry to
carry on these appeals. The next thing of Importance was the
contract made by the Governor and Directors for lighting Green-
wich with gas. It appeared that they had contracted to pay a Sir.
Gosling 5/.os. 64. a year for each burner, and had rejected a tender
made by 31r. Headley, who offered to light the parish for 31. 10s.
a burner for the year. Mr. Gosling had also been paid
61. 16e. 64. for each lamp, when 141 r. Ifeadley had ten-
dered to put then up for 41. 10s. each. Various other facts
were discovered by the Committee. At length they made
their Report, representing all these circumstances to the
parish. A full meeting of the inhabitants was held on the sth
March, when this Report was agreed to, and a Resolution was
passed for its being printed. This was the publication complained
of. 'l'he Report having been adopted by the meeting, the Com-
mittee signed it, and there ended their office. All the defendants
swear they had nothing whatever to do with the printing of the
=dings of the Vestry or of the Report ; they refused to au.
the printing, and said their duty ended with the report to
the: parish.
ler. Juseice BATLEY asked Mr. Scarlett whether it was sworn
ant tin Attendants concurred in the printing of the proceedings
And shalieport ?
, • Mi. SC•RLETS said that it was not positively sworn that they
foe its being printed, but he thought it was incumbent on the
Mt Saew that they voted against It. They all signed the
to o kg having it printed.