The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1820-12-13 00:00:00

BENSLEY V. PINNOCK AND MAUNDER.

Mr. WETHERELL resumed his motion of yester-
day, to dissolve the injunction which had been
granted in this case. 1t haul beet) sworn by the
Plaintiff that the Defendants took between 4 and
5,0001. or.t of the Hew copartnership, to pay nit the
tklito of the old one, and it was not deified, for it

wee sworn that it was not only done with the privity
of the Plaintiff, I►ut that his was the very hand who
paid it to Messrs. Tipper and Fry. The old co- •
partnership was indebted to that firm in the sum of
54001., a negociation took place between them
and die new copartnership, and they agreed to re.
duce their demand to 4,2001., which was to be paid
by installments by the new copartnership, and the
Plaintiff paid the first instalment of 1,5001. to them
before the articles of partnership were signed by
I • and the Defendants. He would ask, then,
bow was third new fact, just come to the knowledge
of the Plaintiff before he filed his bill, when it
was an arrangement made with Ins knowledge before
lie signed the articles of partnership? Besides. it
was en arrangement in which he was benefited by
reducing the debt of Tipper and Fry from 5,200/.
to 4,200/. It was not denied by the Defendants
that the 4,C001. brought into the concern by the
Plaintiff went to pay this debt, but that it was his .
own act, and the most valuable way of laying out
the 4.000/. of the Plaintiff, as the firm gained in-
stanter 1,0001. lie wished then to know by what
invention this'e4se of the Defendants was assimilated
to that of Coles and Goipits ; and on this very
point be would stand. although it was the main
!must that the injunction was obtained on. All the
pinning of the copartnership was to be done by the
Plaintiff for his own profit, there was a list of the
copyrights belonging to the Defendants in the deed
of partnership, and there was also a covenant in it
which provided for the extension of their stock.
and its shoot a year after the partnership the num-
ber of books sold and circulated by the firm was
double the number it was when the partnership was
entered into.

The Loaf) CUANCELLOI—.44 I see by the deed

•

.uii

• .

of partnership that the dad! of the old partnership
Were grcater than the debts due to it ; can you ea.
plain then what was to pay off the balance?"
Mr. WettlEßELt. said, that what was thrown nut
by his Lordship was his case, as it was the bargain
made by the Plaintiff that the money he I gut
into the firm was to go for that pnrpose, as the new
concern could not properly !snitch until the debts
of the old concern were paid off. As the Defend-
ants' share was only dead stock, bring the surplus
of the stock of the old concern, it could not he
made available for the purpose of paying off the
debts of the old firm. The Plaintiff could not be
ignorant of the increased expense of the firm, its
their books were printed by his presses. in Bolt-
coml. In June, 1819, the printing-offi.!e of the
Plaintiff was burned down, but he was fortunate
enough to hare his stork insured to its full value,
to the amount of 30,0001.. which was paid hint by
the insurance offices. Part of the stock of the
firm of the copartnership was in the warehouse of
the Plaintiff. to the amount of 1.z21101., which was
mounted by the fire, and the Plaintiff refused to
give them one shilling for it, although he had re-
ceived 30,000% from the insurance offices, and
answered their demand by a taunt—" Why they
were such fools as not to be insured as well us him."
It was alleged by the Plaintiff that the Defendants
had drawn more money out of the concern for their
own use than they were entitled to by the deed of
copartnership; hut this charge vanished like the
rest the moment the Defendants' answer was put
in. It appeared on the face of the deed that the
Defendants were to have 1001, per annum rash
as the managers of the business, and IV%
per annum each for their maintenance. Theo
how (lid the fact turn out ? The Defendant,
Maunder, who was a married man, had drawn
somethitig more than his yearly allowance from the
concern; and the Defendant, Pintiock, who wi,s not
a married man. had not drawn to the ammuit of
his allowance, and what both had drawn token to-
gether would riot amount to the sum they were
entitled to draw annually from the concern. It
was charged that they (the Defendants) had raised
money on the credit of the firm, and that they
had negotiated accommodation bills. Toe lat-
ter part of the charge was denied by the De-
fendants, but the former was admitted, sod lie
(the Learned Counsel) contended they had si right
to do so; for, after the Plaintiff's printing conceri,
was destroyed by fire, he ceased to be Benoler the
printer, of Holt-court, and he Itecaine Hensley,
Esq. of Clampliain Rise; and not expecting to
make soy more profit by printing the books of the
firm, he refused the Deliaitlitios to advance them
any motley. Were they then to give up their hose
ness, which was in a flourishing state, even by the
acksioadedgment of the Plaintiff, who admitted
that their capital in stock had increased to the
amount of 4.0001. in less than three years, for want
of money when they could raise it ? Several moat
respectable stationers came to their aid, and ad-
vanced them 4,0004 and it was their duty to have
accepted it when there was a provision in the arti-
cles of copartnership, for the purpose of extending
their capital ; but he would take it nn another way,
and take it as a matter of doubt, whether the De-
retainable could raise money without the coneviit of
the Plaintiff, would his Lordship allow the Plain-
tiff to go on with the Defendants in this con-
cern while he was benefited by the printing
of it, and then, when he had given up that
trad?, to say he would go no further ? Ile sub-
mitted to the Court that as to the coostruction of
the covenant', of the deed of copartnership, the De-
feutlants had the right to raise the money without
tile consent of the Plaintiff, or without consulting
him. He admitted that be hid met with no case
in equity similar to the present, where a copartner
was allowed to say that capital is necessary to be
raised on recount of the extension of buainess, hut
he would not allow it to be raised. 'the Plain-
tiff had undertaken to swear that he believed tne
Defendants were not solvent. in answer to which
tiny had sworn that before this application of the
Plaintiff's to the Court they were not only solvent,
but that their business was in a most flourishing
state ; the Homey that had been advanced to them
by Messrs. Kaye and Co. and other stationers were
given to them on a luau for twelve months, and by
the returns of their trade they would have been
able to have raid double the sum by the time it be-
came due. It was out these grounds he asked leis
Lordship for the discharge of the orders he had
granted against the Defendants.
Mr. ILRT, Counsel fur the Plaintiff, said it
never was the wish of his client to injure the De-
fendants. if they were in the opulent circumstances
that had been stated by their Learned Counsel,
and were ready to give the Plaintiff security for the
ney lie had embarked in the concern ; and
against his liability for the outstanding debts of the
firm, he was ready to meet them. and was willing
to go no further with the proceedings in that Court.
Mr. ‘VETNERELL said, such a proposal, made at
such a time, was only •dding insult to oppression.
Mr. SUGDEN was heard oil the same side as Mr.
AVetherell.
Mr. IVII.BRAHAM followed on the same side, and
was heard in part.
The Loan CHANcET.I.oIt observed it was four
o'clock, and he was obliged to rise, but directed
that the motion should be proceeded in to-morrow
(this day).
_ _

COURT OF KING'S BENCH. Werrmixrrts,
TUVIDAY, DIRIBMIMIL 11.

Before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE and a
.Special Ju►y.

Tug KING V. JENNINGS.

This was au indictment for perjury alleged to
have been committed by the Defendant in his an-
swer to a hill filed against him in the Court of Ex-
chequer, by Mr. William White. On comparing
the indictment with the lIIIIMer of the Defendant in
the Exchequer, a bliglit variation was di.cuvered,
on which the Jury, under the direction of his Lord.
ship, acquitted the Defendant.