The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-04-26 00:00:00

CERTIFICATES-MAY 14.

John Allen, Borough of Warwick, innkeeper.—Berther Herbert,
heltenham, a Ik•mercer.—Stephen Holland, Bexhill, Sumer,
coal-merchant.—Thomas Nub. Garden-row, London-road, dealer.
—George Lomas, Bursient, Staffordshire, pawnbroker.—,lames
Dam, Brolopton, Middlesex, tirober-merchint.---John Pratt,
Hatton-wall. flatton-gattlen, pavior.—Rachael Rawlings and Isaac
Rawlings, Frome-Selwood, Somersetshire, card-makers.—Charles
Lade, Stowinarket, Suffolk, grocer—James Stranack, Park-place,
111 Ile-End, muter-mariner.—David Manky, Southampton-row,
Russell,q nareorine-merchant.—Charles Sims, Cul w n -coot t, Broad-
street, merchant.—James Kite and Benjamin Best, Macclesfield
‘Vharf, New North Road, wharfingers.—Joseph Barter, Poole,
timber-merchant.

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
Christopher Oki& Riethmuller and Francis Boyd, general
agents,Fencburch.street.—Margaret Sawers and Sarah Shoobridgc.
dress-makers, St. Paul's Church yard.—Elizabeth Gregory and
Ann Moss, Epping.—Frederick Wilson, John William Swale,
and William Henry Swale, Great Russell-street, Bloomsbury,
booksellers.—Barnabaa Rarer Barton and John Atkins Barton,
St. Martin's-lane, saw-millers.--Hannah Coniston Giles, now
Katherine Giles, West-Bromwich, Staffordshire—Ellis Ellis,
and William Ellis, Lloyd's, insurance-brokers.--Samuel Worrall
and Thomas Psynter, Aston-under-Line, Lancaster, tea-
l' dealtrs.—Philip Branto i and Thomas Haskins, Westminster,
alaters.—Henry Lucas and John Partridge, Long—ere, up.
holsterem—John Harris and George Lever, New Radio-3, Not-
ingharn.bire. lace.machine-b.:;iders.—James Potter and John
Chandler, Chelmsford, linen-drapeni.—Savill Godfrey and George
' Searle, Stangate, Lambeth, boat-builders.—Abraham Loft and
Joseph Lowther, jun. Kingston-upon-Hull, wharfingers.--John
Kew and William Kew, Parliament-street, Westminster, wine.
merchantn.—R. Fawcett, and William Parsons, Cheapside, wool-
len-drapen..—Thomas Vale and William Ballard, Fashion-street.
Spitalfields, silk-niachine.makers.—Robert Pleydell Wilton and
Thomas Russell, Gloucester, bankers.—Martin Shepherd and
William Herbert, Aideregate-street, Glousester.—David llPTag-
gart and Thomas Turnbull, Kingston-upon-Hull, drapers.—John
Wilson and James Macwhirter, Worthing.

MEETINGS OP CREDITORS,
AT THE IRSZRUPTS. COURT, DASINOUALL-STRICIT,

THIS_ DAY.

THIRD MEETINGS.
- Hawes, R. B. Walworth, carpenter - -
Hint, J. York, eloth-merehant • - .

SECOND NESTING.
Robinson, H. T. Oun.street, Old Artiliery-ground,
rnanufactum

GUIST MEETING.
Favey, J. Staines, Middlesex. draper - - - 10
Rsmsbothant, C. W. Clement's-lane, merchant - - 10
Shield, J. Bridge-road. LambAh, Surrey, wire-worker - I
Ward, J. George and Vulture Tavern, St. Miclsael's.allcy,
Corehill, dealer . . . . 1
Warwick, J. Austin-friars. wine.merchant . - 10
DIVIDENDS.
Govett, R. anl Leigh, J. Stringlione, Somersetehire, tanners In
Levy, S. A. Bucklersbory, merchant - - DI
-
Pslyart, J. London-street' Fenchurch-street, merchant . 12
Ryder, T. and Nayamith.J. Fenchurch-strect, merchants - In
Balker, S. Bull %Vharf-lane, Queenhithe. hoop-bender - 2

The Lord Lieutenant and Council, on Friday. withdrew
the Insurrection Act from the Baronies of Upper Or-
mond, Lower Ormond, and Owney and Arra, in the county
of Tipperary.

