The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1820-12-12 00:00:00

DENOLEY V. PINNOCK AND MAUNDER.

--..---- .
Mr. WETHERELL stated this was u minion on
lhe part of the Defeodstits to dissolve the injunc-
tion thetas on their answer being put in. and

that his Lordship's order, appointing It receiver and
manager, ought to be discharged. It would be in
his Lordship's recollection this was the ease of the
Defendant., respectable booksellers in the Strand,
who had takes; the Plaintiff ea a partner into their
buoitirss, and when his Lordship was applied to fur
the injunction, he was told that they were persons
concerned in transactions of es bad a nature as that
of Coles and Golpin. and they were from that
Court given nut to the world as such. It was
therefore necessary, on account of his clients'
characters having been so attacked, to go more at
length into the facts of the case than it would be
otherwise necessary. The of jest of the motion
certainly was, to get rid of the injunction and the
order for the receiver, and this lie would prove to
the Court he was entitled to by the articles of part-
nership, executed hetween the Plaintiff and Defen-
dents. He had read over all the affidavit., and
he could not had any breach of the articles of
partnership on the part of the Defendants, which
could be construed as ►uch in equity er in law,
but before he called his Lordship's attention to the
deed, be moat mention another imputation against
the Defendants, not that they had ill-managed
the partnership concern, bat that they had used
the name of the firm of the partnership for the
purpose of raising money. and afterwards putting
it to their own use : this charge he would he
fully able to refute. The Defendants had
been booksellers at Newbury, in Berkshire, one
of them was also • printer. and the other was •
partner in the Newbury bank with his brother,
which was robbed of notes to a considerable amount,
an extent in aid was issued by Government, which
at fii.t affected one of the Defendants. and ulti-
mately them both, and • commission of bankruptcy
issued against them, which was afterwards super-
seded, on which they came to London and establish.
ed themselves as booksellers in the Strand, but
although the commission was superseded. the
firm still remained indebted to their creditors.
and in tl►is state of circumstances they be-
came acquainted with the Plaintiff, who was
a printer. in Bolt-court, Fleet-street, who pro-
posed to become a partner with the Defendants, he
knowing that they were compelled to come to Lon-
don ou account of the commission issuing against
them at Newbury ; he knowing that they had
not 20/. available money ; he knowing that
their debts amounted to between 7 and 8,0001.;
yet knowing all this he urged them to let hum be•
come their partner; he was not misled by them, but
inviting and not invited he became one of the
firm. According to the articles of partnersh►p the
Plaintiff became a partner of the Defendants in
Christmas, 1817, although the articles were not
executed until the March following. By the bill
of the Plaintiff the Defendants were charged with
raising 4,0001. for the purposes of the business, and
of giving bills and notes in the names of the copart-
nership; and if they did so, he would contend they
had the right, and if an action was brought on the
covenant of the deed of copartnership, he would
defend et ; for the deed of partnership stated the
capital of the Defendants, and how much each
partner was to bring into the firm, and how the
old debts of the Defendants were to be paid off.—
One of the charges in the affidavit of the Plaintiff
was. that the Defendants had taken 4,0001. of the
funds of the new fir► to pay off the debts of the
old firm. If his Lordship would look at the deed
of copartnership, he would see with what justice this
charge was made. It recited the estimate of the value
of the stock of the Defendants; their copyrights were
valued at 3,0001., the good-will of their busitiess
1,0001., their stock 5,0001.; which, with debts
owing to them. u►ade the whole 12,000/. end up-
wards. The old firm was indebted in 7,5001., which
left a balance to the Defendatits on their stock of
4,700/. which was to be brought into the new
firm, not sat the shape of money. for iii money
the Defendants had not a single guinea; but
it was in the remains of the stock of the uld
firm, at cording to the deed of partnership en.
tered into by the Defendants with the Plain-
tiff, their capital was to be 7,0001. the De-
fendants' surplus of the assets of the old firm
4 700/. the Plaintiff to advance the sum of 2,3791.
and also to lend to the new firm 4,0001. on bond,
to be repaid, bearing interest at five per cent. It
was covruated the the Plaintiff should not inter•

6i. (2, ~•

kh=ii

0..~:.~...~