The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1807-07-06 00:00:00

tAir IN T RCLIGANCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Lisicav%lss !l•cc, lair 4

st.n4rlne r. foam.

Sir Sa %max It i LI.V, fillowed by Mr. BILL,
made a motion in this c 4...., on behalf of tf-e Defend-
ants, praying ler an order to refer to the Mr .ter,
forthwith, the account prayed for by tl.e Plaintiff's ,
Bill. The notice of minim was served by the D- '
fendant's Solicitor. on the very ntat Jay after ill!
Defendant's answer had come in. This motion,
which was admitted to be td the first importance,
sal without any precedent, was sustained in argu-
ment, upun principles of convenience and expeii-
tion, as well as saving exoense to the patties here,
and in all such eases ; it 'being admitted by the an-
swer, as charged in the Bill, that mutual accounts
bad subsisted between the Plaintiff and D-fendant,
and the Defendant offering to submit to the direc-
tions of the Cum, it was assimilated to the cases
of Bills for foreclosure of mortgages, where the
Plaintiff, on filing his Bill, prays a reference to the
Master. for an inquiry into the amount of the debt,
principal, and interest, in the first instance, and to
cases of Rills for a specific performance of agree-
ments, where the like pradice prevails.
Mr. Itt cis sans and Mr. Tuna strenuously op-
posed the Motion, as dangerous in prat:lice, and sub-
versive of the settled rules of the Cnu.t. They
argued against the analogy between this and a case
for foreclosure, as in that the amount of the debt
was ascertained, and the Master had only to calcu-
late interest on the same, by referring to the instru-
ment; and in like manner denied the analogy be-
tween this and a case for a specific performance, in
which toe Court, upon view of the agreement.
gave such direlions to the Master, on the comin7
in of the Defendant's answer, admitting the terms
of the agreeme it, on the groins I- that neither party
had Any remedy by ad:on npon the comraEl at com-
mon law. the agreement being the sole basis of t' e
relief prayed for. They contended, that the Pl,,in-
tiff here had a right to amend his bill, or refer t!,..
Defendanos answer for instifficienct; or to dismiss
his own bill, W so advised, as all plaintiffs ci.ii ~ly
are *Unwed to do ; whereas the motion, if •trAnt .:1,
would drag the Plaintiff. We, i wleni, whet ler l'..
would or net, into the Master's office, out of wet J.
it might be difficult. tedious. and expensive for hira
to extricate himself.
The Lotto CH ANC et. tea stated. that a roi suit 1-
Lien was once held by thief Justice Ma:l%nel 1, nom'
of the Common Ple.is, and himself. upon a ca e rs.
ably like the present, on which their op. is .s were
decided' y different; Nr. Mansfield b• fog of /Tina !n
that they might succeed in the motion, and he (1. nil
Eldon) of a quite different opinion. fiat motto.
was gained by their being both on the same side;
hat his Lordship's npinien remains tired upon the
subjea, and he refused the motion.

COURT OF KINGS GUILDHALL-JuLr 4.