APPEAL.
HOUSE Of LORDS, MONDAY, APRIL 25, lOU.

HENRY HOYI.E ODDIE, ; SIR P. 3. WOODFORD
AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
Mr. Hart was heard in continuation of his argument of Mon-
day lrrt. Mr. Horn and Mr. Sugden were also heard for the Re-
spondents; after which the Solicitor-General argued at great
length on a cross appeal, in favour of the heir at law. He con-
tended that the general obscurity and confusion of the will was
such that it was impossible to comprehend it, and it was therefore
impossible to be executed.
The further hearing of the case was then adjourned to Monday
next.

LAW INTRLLTGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Aram 25.

NERO"' V. BUILNAND.
The arguments in this case occupied a considerable time on Sa-
turday, and after Mr. HzaLD replied to-day,
His H ozou a stated, that in this case the plaintiff', Mr. New,
aid the defendant, Mrs. Burnand, were the son and daughter of the
late Mr. Nerot, hotel-keeper in SL James's. Mr. Nerot left his
property and the hotel business to be carried on for the benefit of
tiis chifdren. The business, since the death of the testator,
had been carried on by the daughter, and the bill prayed to have an
account of the profits made by her since her fathers' death up to the
time of her marriage, or to the time when the bill was tiled. The
defendant, in her answer, admitted that she had possessed herself of
the whole of her father's property ; the. the reason of her having
done so was, because her brother at that time was under age ; that
she continued to carry on the business until 1810, at Nerot s Hotel,
in King-street, when the lease of that house expired; that at that
time she had carried on the business for about six years, and that
in 1810 she purchased another house in Clifford-street, where she
had ever since carried on the business; but that she was not to be
considered as having carried on the business for the joint benefit of
herself and brother; because, some time atter the death of her
father, her brother and herself had agreed that two persona should
be named (one by each) to put a valuation on the whole of her
father's property, and that she should be considered as entitled to
the whole.upon her paying to him a moiety of that valuation, what-
ever it might be; that the persons were appointed and the valuation
made, which amounted to 2,3361. and that she had subsequently
paid the moiety of that sum to her brother. At the bearing
of the cause, it appeared that she relied entirely on the con-
tract between herself and her brother, as the ground on which she
was not to be held liable to account to him for the profits ; that
such a contract had been entered into was only supported by her
own affidavit; and as it appeared to the Court extremely doubtful
that such a contract really had been made, the only thing to be done
was to direct an issue to ascertain which was the fact. An issue
accordingly was directed ; and the Jury had negatived the fact that
the plaintiff had sold his interest in his father's property. This
having been done, great surprise was excited in the mind of his
Honour on Saturday to find that the cause had been again set down
for hearing, and to hear it contended that the Jury's verdict had not
decided the cause. Great attention, however, had been paid to the
Learned Counsel who were engaged to support the ease; and the
only argument they had been able to urge was, that the conduct of
Mr. Nerot had shown he had considered Mrs. Burnand was carry-
ing on the business for her own benefit ; still the Jury upon the
trial of the issue had negatived that argument, and therefore. acting
on the principles of this Court, the defendant would have to be held
accountable to the plaintiff for a moiety of this concern. In the
year 1810 the business ceased to be carried on at Nerot's Hotel, in
King-street, and the question was, whether the plaintiff was en-
titled to a moiety of the
.profits that had been made in the new
house in Clifford-street since that period? With respect to this
question, the Court would have to consider that the partnership
continued till 1810; that in 1810 the honse in Clitford-street had
been purchased by part of the partnership property ' • that in truth
it was nothing but a removal of the partnership business from
King-street to Clifford-street, and that, therefore, the plaintiff was
entitled to a share in the business, till the time when the defendant
married (which was in 1818), or till the bill was filed. The bill
clearly was a bill which gave the defendant an option to say the
partnership was dissolved in 1819. The decree therefore would
have to be, that the Clifford.street house must be sold, together
with all the partnership effects. In the meantime, the defendant
should be allowed time to consider whether she would elect that the
partnership was at an end in 1819.