The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-12-15 00:00:00

CASE 01.' MR. SAVERT.

We (says the Bristol lfereuty of Monday) have this
week to pertOrm one of thaw most painful duties that oc-
casionally devolve on the public journalist—one which,
aithough executed with feelings of the bitterest regret,
renders hi: situation somewhat suspicious, always unenvi-
able. Seepicious it may be, but only to those who have
not liberality enough to look fur any whir motive for the
performance of this public duty, than the ministering to a
depraved taste for scandal, or the gratification of a sordid
appetite for gain. We disclaim any such motive : but
when the London papers are in full possession of the facts,
while the tongue of rumour is busy in the daily repetition
of them in a hundred exaggerate.d shapes, and our con-
temporaries are darkly hinting at something that is wrong,
ill a way calculated to excite the most painful apprehen-
sions' but without giving the least clue that may allay the
tear, of respectable individuals not in the slightest degree
implicated, it is an affectation of prudery and false deli-
cacy any longer to attempt to conceal what is already
matter of such public notoriety. We feel most acutely for
those respectable individuals connected with the unhappy
subject of our remarks; and they are both numerous and
most respectable. It was a regard for the respectability of
their station in society that induced us last week to sup-
pees* what we had but too much reason to fear would
prove, as it has eventually. but too true. Mr. Henry
Savery, son of Mr. Savory, hanker, a gentleman of great
respectability, caraied on the business of a sugar-baker in
this city a few years ago, in conjunction with Mr. Bigg,
under the firm of Savery and Bin, which. we believe, in
the year 1819, became bankrupt for a considerable amount.
He subsequently, from come family connection with the
proprietor of the late Bristol Olosermr, became the minter
of that Jeurnal, till he again entered' into business as a
sugar-broker, about three years ago. in canuexion with
his present partner. Mr. Saitartl. and the new firm had
obtained considerable credit and responsibility. To what
cause the einherrassments of the house, if embarrassed it
was, of which the conduct of Mr. Savory would seem to
leave little doubt. are to be atiributee, we know not ; we
have heard of no peculiar acts of extravagance or unneces-
sary expense of pared of either of the partners ; but cer-
tain it is, that diecoveries, cons quent on the absence of Mr.
Savere, dangeroes to himself and inest agonisieg to his
family, were made. A merlin:7 of the creditors was forth-
with convened. and Mr. S3W,lnt WO despatched to London
in pursuit of his partner.—Elh re the 2llercure repeats the
account of Mr. Sawaril's pursuit. whieb we itave already
communiratetl.3—lt is currently reported, that the dread-
ful puniehment that ineritably follows conviction of the
crime of forgery, will, in this instance, Aleut the parties
from prosecuting.

yon purchase a Ticket at Hazard and ('o.'s they will
return you 16/. for it, if not entitled to one of the Two
Twenty Thousands, which must be drawn (besides 1,000
other Prises) to-morrow. The return for Shires will be in
proportion, so that the risk of a whole Ticket is only
♦l. 16s. and for a fliveintli is only 6s. 61. The scheme
contains Two of 30.0001., Two of 510,0001. die. and no
Blanks.. Time fur return till 26th Ileccmbcr.
and Co. have sold in the last two months Prizes of 90,0001.
and 30,04101. at their (I:fire% Royal Exchange Gate ;
26. Conthill ; and No. 3:4, Ozroad-inset, and at Rep:pl-
at:set.

LAW INTFLLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, TUESDAY, Dsc 14.

rnz EAlll._or. IK•XNIIELD u..1011):STOW.

.14;111;1"1,ItT0i. '..1:1111;;;Sqr;•-•1ich... Mr.•Hraru cal led hie
Conk:ail.% attention. H, hat he alluded to won, the custom of giving
moire~ of motions in that Coort, abandoning them, and taking the
tooti.m., in a diffireot shape Ix hire his Honour the Vier-Chancel/or.
The present ease wait precisely of such a nature. The motion was
rt move," to the other conic, and lie honed no derinion world be
made !Triti h ontil the ITlOtiffll hi fore hi. f,ordship was disposed of.
The h.trl of '34,1,5 rid leaned certain property, at Hornsey. to Mr.
Join, 'ton. at :Val!. per annum, and an allowance of LOW. A
0. i.e, was re.ale in that Court to pay into the Court the rum of
:MO!. inider thin iftim; and another motion was entitle before his
•ii ledge in his (fourt.7ool. The other party might lay
that Mr. .I,,:traton's solicitor •.res always in Court, and had no
rl.sitts tt '.e indemnified lite his crpenneat that his attendsnee be
I'; win a matter of course, and signified nothing. H. (Mr.
11... M) w mid say. it signified a great deal, it was the cause of eia
penses, ar.d tie solicitors in getreral thought it uncle's to apply for
titer roeery of expense's incurred in this way. He now applied to
the (tart to break up this procaine. and that his Lordship !dime,/
be matte aconaint,rl with the situation of the %niter'. He now
dratted that hefore he was obliged to pay the 7061. the bill foe the
:SW should he

Mr. P-1114: opposite party, raid, that instead of going!
hrrotl the Vie •-t.ilaiicrll.ir, he tAould tz satisfied to came beam
11.11 1,0111•111 p ~.1 bilk.
're Lott:, C.IIANCELLOR thoi:ght this was a fair moat of peb-
c,elipg.

r. ifEALD thought the Vice-Chanerllceshisuld be &meta to
tape h.., consideration all the circ4tinstatieel under which this
hill was GI a.

