The Sun.
London, England, 1825-07-27 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JULY 26.
STEAD V. POLE AND OTHERS.
This was a motion for the production of certain letters and
papers, which the defendants had been directed to give in, re-
lative to some mercantile transactions between the parties in
Norway. The defendants (Sir Peter Pole, Peter Free, Edward
Down, John Scott, John Everth, and C. I. Gerss, bankers)put
in the letters, the chief part of which were sealed up, except.the
beginning, " Dear Sir," and the end, " Your humble servant."
The object of the plaintiff was to obtain an affidavit that nothing
wits concealed in these sealed letters which -related to thernatters
in dispute between the parties. The case was partly heard on
the 17th of last month, when some animadversions passed upon
the affidavit which had proceeded from Mr. Down, instead of
Mr. Free, tie, person who had been principally engaged in the
transactions. The Court directed the matter to stand over, in
order that a more satisfactory affidavit might be produced.
31r. KNIGHT, for the plaintiff, was about tore-open the case,
when

.Mr. PEPYS, for the defendant, interposed, observing, that
he might save the time of the Court by stating, that since the
motion had been made, the other party had amended the bill
to the extent of 743 folios,-in addition to 1,000 -a which it con-
sisted: The matter which had been added was of comprehen-
sive a character, that tile defendants conceived they should' be
obliged to produce the whole ,a the letters, instead of parts
of them, as they formerly believed would have been sufficient.
Mr. KNIGHT insisted that an affidavit, should accompany
the papers, distinctly declaring that the letters produced were
the whole of those which had been concealed. Great incaution,
to say no more, had been discovered in swearing in this case.'
Not only parts, but entire letters had been concealed ; and as.
great difficulties had been thrown in the plaintiff's way, ,he
trusted that the Court would direct these letters to be.left in the
hands of the defendant's clerk, in Court. After this conceal-
ment, which had been at variance with Mr. Down's oath, the
defendants ought to he required to-swear that the..letters pro-
duced were the identical letters, and the whole of them which
had been concealed. The defendants should also pay the costs
of the application.
Mr. PEpYs thottght, that after the statement he had made,
his Learned Friend's remarks might have been spared. The
facts, -which lie was now obliged to state, were these—the let-
ters were in bundles, which the defendants had not time to look
through, though their solicitor had done so. When the letters
were examined, it was found that there were several which did
not refer to the matter of the suit ; so that instead of having
less, the plaintiff had more than he required. The defendants
have no wish now to conceal the letters ; and was it necessary
that they should part with them ? As to .an affidavit, it was
the first time he (Mr. Pepys) had heard of such an application.
The schedule showed what the documents were; an affidavit
was therefore suplarfluous. With respect to costs, there was no
pretence for asking them. It was to prevent these repeated ap-
plications, that the defendants consented to adopt their present
course.

The. LORD CDANCELLOR.—Suppose you deposit the papers
with some third person.
Mr. PEPYS—They are now deposited with Messrs. Knight
and Fystm, the solicitors, where they. may be seen at any
time.

The Lottn CHANCELLOR—..I think you may try them
upon that, Mr. Knight.
111 r. KN mire observed, that he would not press this matter
but for some peculiar circumstances in this case.
Mr:PEPTS here remarked, that as the object of the plaintiff'
had been gained, there was no need of going 'further into the
subject.
Mr. KNIGHT, 110WeIrk.T continued.--The affidavit of Mr.
Down was made on the 3d of February, • and , no person was
allowed to inspect the papers until the 25th; nearly three weeks
after ; and non collated some concealment might not have taken
place in the interval.

PEPYS then offered any affidavit the plaintiff'desired.
Mr.,KNIGIIT wished to have the affidavits of all the de-
fendants.

Mr. PEPYS—This is the very object of the other side;
they wAnt to make all these defendants read the whole of the
papers.
Mr. KNIGHT—I acknowledge that is my object, in order
that they may know to
.what they swear; and I am besides
convinced, that if these respectable gentlemen did know the
real circumstances of the case, the cause would be at an end.

Mr. PEPYS offered the affidavit of the person who covered
the concea'ed Parts of the paperS.
'The Lotto .CIIANCELLOR (to Mr. Knight)—l think you
should be satisfied. with thLt for the present. I shall hear from
you again, perhaps.
fUr. PF.PYS then applied for further time to answer the
amended bill, .offering to put in answer a month before Mi-
chaelmas tent). •

Mr. KNIGHT objected. A former application to the same
effect had been made, and was granted only conditionally. The
situation of Mr. Stead was extremely cruel. lie had given
bail in certain actions brought against him by the. defendants
to amount of 6,000/., which prevented him from going to
Norway to lodk after Ins affitirs : at the same time the defen-
dants, as it had been -sworti,- had possessed themselves of pro.
perty of the plaintiff to the amount of 7,0001. The Court ought
to discharge the bail, and allow Mr. Stead to depart, since the
defendants had really got more than they were entitled to.
The Lola) CHANcELLOn.—You cannot go to trial till
Michaelmas Term; if they do not put in their answer before
then 1 will discharge the•bail, but I cannot do it now.