The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-06-14 00:00:00

CITY STATE BARGE.

The state barge belonging to the Corporation of the
City of London, built by Mr. Searle, the eminent boat-
builder at Stangate, has been completely repaired, rvid
restored to her original splendor. The whole of the
chaste and beautiful carved ornaments have been re-gilt,
in a style of the utmost richness and splendor. These
consist of a magnificent carved shield, containing the
City arms, with the crest and supporters, which, with
the quarter figures of Neptune and Amphitrite, and other
appropriate emblems, forms a most splendid stern. The
grand cabin comprises every thing required for comfort
and convenience. It is ornamented with gilt columns
, and carved panels, surmounted by a very rich scroll.
The length of this grand apartment is 35 feet: it is
seven feet in height, and will accommodate ITO persons.
The painting is in various colours, but principally a rich
scarlet, which is the livery colour of the city of Lon-
don, all of which has been done by Mr. Pepper, 6f
Dartmouth-street, who has employed the first artists,
and more particularly Mr. Lambert, who has introduced
on the front doors the four Cardinal Virtues, with appro-
priate emblems on the side' panels, and which with-
out doubt reflect the highest credit on this 'W m's
judgment and talents, and give promise of great fu-
ture excellence. He has also painted a very rich Gre-
eian scroll ornament on the saxboard, and the appropriate
emblems of the civic authority, commerce, &c. &c. on the
transom. The rudder is considered, and justly, as being
bold and striking. It is ornamented with a fine muscu-
lar figure of a Triton, in excellentkirawing and keeping.
This splendid barge is considered one of the most beauti-
ful models in this department of the art. She is in length
86 feet, in breadth of beam 14 feet ; she is impelled by
is oars, decorated with 12 colours, and cost the city of
Lohdon 3,060 guineas.

'l's, 14

LAW INTELLIGENCE..

VICR-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Juxz /I

Loan ORNIOND V. •REWRIGHT AND OTHER..
His Rostov a said if the parties here should be dissatisfied wittt
the judgment he felt it his duty to deliver, the best war *mild be
for them at once to appeal to the House of Lords, for by doing so,
and only by doing an, could they have the question satisfactorily
set at rest. The proposition in thin cane was, whether M a deed
named in the pleading., there was either an expressed or implied
contract on the part of Lord Ormond to forbear calling for the pay.
ment of what was due to hint from Mr. Clarke, during Mr. Clarke's
lifetime ? The Court was of opinion that the deed contained no
such engagement. If there had been this entlagement, Lord Or-
mond having contracted for five per cent. besides, the transaction'
would have been usuridun, and therefore the,deed would have been
altogether null and vcid. It was indocd argued, that though the
Court should have been of opinion, upon the construction of the
deed, the contract was not usurious ; and yct that the meaning of
the parties really might be usurious ; but that was a proposition
which no Court of Justice could listen to. The result of the Court's
present opinion was, ShatalviAlsfendants must specifically perform
the agreement.
Lord Ormond was on ohs Bench during the time his Honour was
pronouncing judgment.
WILLIAMe v.. enAw.
This case stood to be Spoken to. The question was, whether
the tenant in possession could be decreed to pay art occupation
PM, he, as vendee, having taken possenion under a provision in a
contract before the tltleolitods 'me settled, and where the master
had subsequently certified a good title could not be made, the
original owner therefore Citing under the necessity of taking back
his estate. On a former occasion, the Court seemed to think the
vendee, being beneficially in possession. was bound to account, and
therefore the vender's Counsel, Mr. Hart and Mr. Knight, did not
attend to-day, but the latter sent his brief to a young gentleman
beyond the bar, who knew nothing of the case. merely to enter sp.
!valance for the vendec's Counsel, but after Mr. Heald and Mr.
Pepys had been heard on the other side to-day, and who proved
that their cheat bad repeatedly given notice that he did not wish to,
retain possession, as he was cont.nually losing by it.
ills NONotrit was of opinion, from the state of the pleading*,
that it would be safer not to interfere with the rents and profits at
all, and therefore dismissed the bill. It is well known that suitors
suffer raw severely, in consequence of the absence of Cqunsel ;
that may not have been so here, but when the vender's Counts!
took ther fees from their client, he had a right to expect their
presence and 11,14164er, on the day on which his case was put in this
paper to be spoken.
sttni.asits V. HARLAND AND HOARE.
Mr. NEWLAND moved, eapertc, for an injunction to restrals:
the defendant Harland from cutting down timber, upon an atilt*
called Derfold Estate, port of the estates of the testator named in
the pleadings; and that Hoare might be resmained from paying
aver to the defendant Harland, money which he had received as the
prodisce of certain timber already sold. The Learned Counsel
stilted the deed, giving the titles of the parties.
His Ho ot; a said he could not grant an e.rparfe injunction to
restrain the payment of money by Hoare, because that had never
been considered as constituting the subject of an export,. injune-
tion, but he would make the order to restrain the further cutting
of the timber.
•

