The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-12-07 00:00:00

THE BRITISH PRESS.

LAW INTFLI.IGENCIL

COVET OF CHANCERY, 31eADAT, Dze. 6.

OPERA ROUSH.
TIMIS v NEWELL! AND (Twit...

Mr. HALT took the lihery of statit g, that he did not make the
motion for appointing • no.nager In this cue, with the view in
wlheli his Lordship, iron, the intimation he had made, seemed to
rie• the nuttier. According to his apprehension, he applied to
the entili for it. order to appoint a manager, without any prejudice
whatever to the securities. This prejudice was never in his con-
templation.
'lite 1.0/10 CHANCil.LOll—Theeonxideration for the Court is,
whether the motion, if granted. would not entirely discharge the
sureties. 1a is upon this view of the ease that he refused to make
the order required.
Mr. HART was nitwit obliged to his Lordship for the intimation.
Ilia client had got legal secitrilies' and things were in such a situa.
Lion, that he should either abide by them or abandon thew directly.
He would he hatislied to take all the consequences of his hnrilithini.
order, puny id, tl the proceedings in a Coon of Equity did nut affect
the legal ennatitiencra.
31r. SurairEN Your motion his not been granted at 'IL A
manager has been refused by the Court.
Mr. 11'11T did not ask for the assistance of the Court against
the bllTCli,s. If the order ut the Court did tint discharge them from
amsequet ems at law, he would be content to take the older of the
Conn at al! ri,ha.

The LIAM Co A xcaL tor thought himself entided to my. that
the surelim writild he dir.charged if the fun were granted. The
quecion foe him was, to tomtit', rif the motion could be granted
without yrs-justice to the parties, either at law or equity and, as to
discharguig Mr. llor: t a cliee.ta hi equity. he would act rashly in
drying mi. without senilualy considering if Mr. Viably and Mr.
Chiypenhani se re not oho discharged.
Mr. Soo nEx—The Judges have constantly refused to entertain
questions re,pecting the ilischsrge of sureties; they slid in the
potties, go hi tautly fur relief.

Mr. HAIM was aware of she astenninittion of the Judges. but
the immediate question at present was the preeematicci of the pro-
perty. WWI n not in the yroy.er of the Court to interfere to: this
preservation without rent:mpg; tie resprowilitlity tot the suretyship
of the paitie% sweerieg away thezbligations cmittaeted ?
Mr. I:hets was hatto be placed as if lie no security at all.
The LOKI/ enawcELLoa—lle. Sir. Chess, can Dot sly to
the sureties. the breach of the contiii:ona o. the bond has made you
liable, and yet the Court is to put nit into possession.
Mr. Ilsot —The possession of the louse would be most im-
pottar.t, as air. Mess might have pAid many thousands of the
debts contracted in nmarquence of ins not-pciformance of the
specific arrstigericots suede with Vallop and Chippenluitts f surely
the apposition nt of • manager would not prejudice them as to
their bonds; and as to t'.4. rent it could not possibly be effected by
the appuiatment of a rectirer. . _

The Lon!, (.14A111.3711.0111—The question li, i! the sureties
have tot a rixht to the I/pees-house for the entire three years!
Ilh. llilT—Thu •ill depend on the nature of the contract.
Ile would take his Lordship's orsirr a: '1 harards. _

The Loan Ittnircct.Loa-31r. Ebert' has a right of entry.
Why not exercise it ?
Mr. HART—Fur the best 'visible 111111011 he would not t!ii it
Itilltollt the interposition of the Court to govern all the parties,
otherwrse all the 'poverty would be destroyed.
'll.e Loan CH ANCELI.OII—Front the inspee:ion he had given
to the papers, under which r manager and receiver are sought to
be appointed, he found the contract was a simple demise, with
right of entry. %Vby did not the party possessing this power set
upon it ?
Mr. lIMIT thought, that since certain specific covenants made in
the demise bed been violated, it ass utterly destroyed.
The Loan CIIANC2LLOtt—if Mr. Khers by the demise has •
right entry, hew eau this Court interfere. He was sorry he
Could not do it. _ _

Mr. Harr would not keep up the discussion any larger. Mr.
Ebers, in making the application, had only discharged his duty to
the public.
The LOUD CIIAMCELLOR thought Mr. Ebers perfectly right hi
making this application.
Mr. Hoax[ trusted, that though Mr. Ebers bad been perform.
ing a duty to the public, his motive would not be sufficient to de..
,nee his clients of their costs.
Mr..Si•onr. from-used a similar bops nn the part of his clients.
The object of Mr. Viers was to carve nut a particular time to
which he was to have the benefit of their sureties, and then to de.
prive them of their rights.
The Lo D Of •NC E 1.1.011 had been long a slave to this Open
House, a! 1 he biped till Learned Uentlrmcu would give him
until to-inorrow to recover himself, and lie would then tell them
about the coos.
GL. AIORGANSIIMIE CANAL COMPANY.
. .

In this case an injuctitra had, as it is known to the public, Veen
applied for upon the prayer of :tit. Blsektuore, to minds the de.
1,1141111tX ft.on sadist.; to the wijth or depth of tha canal in ones.
lion ; this motion um granted by the Court. The plaintiff then
complained of the viola ion of this order, and prayed for the com-
mittal of the detentlants to the prison of the Fleet. In this ma-
thin he, however, n.iled, and now the defendants pray foe the dis-
solving of the ivjunetion latagether.
Mr. Houma, against the continuance of the injurctian, said,
that whatever may bombe result of the nrwift, his clients %mild
never attempt any thing which they were nut empose-ed to do by
the Act of Parliament. Upon the forner cage of the proeeedinga
there were many topics to which he could not call the attention of
the Court. Ile hsd intimated his clients that the judicial mind of
his Lordship wood rot be in the least affected by t:te injunction
which had bean granted, or by the ulterior motion made toe the
committal of his clients. There were at present many affidavits
confimiing the facts upon •Yllich his motion was fourded. Upon
the former peneeeding he had assumed, as it was his du, to
assume, that the injunction was rightly granted, and the question
was, if it were violated ? Ilia argument now was of a uttlirent
nature, and it was supported by the affidavit of the individual gen.
demons who cunposed the Canal Company. There were now two
things for the consideration of the Court. first, whether, if the
('curt were in possession of certain facts, it would grant the in-
junction at all; secondly, though it might have been than right to
grant the Lijunetion„ may it not now be right to recall it. This
was not a case of equity. it war not a prayer to be relieved from any
hardships at law, it was an injunction granted fur an alleged breath,
and if it was nut now dismayed, it timer (*till It was rertainly a
curious spectacle for the people of thamorganshire. and dm country
in general, that is a case involving so much pioperty, and in which
an much capital was • stake, it should be competent to any indivi.
dual to say, I will nut go into a Court of Law, I will take you to
Equity. Mr. Illatekmore had acted in this manner. lie had eked
to apply to the persons and properties of his clients that blister
which was krown itt the Court by the name of an injunction, front
the inconvenience of which he trusted his Lordship would extricate
his divots.

Mr. KuICIIT followed ea the same side.
Mr. 11E4Lu was heard in support of the i rurction till the rising
of the Court, at half past two.
'the argument to be resumed to-morrow.