Sittings et Niri hies, before Lcrl Chief jastice Es- I
teresoitoocn, cad a Speri4l
010. CYNG, asq. O. LAWSON aid OTHERS.
This was an issue from the Court of Chancery. in
the matter of Mawr maim, a bankrupt, of whose
estate tile Defendants were Assignees. to try whether
the name " Thomas Nairn," subscribed to • stir-
render endorsed upon the hack of a lease. was the
said bankrupt's hand-writing.
In the year 1798. Mr. Brag. the Plaintiff, greet-
ed a lease of certain lands and premises in the Isle nt
Dogs, to the bankrupt Nairn, who, upon certain
conditions, after wards evict, to one Spratley,
the interest which he held bignwlf. with some
small addition to the rent; and in the year 1901, ais
appeared by an endorsement nn the back of the ori-
ginal lease, Nairn surrendered a certain portion to
Mr. Bytig, the signature to which was contended
not to be his band-writing. The novelty in this
CM chiefly consisted of the variety of ways in whielt
Nairn had been accustomed to sign his name. and
the contrariety of the esideocc. the execution of
the surrender, it appearedovas attested by two sub-
scribing witnesses. Mr. Burke, then Nairn's Agent
and Attorney, and a Mr. Lently, steward to Sir
George Osborne. and occasinnall) surveyor to Mr.
Byng. Mr. Burke swore positively to the execution
of Use surrender by Nairn ; and a nunsber of bills,
notes, deeds, and other papers, were produced. with
Neirn's signature upon them, to sheer the different
modes in which he was accustomed to sign his name I
and his signature appeared in neer twen'y different
shapes. and even varied as drawer and endorser of
the same bill of exchange.
On the part of the Defendants. Nairn himself
was examined. He had been a miller on the Isle
of Dogs, and used to supply some of the shipping
en the river l'hames with bread. He denied most
positively that the signature to the endorsement
upon the lease was of his hand-writing. He never
saw the deed from the time it was executed in July,
1798, until about the beginning of July, 1805.
During all that time it lay in the hands of Mr.
Burke. his attorney, along with all his other deeds
and papers. He had heard many times that there
was something on the back of the lease, but be
could never believe it until be had seen it. He never
had any conversation, nor entered into any treaty
with any person whatever on the subject of sur-
rendering that lease.
Donn his cross-esamination by the Arroanev-
Gensea t, he said, be had been offered 201. not
to say any thing about that lease au his last ex.
antinaaion before the Constn;ssionsers, but this was a
matter he could not think of doing. He beard from
Ostiatiey, that something had crept on the back of
the lease; but he told Price, Mr. Bur ks% clerk, that
n was net his signature. lie admitted. he did
sometimes vary a little in the manner of signing his
name ; and in 1801 he completely changed his me-
thod, in consequence of a tabriceted receipt being
auttnrted to he passed upon him by a person who
two' to purchase bread from him s this person was
a sea-faring man, and had gone away in his debt
three or tone voyagesf hut whets he last returned. he
produced a receipt, purporting to be signed by the
Witness, for whir,h reason he had ever since signed
his name its a d:Troent way. This person, he am.
tinned. was since dead; and when asked bas name.
he hesitated for wsuie time het ore be gaye en an-
swer, and even then only spoke to his belief.
lUoun this, Lord Et ten aesocon appealed to the
. wiset'.ner they had any Junin. ; but, an order to
put use matter bey ad Mr. Lead. was

called. who stated most positively, that he was pre
sent io the house of Mr. Burke, in (!erl.l-sq.rare,
and did •ee Nairn execute the surren.ier.

-- ,
The Jury immediately found a verJi3 for the
l'hintiff.

The ATTOINEYMLOILIAL then observed, that
Mr. Burke was resolved to prosecute Nairn for -p-r•
atol retr-sted his Lordship would have him
committed ; but Otis Lord L tat auROL um retusca.

NIACE coua SIITUIIID r. JIMT 4.

1114Alll AN L. DAVISOM.

The Plaintiff is a Jeweller is St. James's-streut.
and attendant, Colonel Davisrin, of St Jarrie.'s-
sqaare. The anion was to recover the value of
jewellery. trinkets, &c. wli'oh the Defendant hail
been induced to give as a present to the well knosvn
Andrew:, for the use of that gerit/eniai.'r wife. An-
drews was brought into Court by Haleco ("o-
pus, and gave evidence for the Defendant, with
his n•ual confidence. as to the vale and delivery of
the goods. 'l-Lis man stated faits concerning va-
rious persons of come !octet, which we shruld
deem it libellous to publish. Ile was frequently
siknced by the Court. The Plaiatiff's case being
made out by his Foreman, Cie Jury retiree. and
after about an heir's deliberation, returned with a
verdill for the Plaintiff. Damages 1681.

SECONDARIES• oFFICE,JuLt 3.

I.IIIEL.

Tern causes ware tried here, this day, before a
Special .I.a•y ; one.at the snit of Francis !•reeling,
Esq. and the litter at the suit of Arthur Stanhope,
Koh of the Post•OtFtee, against Messrs.Walri r,
s. 1.10: And junior, proprietors of The Time, newspa-
per, for a libel Mr. A scot, in his address to the
lury for the Plaintiffs, stated, that several pant-
gr sphs had been published in the said paper, charg-
ing th. Plaint; ff with miseondna in the Post-Office,
aml t it they lial!elt thersc!ves houndin dutyto • heir
own charaner to bring the pre.tnt prosecut.on, hut
on t.:e concession of the nafend:.nts, they had a( teed
to take 4 Isnillinal eerdul t. cov.•r the eilyentes,
And hundred pound nn eachcasr,to be distributed
to ...me public charity, the 'Menden' h-ing also to
mak., a ruitalde acknowledgment in their papal of
their error. Mr. JeKYLL, for the DeterndArita,
er-
pr the sorrow and contrition of his clients; and
said, that in the assertians made, they had been misled,
And w:ia, they Ltd inserted Wa.: All4.lgethCr Uniollll4.
e 1; but being undece.ved, they were happy to make
this arknowleegment. He limber fully acceded
to the extent of the Apology which was due to the
L.nrsur and charalter of the Plaintiffs. A stadia
was entered accordingly.