The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-07-17 00:00:00

LAW NOTICES.

COURT OF CHANCERY.

ASIOAS TRI bORDCHANCILLOR. IN LINCOLN'S INN HALL, T.,
b*,
AT TAN.

Appeals.
Pitt v. Dods, appeal Lord Crewe v. Frowd, Toake v. Harvey, ~..,
part beard per order order
Darla v. Pitt, do. Braddick v. Mattock, Bacon v. pr,,,,t
Attorney-(general v. appeal 'Will
Mayor of Exeter, ea- Knatelabull v. Harvey,
.ceptlopv, further dr. do.
reCtluns, part heard I

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
■IPOIN Tilt %ICII-LNANCRLLOK, IN LINCOLN'S PEN, TAU DAV
HALF-PART TEN.
Exceptions and farther Directions.
Remaining Motions.
Cousins ..Schroder, do.
Sutton v. Deere,excep-
tions and further di-
rections, part heat d
Cooke T. Tomlinson,

Simpkins v. Poulett,
further directions, to
be spoke to
In re Nrad.haw, bank-
rupt petitions, to be
spoke to
ID re Wakefield, bank-
rupt petit. per order
Rowland v. Swale, fur-
ther direct. per order
Ditto v. Carless, do.
Tbsekray v. Hardin)+,
ditto
Chapman v. Schroder,
Anther directions,
part heard

poration of Ho,.
don, exc.. •:4
..
petition
Napier v. Nam
eeptions
Spray v. Rorke",
her dlr. aid top,
Jamey v. Sharp.
Pinder v. Smith, do.
Blaelachlan v. c
bell, do. 2 ~,..t1.1)
directlonsand cosh.
Hawley v. Itop.d,,
Cita •ea, esceptb„.,
and unix

Nuck v. Cooke, do.
Grant v. Lindsay, fur.
ther directlonv and
costs, per order
Grant V. Abbott, dn.
Want v. Goddeo, d.i.
Avery v. Wiserll, far.
ther directions, per
order

Attonmy-Gen. v. Cur-

ROLLS (
Robinson v. lelliutt,
further direct., judg•
mcnt

OURT.—Tnts Pvaarlfro
Price v. Rallies, twitter
directions, and Costs
Harris v. D.Tastet, do.
Conrand v. Bp. of Lin-
colt); eiceptlons
Tomlinson v. Lachlan,
. further direction*, &
coat*

WWI v. llall, foru
direction., and
Dill v. Ctne.nell, eu-
tions
Same v. Same, do
Mao y. Agaanit
Macdougall t. Pardh,
Bartlett e. tallazd
Wragg V. Hall

Duri.CcM v. Appold,
Judgment
Green v. Ward, do.
Fort v. Clarke, exeep.
lion*, further direc-
tions, judgment
Williams v. Walton

Urewrey T. Borges

LAW INTELLICii*CE.

COURT Of CHANCERY, JULY 15.
CIAWSHAY V. COLLINS.
The Loan CHANCELLOR went through all the particulars °fail
ecs: viday, with • view to decide the doctrines of law applying ton;
and, from the cireumstancesof it, came to the result that it was to be
outside, ed a continuing partnership. One of the parties in this
case, a Mr. Noble, became a bankrupt, which, of course, dissolved
the partnership. Accounts were not immediately taken ; but in abut
• year after the bankruptcy, Mr. Collins, the continuing partner,
said he was willing to close the accounts, taking the bankrupt.;
share in the profits to cease at the time the bankruptcy happeuel
The assignees would not consent to that, but insisted on banns
profits up to the time of taking the accounts, namely, during ,be
rear after the bankruptcy. Mr. Collins then said, the Courts(
Chancery should set,le it. It has now been here for abort tzsca
ly
years. It appeared that if the accounts had been taken when the
bankruptcy happened, ants all demands due to the partnership from
Mr. Noble had been paid, there would have been a win wharf
been paid to him ; and whether that had been so or not, the, as
was, that a continuing partner should not have the libeity to 'can,
on a trade with a retiring partner's property, and then refuse tow.
count for tie profits. n was to be looked upon as Mr. Colasis
misfortune that lie had refused to account for the profits, as the 's.
signers at first desired, because the Court could now see no paw
at which the taking of the accounts could be ordered to stop illOrt
af
the presenkmoment. The Court would, therefore, hear on Wed.
nesday, at, claims Mr. Collins might be advised to make for jo:
allowance, on the ground of additional money advanced, personal
labour, &c. This trade was carried on in this case for a considers.
ble time after the bankruptcy had happened, and subsequently, I
large sum of money was ordered to be paid into Court. His Lord.
ship desired, in the strongest terms lie could utter, to impress on
the minds of all commercial men, entering into partnerships, the
very great and imperative necessity of having it distinctly stated is
writing how the partnerships were to he wound up at the thasolu.
lion, by whatever event the dissolution might happen.