•
COUJIT OF KING'S BENCH, 'WirsratixsTsz,
MONDAY, Juxs 13.

Tog KING cßanwice.
This was a rule obtained by Mr. Broderick last Hilary Tenn,
ca/ling on the defendant, who is an attorney, residing in Somerset.
to shew cause why he should not be struck off the Rolls of this
Court.
The application for the rule was made on the affidavit of Mr.
Creuwell. a Magistrate of the county of Somerset. The defend-
ant was clerk to the Magistrates of the division to which Mu
Crettawell belonged, and several charge•Of misconduct having been
alleged against hint a meeting of the Magistrates was convened in
November last, for the purpose of investigating them, one of which
'charges constituted the ground of the application for the rule.
The facts of that charge were these?—The Rev. Mr. Al irehoue
Mad been engaged with certain parties in litigation respecting*
eight of way through certain lands, and over stream of water be..
longing to him in the county of Somerset. In March, 1821, Mr.
Mirehouse succeeded in obtaining .an order of the Magistrates on
the subject, and on his application for the emolument of the order
Mt. Chadwick waited on Mr. Mirebouse, intimating that some
clients of his who felt aggrieved by the order had instructed him so
appeal against it, but that he was ready on their behalf to effect art
accommodation; accordingly an agreement was entered into, by
which Mr. Mirehouse was to Wren the stream, erect a bridge over
it in a certain part, and widen the road in question about three feet,
each party to par a moiety of the expense, and then no appeal was
to be made. This agreement was signed by alt'. Al irehouse and
Mr. Chadwick. Subsequently the same parties met, and Mr.
Chadwick handed a copy of the agreement to Mr. Alirehouse, bin
the latter refused to take it, stating. that it did not correspond wit!{
the one signed by him, and requeatiag to see the original.. frig
ttt
Chadwick said it was at his ionise with the other papers„ hoar(
being pressed io produce It he took it out of his pocket. when the
appeared to have been two iraerlineations made in it subsequent
its being signed by Mr. Alirehouse, the effect of which was to
throw the whole of the expense of diverting the stream and erect-
ing the bridge, and also a moiety of the expense for widening the
road, on Mr. Alirehouse, the original agreement having stipulated
that the expense of the whole should be borne equally by both
parties.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (with whom was Mr. C, F. Wm.
LIAMS and Mr. BROUGHAM) this day showed Cause against the
rule.
Mr. SCARLETT intimated that he felt the answers of the if.
davits filed on behalf of the defendant were such as would not
enable him (Mr. Scarlett) to ask their Lordships to make the rule
absolute, but there certainly were a great deal of irrelevant matur
of a most criminatory nature in the defendant's affidavit, for
which certainly he was not entitled to charge Alr. Cresswell. The
question therefore was merely one of costs, and therefore sub-
mitted to his Learned Friend that it was not necessary to enter
Into any of the details contained in the affidavits.
The ATTORNEY-GENER•L said, that 116 his client's chi.
ratter was most seriously involved in this question, he felt he
should not be doing his duty if he did not state how the facts
stood. Several unpleasant rumours having been made affecting
the character of Air. Cluulwick as clerk to the Alagistrates, the
circumstance before the Court being one of them, Mr. Chadwick
himself obtained a meeting of the Magistrates, to enable him so
meet and answer any charge that might be brought against him.
At the meeting a motion was made for dieckarging him from
k situation of Clerk to the Division, when all the Magistrates
bat one opposed it. With regard to the alterations n*e in the
eireemene. there were the affidavits of Gerald of the AUgistrates.
Wm distinctly swore that Mr. Alirehouse and his Solicitor had
,=antllitt. that those alterations were strictly correct, and
t with the real intention of she parties; and Mr. Chad.
with aware that he verily believed thealterations were made in the
