The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-08-11 00:00:00

LAW NOTICES.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
lIIPORL :HI LORD CIANCILLOU. IN LINCOLN'S INN DALL. TIII DAT,

♦T TIN%
Const •. Hamby petition per jrnitment.
Attorney-General v. Skinners Company, per ado'.
Powell v. Sonnets, exceptions, part beard.
Canso Petitions.
Watkins v. limas
Pt nmertel v. lU'pkersua
Plumpton v. Banana
Forster v. Deacon

Rlelmr.l4 v. Chamtrent,
demurrer, part beard
nowes v. 'ilrathw
part heard
finnan v. Trimbeyl.

Stu •. Rhodes. ap-
peal petition
'Meal:won T. Wood-
ford

re Turner, four re-
llliuu
Nt'i:lett, three do.
Mode
Wharton
Webb

Impede Petitions.
In re Smith
Cooke
Fop(ler
Halter
Willett
Cadngan. 2 pet.
Turner, 3 ditto
Craven
BOWOIOII
Smyth, 2 ditto
Elton, 2 ditto
Lyttelton
Craven, 2 ditto
Harris
Tovreshend
Shipp
Adams
Martindale
Bateman
Sarlow •
Iredale, 2 ditto
Taylor, 2 ditto

In re Million
Alchin
Shadweli, 2 pet.
As*wal i
Ilowdotin
Yorke
Shaw
James
White
Stephenson
Wingsnley
rtneke
Mode, 2 ditto
Wheeler
Yowler
Cooke
Emmett.
rialdwyn
Buckle
Nicholas
Smith

two do.
Harstuw
Adams
Welsh
Peir•on
Lord Portsmouth
Middleton
Jenhlns
!ones, two do.
NRW PUTITIONA.
In re Mach.•n
Middleton, 2 do.
Nicholas
Unwhi
Afnnlll
Gould

VICI
SITOSS TSB •ICS-C

I-CHANCELLOR'S COI
4NCKLLOR,IN LINCOLN

lIRT.
r's 'Ns, Till CAT, AT

TiN.
Bankrupt Petitions.
Esp. Nato re Maeda
Michell re ril!res
Long re Multi=
Addiron re Gar-
lick

Exp. Duribcll. to be

*poke to
Tuhl..ley re Po-
meroy, ti pet.
Green re Pome-
roy
Leech re Stalker
St. phenson re
stalker
Paley re Dawson
Howell re Howell
Pura reCovenagh
Hater re Hate.
Lnver 4 re Patton
Payton re Dever-
tot
Cuolthnrn re
Cricket
F.r ell re Askey
Mytton re 3lvt-
ton, "petitions
Morgan re Whit-
aker
Hone re Rodin-
-roe

Ezp. }rare re Sikes
Wood re Johns
Chappell re Wil.
hams
Walker re Webb
Farquhar re
Lender
Proctor re Powell
Coupland re Ar-
ley
i Lion re Ander,

1151;e Illsrfoot
Wood re Keay
X nIKAt re Passley
Warty re Ijadwen
Scott re Peacock
Barton re Barrett
Saunders re
Symond4
Grant re Grant
Moore re Piper
Wstra re Watts
Pane re Kent
Enderby re Cru-
cent
letsoph re Mane
Blenoldrellarvey
Taylor re Penman
Dexter re Selden
Miller re Wed
Gael' re Altedo
Hare ye
Blackburn
Darla re Deacon
!Rake re Sylvester
Grant re Honey-
barn

11011
Stafford-re Staf-
ford
Wheater reG roves
`and Little
Richmond re
Richmond
Mitchell re Stant-
held
Preoon re hell
Same in Orton
Ross re Turnbull
Jackson re Hole
Mann re Harvey
Scott re Illovk-
burn
Colston re Col-
ston
Grey re Manton
Roller re Marsh

Parton Tt flolyer
Jlere.ford re
I.lnprd
Wlleolton re
Stones
Sly re Sly

ROLLS COrRT.
The Master of the Roils will hesr Causes, further Direttlons, and Pell-
tlon4, by con.ent, to-morrow, at nine tu the mornlrg.
Cautet, further Direct/ems, and Petitions. must be set down before two
o'clock this day.