IN RE `4IR 0. P. TURNER.
Nlr. P/II L L Mon E applied, on die /part of Sir Henry Dryden,
who had been appointed one of the Committsigs of the estate aid
person of the lunatic, for a confirmation of tbrr Minter's .report,
pronounced so long ago as December last.
Previous to the trial of thr traverse, Mr. Corbett had lodged I
caveat against all proceedings uotil the question was decided. The
trial having now taken place. Sir H. Dryden was desirous of re.
leasing the lunatic from his unpleasant situation. It was theretort
prayed that the Master's report be confirmed.
31r. Il EAL appeared-and consented, and the prayer of the pc:
tion was allowed.,
The judgment in Brown v. De Taste was postponed until l'ut.
nesday, It being understood that nothing more should be said :f
Counsel on either side.

THE MARQUIS OF BCTE.V. CENINGHAME.
The LORD CHANCELLOR expressed a decided opinion in this ai.•
peal. that the annuity of 60W. ought to be paid out of the renis mt
profits of the cutleries ; and dismissed the appeal.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Jr;Ll' 13.

PADDLEH CILST AND HOL ME a•. THOMPSON AND WIPP.
The parties in this cause are executors to the will of the late W.
ham !lane, a cotton manufacturer, of Rochdale, in Lancashire.
It appeared that the testator made a will upon his marriage, t.
which he left to his wife, one of the present plaintiffs, the sum c:
6,1000/„ and to his sister, the wife of Thompson, his clerk and ter.
nager, 3,11001., with other advantages fro:u the disposition of the
residue of his property—appointing a 31r. Saddlehurst, lir..
Holine, his wife, and Thompson, his brother-in-law, executers
the will. On the day before his death he, however, added a asf .
cil to that will, by which he revoked the gift of 6.0001. or his Lie.
and bequeathed her 10,000/. absolutely, with 10,0001. more to h
held by sureties for her benefit, and a power to leave it at her dot',
to any member of tl.e liolme family she pleased. This codicil .A
regularly read after the funeral in the presence of the Tlionipsen,
but had never since been found ; and it was now alleged that oil
Thompson' had destroyed it, in consequence of its being prija.
dal to their expectations. It was further alleged, that they sad
opposed, by every means in their power,the proof of the will or code.
eil in the Ecclesiastical Court ; and that Thompson had, in ha
character of one of the executors of the will, retained possession of
all the property, in opposition to the equal right of the widow oad
Saddlehurst, the other executors ; that he had injured that pro.
perty considerably, by stopping the working of the cotton-mill,
which formed the greater proportion of its value ; and that he he,
in various other ways, shown a disposition to exercise his emboli !
in defiance of the other executors, and to the very great preju.!ice ci
the mitate.

111 r. fl EALD now appeared for the plaintiff* ; and, after wading
several affidavits in support of the claim of the widow, and in prom
of the opposition of Thompson, moved his Honour to reetzair
Thompson from any further control over the property, and to sp.
point a Receiver, to take the management hnd receive the dell'
and profits, until probate hail been regularly obtained upon the will
of the testator.