previesse of Mr. Mireliouse; and he theughti but would not state
positively, that they were made before the agreement was signed.
The LORD CHIEF Jurrici: observed, that when the rule wu
applied for, it was represented tbat the meeting of the Magistrates
was convened at the requester Mr. Creswell, but it now appeared
that it was at the instance of Mr. Chadwick. lie also thought that
from the very nature of the alterations, there could not be any ire.
proper motive on the part of Mr. Chadwick in making them ; nor
did it appear that any such motive was attributed to that gentleman
by the Magistrates at the meeting, when this charge was inquired
into. If 31r. Scarlett could remove the present impression
of the Court, they would then hear the Attorney.Cieneral far-
ther, but otherwise they thought there was no ground for the
rule being made absolute.
Mr. SCAREETT thought he should be able to show that the
facts were now in such a state as to make an answer necessary ; at
the same time he would not retract what he had before said, that be
did nut think he could call upon their Lordships:
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then proceeded to state the con-
tents of sonic very long affidavits, in which motives were assigned
to Mr. Creswell, for bringing this matter before the Court, not-
.pridestapling the Alagistrates had decided that the conduct of Mr.
atedwick was not of a criminal nature, and that it would not jus.
s their discharging him from his situation. In none of the affi-
davit* on the part of the application (and there were three), was it
sacs sworn that the parties believed Mr. Chadwick had done an
illegal or fraudulent act? Such a motion as this was of the roost
serious nature to the reputation of professional man, and the Cab.
mice of all believe that the party had acted criminally, was a good
' explanation that this application was not with a view to promote
the ends of justice, but to satisfy feelings which he was sure would
not be entertained in this Court.
Mr.ScarttEry (with whom was Mr. Broderick) said the greater
part of the affidavits of the defendant was totally irrelevant, and
that the point to which the attention of the defendant aught to have
hsen particularly drawn had been very slightly passed over. It was
sworn that he was not employed to oppose the enrolment of the
order, and that he had not given any notice of appeal.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said Mr. Chadwick had stated
that, he did not consider any notice to be necessary.
Mr. SCAR LETT said it was suite clear that Mr. Chadwick bad
sot received any instructions from the gentleman whose name he
had at list, after amending has affidavit, introduced into it by the
special advice of his Counsel. At all events, he wished their Lord-
ships would not make the persoos who applied for this motion pay
for the long affidavits that had been made, which went altogether
to east the most unfounded libels on their characters.
The Covell was of opinion that the rule ought to bediacharged.
The affidavit upon which the rule was obtained watt made four
years after the transaction which it imputes to the defendant.
When the Magistrates considered this charge, they were of.opie ion
should be dia.
appears also that those inter ea
to
niit an act of fraud.
tention on the part of Mr. Chadwick
Dia dismissal was rejected, and it wu tee
they should
the Mamer
itoh that
ill,l
agreement
ILtlewoitekwhitandoon.totobreeinneogg:oateilotst
wooeffruetihaionaki;:ertswinalitibontoteruitt,liewaanandytaenin.ts
The motion made for
much to
sfe tsnomtene,
The
Court a
he
thisw h(i."ehrdlidtonmotveevettbstiton
ietal4nhh,letftoratethrothueldeebnesuattreuogrkdieAr
eacveltnt he would sae iris discretion at to whether
amtih:egirokinilratltshtietnkr aain.
asta,:yrg:dug.tds cuts. If there were shy
ht to be allowed, but the Court could not forbear makiag
this general observation, that in a ease of this kind Mr. Chadwick
was quite justified in endeavouring to notice it appear that the Cap.
Sinaloa was made from motives.
The rule was according ii *lb goals.