COURT 07 KING'S BENCH.
Norica.—The natl. Ur. Justice Holroyd o ill take all at his house,
No. IS, Rumll-sqsare, Ott day. at 11.—Dated August 16

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY. THURSDAY. AUGUST 10.
MECHANICS' 111AGAZIN C.—JUDGMENT.
X`ROY V. ROBERTSON.
On the LORD CHANCILI.OR cooling into Court this morning,
his Lordship observed that he had looked through the whole of this
case, from beginning to end, and he was quite satisfied it was not
a case in which this Court would grant an injunction in the tirst
instance. If the parties wished him to state the reasons at length
shish induced him to form that opinion, he would do so at any
time they liked; but he really thought, and he spoke :t sincerely,
s hen he said so, that he considered hods sides very little understood
the situation in which they were placed, and if they would allow
hint to desire them, between this and next Monday, to consider
whether they had riot better call in some common friend to decide
the differences between them, he was quite sure II they did not
comply with that, the time would come when they would be sorry
they had rot liken his advice. When lie Raid the Court would not
grant on injunction in the first instance. what he meant was, that
Mr. Robertson's undertaking to keep an account of the profits of
the work, was the very utinoat_the Court would do.
Mr. HEAI.II, Counsel fur the vinitstiffio, acid, he wee auto Ilia
clients, after what Ilia Loritahip had seated, wesaid not wish him to
state any reasons for his opinion. It the parties could not settle the
matter between this and Monday, he hoped his Lordship would du
something which would make the offer of Mr. Robertson, to keep
an account of the work, binding on that gentleman. Ile would,
however, take care what his Lordship had stated should be men-
tioned to his clients-

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT. THURSDAY, Ann. 10.
EXPARTE CASTEL', IN THE MATTER OF WENTWORTH.
&mato/vett, RUSHWORTH, RUB/MOUTH AND HARTLEY',
BANKRUPTS.
This was an amicable petitio7, and had been already before the
Cow t--(See lit Biel; P.n.'s. of Monday last.)
The facts were simply:these :—The bankrupts had long carried
on business as banker,' in York. The same parties (with the ex.
ception of Mr. Hartley) constituted the firm of another bunking-
house at Wakefield. Between the two banks very extensive deal-
ing was carried on—both sunk under the difficulties with which the
monied and commercial classes were visited last winter, and became
bankrupts.
Mr. Mane 'fated, for the petitioners, that the objects of the
petitioners were twofold. It first prayed that the York bank might
be permitted to prove, under the Commission against the itt'ake-
field bank, fur the benefit of the creditors of the former firm,
the debt due by the IVaketield bank to them, amounting to
110,6021. Secondly. that Mr. Chaloner should be allowed to
prove against the Wakefield bank, as a separate creditor, a
debt of 411.2471. due by them to him, but, having been a partner
in that house himself, he only prayed to be allowed to receive a
dividend after all the other creditors should have been paid in
full. The question was, whether the late decision of the Earl
of Eldon contravened the general rule, that where two distinct
unties are carried on, and that, basing dealt with each other, each
shall, in the event of bankruptcy, have a right to prove a debt
against the other? In the case of exparte Sillito, in the matter of
Hoodchild and Jacksons, his Honour had decided that such a debt
was proveahle ; and the Lord Chancellor adopted that decision,
with this difference only, that his Lordship distineuished between
a debt created by a loan of money anti a debt growing out of deal-
ing; in trade. He (Mr. Hart) did not think there was anything in
the law thus laid down which required that a dealing in " merchan-
dise" should have existed. In expnrtc Sillito, his Lordship
had
held that there had been no " dealing" between Hoodebild and
Jacksons, and the Jackson* in their separate capacity. Coodchild
anti the Jacksons had been bankers et Bishopwearmouth; the
Jacksinns were also ironmongers, which business they carried on in
London, and in that character raised money on the acceptances of
the b. thing firm, in order to support the tottering credit of the
bank ; in this way the banking firm had become debtors to the iron-
mongery ceneerr, but between the two firms no " dealing" what-
ever had taken place, for the mere raising of money on the accep-
tances of' the bank, and which money tln y heeded over to that
firm, did not constitute a " dealing ; ' and, looking at it in this
point of view (the light in volti:h the Lord Chancellor had regarded
it), the debt due to the ironmentgers by the bank was not prove-
able.
The Viet Cit.exc eimon—This is, 1 believe, the third case of
the same nature row before the Court. •
Mr. HART—It is. Lord Eldon, in his decision, has founded
his judgment upon that of Lord Thudow, 1n "Expert.: Shake.
shaft."
The VICE-CHANCELLoa said the ease was one of extreme im-
portance; he would therefore give to it his particular attention,
and should not. at present, deliver his opinion.

Judgment postpimed.
Mr. JloxTwou hed leliVe to state to the Court, that he be-
lieved he had succeeded in making himself master of the principle
on which the Lord Chancellor had decided in the case of Sillito,
which appeared to him to be, that "a debt is always proveable by
one firm against another, unless the dealing of each had been for the
joint benefit of all."
The Vics•CuA /MEL Lon bowed, ara here the subject dropped