Mr. AGAR, for the defendants, opposed this application. ad
contended that Thompson had been received by his brother•in.ias•
as a partner, more than a year befitre his death, and, that beth ;:t
his capacity of surviving partner and of executor, he was ju,tit:Cl
in taking whatever
...steps, with regned to the property, be nl;.:t,:
tinsmithr most advantageous. He denied that the testator was is
sound mind when he made the codicil in question, and asserted ha
client's determination to oppose that part of the testator's die*.
tion ; but declared that lie now was, and always had been, wiling
to join with the other executors in taking out probate upon the will
itself. The Learned Counsel at the same time suggested, that it
was not usual in such a case for that Court to interfere, by appoint•
ing a receiver, when the executor was managing the property 10
the beat advantage. Several affidavits were read in support of Unit
statements; but
The VICE-CHANCELLon considered the proof as completely on
the other aide, and that, while Thompson had failed to prove
self a partner, he was not at liberty to act in defiance of the other
executors. fle, therefore, pronounced an order for the appointment
of a receiver; allowing Mr. Thompson to offer himself as a fit and
proper person fur that office.
In the case of Mackey r. Robertson, which involves a question()
piracy, with respect to a magazine, the parties obtained leave to pu
off any further proceedings until the next Seal. Affidavits in the
mean time to be furnished to the plaintiff; and the publication of the
piratical work to be tliKontinueil.
. ,

MEETINGS OF CREDITORS.
LONDON LlST.—[Prom the London Gezette.l

AT TeX COVET OF COMUISSIONURS OP OASIVSUFTS, SILSINCIPALL.
STROUT, 04 WU/MUSE/AY S*XT. a.
Ainsworth, E., Rochdale. woollen-manufacturer (petit. cr. costal a
Brinley, J. S. llWhits-lane, ship-broker (lease of house) II
Ilivhop, E., Sheerness, banker (sell furniture)._ ...... ..... II
Strombom, T., Austin-Man., merchant (bankrupt's • Is
Williams, T., Nest Smithfield and Union-street, cutler (sell lease.)
COUNTRY LIST.

Bertlett, J., Hove, Sussex., builder, at New Inn, Brighton (lA, ati .
Burton, J. and 31., Charletworth, eot.-spin. Mr. Lon:Wale's, liana..v.

. . .
11
ter (sell machine)
Cavenagh and Co., Bath, banker., Bush, Bristol (proof of debts)
Cooke, G. E. Jenin-street, London, jeweller, Union, Birmln. ;Ist ea ) 4
Crossley, J. Stockport, provit..orercht.' Stnr, Neachester (Ist es., .!
Macben, W. Brighton, stable keeper, New Inn, Brighton (sp. J.' •1;
Osborn and Cu., Northampton, bankers, Gulldboll, Northamp, (dir 1 I,

BIRTHS.
On the 13th inst., at Nottingham, the lady of Colonel Sherlock
of a son.
At Bonehill, in Staffordshire, on Thursday last, ladv hre
Peel, of a daughter.
At Denham, on the 13th inst., the lady of the Rev. John Light.
foot, of a daughter.

MARRIED.
On the 14th inst.. at the church of St. Andrew's, MIN)"
Liam DAVIN. Esq. of East Chickerell, in Dorsetshire, to Ehaabedl,
the daughter of Anthony Robinson, Esq. of Dation.

OWED.
On the 13th inst., at Oakley, in Staffirnishire, Early Het
Cnetwode,,eldestaiaser to the Earl of Stamford and Warrington. ,
On Saturday, at ;Wareham-le-Fen, 111 r. James Roberts, ogt“
74. ale. R. was, we believe, the last survivor of those *ho tr•
eampanied Captain Cook in his firsti

'alitLiacToeN.,, No. 181