Th. Loan CI.ANCELLOR thought this wee fair. and I!e troika
dip et the Vire-Chaneolinr amirdingly ; and he would 'inlet what
wa• limper to he dune in regard to Costs.
1 /IL DIMIQUIS OF tiEnTrunt) V. TUE EARL OF DARLING.
?WI AND CDAPIIAN, ESQ. • DINAR.
Tlak was a question which originated in the practice at di* Sit
Clerks' 111&x.

The Soar,. rrnw-Orteraat. for the plaintiff; stated, that do
Marquis of ilertf.ird was entitled to half of en estate in the town
of Ca/Heir:nal. toe Earl of Derlingtog to enc..founh, ani Mt.
Chapman. the infant, to one-fuunh. Commissioners were un-
wanted to make a partition-6,yr were chosen by the M:irtlif
four by the Earl of Darlingoan--bUt when they met at the town cal
Camelia:rat, the Marquis of lleriford rut off two of thaw erabointed
by the opposite party, upon which Lard Darlington's Commis.
moneys protested against the proce:dinrs. as they would be outvoted
by •the plaintilre Cmmisesoners, and then gave notierthey would
apply to the bird Chancellor to geode their proceedings. They
not makethis applicatiost, and the proceedings were quashed. The
aakirce of his motion was, that the order be reversed, and the pro-
eertlirge be affirmed.
Mr. Kam, on the same aide, said, that the iefont had no Com-
mix/4.7...0. It was said at the Six Clerks' Otscc that that was
no oecessity. _

The Loan Cirateett.cos—This statement is against the
affidavit which has been hustled to the Court,as Commiotiosers
were milted for as againsi each of the parties. It might be the privi-
lege of the infant, but the affidavit was false. He did not mean to
use the word offensively. There was no business in which to
Court took more pains. nlai in which they were more uselerly
thrown away, than in its viviee to Commissioners, that they were
utterly indifferent. Intend of this they did not consider their
ditty. hut how they shcrold outvote each other, in direct violation
of these fluty and their oaths. This was monstrous. Whenevst
a letter written by a Commissioner, expretrive of his anorshensiot.
of being outvoted, came before the Court, he would not pass
it without ohs-reation. In the ease before the Court. it +soukd not
be denied, if the Marquis of Hertford was Plaintiff. he could have
but one set cf Commissioners ; add suppose hr was made one of
the coAefendants, would he in! allowed to hare Commissiontra
who were before rejected ? Tht question is not so much a matter
of practice as it was for the conaidemtinn of the Coon, if such a
circumstance could bo allowed at all. The Court was not to con.
eider with what view or motive. or at what particular period o:
time, this motion was brought. Ile remendlenel, at an early play:
of his life, being employed in a case of partition. which was much
discussed, and occasioned much controversy, between Load Curzon
and Mr. Lyater, in which, whenever a particular motion was
made, as to time or any other circumstances, they were held the
Court would deal with this question of partition as it would wit:;
any other. In his view of the car thorns, ber,we hint, the question•
wis not if what had been dune led toe fair partition r He did
net mean to say it did not, but he was to mushier if the fltitrUr.a
taken upon this nee mion were such an the Court could
support
consistently with public policy; and if it could apply ar
principles to questions of s general nature. lie did not mean t•
deny that in this case the measures led to a fair result; but would
the same, if he was called sport to gine them operation generally .
be consistent with the general distribution of justice ? With re-
spect to idiots, the Court was to pay them moat particular snitc-
hes; hut it was to talc' are that in paying this attention it di!
hot proceed to such a determination as would be prejadicial to
third persons. He was most desires's, to act according to his views
of general justice. Ile desired lie may not lie uuderatood to apps.
the language of settee:ion on the parties, when he declared he wuukt
quash the proceeding of the Commissioners. Tlseash it was the utlt-
tom of the Court to defer to the opinions of those who put forward
the names of the l'orimissionera,it was a matter of duty with the Soli-
citots to select those who were borstals!. Thegmund and ressoo
of parties being allowed to throw out the names of Cinimiasiocers,
is not because th;y are partial, but because there may be good
reasons for doubting their impartiality. The Solicitor of the Mar-
quis of Hertfonl was a Commissioner in this case: it was natural
to suppose that the professional man of business would rot be free
from feelings towards his employer. It might, perhaps, be ?lie.
to allow such to he Commissioner, but the precedent would bst
dargerous. In this case reference was had to that Court because r.
was easier to procure a ininition by bill than by deed at law. 1;
was also right to make the mvpriemrs of the one-fourths eo-defen-
dents. for it torten happened that the owners of the smell portions
should be distinctly considered, and have their rights distinctly
protected. No man can deny that it was reasonable for the Earl if
Harlington to say that the Commissioner. who was the professional
man of business to the Marquis of Hertford, was not exactly eta
preen in whom he would repose so much confitienCe as the Mar-
quis would. Ile was, therefore. of opinion, that the Vitt-Chart.
eelloe was quite right in quashing the proceedings of the Commis-
sioners, anti he wool,: refuse the motion with costs.