The Sun.
London, England, 1838-12-07 00:00:00

GEENLAW V. KING.

Mr. PEMBERTON in this case yesterday moved on behalf
of the plaintiff that Archdeacon Walker King, the defe idant,
might be ordered to leave with the clerk in Court certain
deeds and documents admitted by him in his answer to be
in his possession.
It appears the suit was instituted by the Rector of
Woolwich, against Archdeacon King, the son of the late
Bishop of Rochester, to have it declared that a certain
security was either void or satisfied. The transac-
tion was this, that for the purpose of raising monies
under an Act of Parliament, to improve the Rectory
House at Woolwich, an annuity on the authority of
that Act, was to be granted under the superintendence,
and with the consent of the Bishop of Rochester. The an-
nuity was granted to a nominee of the Bishop himself, and
the Bishop himself advanced the money. During the incum-
bency which then existed this transaction was not completed,
but upon a new Incumbent being appointed, the present
bill was filed to impeach that transaction. As to some of
the papers, for the production, of which the present motion
was made, there was no dispute. The dispute arose on two
classes of documents. It appeared the Bishop of Roches-
ter, who had procured the annuity to be granted to his own
nominee, about the year 1820, had a correspondence with
Mr. Leigh, his solicitor, with reference to the
the validity of the transaction, and a case was drawn
up for the opinion of Counsel. In the year 1823 he
caused the annuity which was vested in his own nominee
as trustee, to be transferred to the defendant, who therefore
from the year 1823 by gift of the Bishop was the owner of
the annuity. The Bishop died in 1827. The correspon-
dence which was conducted between the Bishop and his
solicitor, and the case laid before counsel, by some means
or other not explained, got into the possession of
the present defendant, and it was in respect of those docu-
ments so in his possession that one part of the question
arose. The other documents which were the subject of dis-
cussion consisted of a correspondence that had taken place
since the dispute arose between the defendant and the so-
licitor of the late Bishop, but who was not the solicitor of
the defendant. The objection raised to their production
was, that they were confidential communications which
ought to be protected from discovery.
Mr. RICHARDS and Mr. HEBERDEN were this morning
heard in opposition to the motion, and
Mr. PEMBERTON having replied,
Lord LANGDALE delivered judgment. There could be
no doubt the general rule of the Court was, that the
plaintiff had a right to know whatever the defendant knew
with regard to the matter in question, and that was the
object of discovery in this case. The defendant,
by filing a cross bill, had a right to know every-
thing which the plaintiff knew in relation to the
matters in question, and which might be material to the
defence of the defendant. Tee great distinction between
Courts of Equity and other Courts was this, that in Courts
of Equity you could apply to the conscience of the party,
and obtain by that means information that could not be ob-
tained except by the examination of witnesses, and to ex-
tend the protection to discovering further than was necessary
would cripple the jurisdiction of this Court in the most
important particular. There were exceptions to the general
rule for discovery. One exception was communicating
what might have arisen from the confidential relation of
the parties. A solicitor might not be bound to disclose
certain matters of fact which had came to his knowledge in
the character of solicitor, and yet the client might be
bound to disclose those same facts. It had been
sufficiently decided that if the knowledge of the
client was obtained by means of the solicitor there
might be :a protection in that case. In this case
the knowledge obtained by the defendant, had
not come to him through his solicitor. Those documents
first mentioned must therefore be produced. With respect
to the others, they were communications which had taken
place between the defendant and Mr. Lee, not in the cha-
racter of solicitor ; and it could not be said that a commu-
nication made to a mere friend was of such a confidential
nature, that it ought not to be disclosed. On the whole,
his Lordship was of opinion there must he a production of
those papers that consisted of the correspondence between
Mr. Lee and the Bishop in the lifetime of the Bishop in
1820 ; and also a production of those papers that consisted
of a correspondence between the defendant himself and
Mr. Lee, as agent, and not as solicitor.