The Sun.
London, England, 1852-12-09 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY.—DEc. 8.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)
TALBOT V. DORMER.

There were two petitions in this matter, the question
being the appointment of a guardian of the Earl of
Shrewsbury, who has just succeeded to the title and
estates, and who is in his twentieth year.
Mr. Bethell, when the petition was called, made an
earnest request that the case might be heard in his lord-
ship's private room. There were many family matters
involved in the discussion that must necessarily ensue,
which ought not to be made public, as such publicity
could produce no useful result, and would inflict much
pain on the feelings pf this young nobleman's connec-
tions.

His Lordship remarked that the Court was an open
one, and in the ordinary sense all its proceedings were
public, but there was a discretion to be exercised as to a
private hearing, where, as it was now represented, there
were matters to be introduced that would unnecessarily
wound the feelings of the relatives of the parties. That
discretion was, however, governed by this fact, that the
application for a private hearing must have the consent
of both sides, for the Court could not hear a case in pri-
vate at the request of one party if the other party wished
the hearing to be public.
The Solicitor-General, on the part of the mother of
Lord Shrewsbury, opposed the application of his learned
friend for a private hearing. He had looked through
the petition and the documents connected with it, and
he saw nothing in them that might not go before the
public if the discussion of the case required it.
Mr. Bethell regretted this opposition. There were a
number of letters written by this young man which
must be read, and they contained observations on dif-
ferent members of his family that ought not to be made
public.

- His Lordship, after that statement, which he took on
the authority of the learned counsel, asked the Solicitor-
General if he persisted in his demand for a hearing in
public ?
___

- The Solicitor-General was not disposed to insist on a
public hearing. He had merely opposed a private one
lest it should be supposed there was anything on the
part of the mother of the young earl that might not be
subjected to the most public discussion, but, in compli;
ance with his lordship's intimation, he was now willing
to accept a private hearing.
His Lordship remarked that the Solicitor-General had
heard the grounds stated by the other side. It was on
them, given on the authority of the learned counsel,
that the court was disposed to accede to the request.
His Lordship then retired, and was followed by the
Solicitor-General, Sir W. P. Wood, Mr. Bethell, Mr.
Malins, Mr. Bagshaw, Mr. Shee, and several other
counsel retained for the two petitions.

(Before the Master of the Rolls.)
IN RE HILL-LIABILITY.
Mr. R. Palmer applied on motion to the Court, to
take the name of Mr. Hill out of the list of contribu-
tories to an unsuccessful scheme for a joint-stock com-
pany, called the British and Foreign Gas Company,
which had its shares advertised and in the Share Market
in 1848, when Mr. Hill applied for shares, and received
an allotment often, upon which he paid deposits of 401.,
101., and 51. He had not signed the deed or Parlia-
mentary contract, though his clerk had for him. This,
it was alleged by Mr. Hill, the clerk had no authority to
do. The case had been, upon a reference to the Master,
considered conclusive against Mr. Hill, and he was re-
ported by the Master to be a contributor to the scheme,
and consequently liable to the debts of the company,
which was, in 1850, found incapable of going on. The
application was founded upon the non-liability of Hill,
inasmuch as he had never signed the deed, and there
was, therefore, no contract between him and the
company.
Mr, Daniels opposed the motion, stating that Hill had
not only paid three instalments or deposits upon these
shares on which dividends had been declared, but had
actually continued to pay deposits after he had been in-
formed that his clerk had signed the Parliamentary deed
for him.

The Master of the Rolls concurred in the latter opi-
nion, and decided that Mr. Hill had been properly put
by the Master amongst the list of contributories. His
acquiescence was fully proved, and the motion must be
dismissed with costs.