The Sun.
London, England, 1831-05-31 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR S CO UR T, MAY 30.
ARIGNA MINING COMPANY..--lIITCHENS V. CONGREVE.

The object of the present suit on behalf of the Arigna
Mining Company, was the restriction of the sum of
15,000/., the excess which had been paid by them to Sir
William Congreve and two gentlemen of the name of
Clarke, for mines which had been bought from a Mr.
Flattery. The case has taken several days in argument,
and this morning his Honour, after hearing some of the
Counsel for different defendants, proceeded to give
judgment without calling upon the Solicitor-General to
reply. It appeared that a Mr. Flattery was in pos-
session of the Arigna mines, and that Sir William
Congreve and two gentlemen of the name of Clarke
negotiated with him for the sale of that interest for
10,000/. After Sir Win. Congreve and the two Clarkes
became possessed of this property, they agreed among them-
selves, to form a Company, to be called the Arigna Mining
Company, for the purpose of working these mines ; and
they held out to the persons who were to form the Com..
pany, that the interest which they were in possession of in
the mines should be purchased by the Company for
25,000/, 10,000/. of which was to be paid to Mr.
Flattery, and the 15,0001. was to be a sort of bonus or pro-
fit to Sir W. Congreve and the Messrs. Clarkes, for giving
up their interest in the property ; and the objection to the
transaction was, that Sir Wm, Congreve and the Messrs.
Clarkes bad never developed to the persons who were to
form the Company what the transaction really was; and
that every proceeding had beets taken which could possibly
keep them in the dark upon the subject. It appeared to
his Honour, looking at all the proceedings which h id taken
place, and the cheques that had been given, utterly vain
for Sir Wm. Congreve and the Messrs. C'arke to sup-
pose that the large sum which they had taken to'
themselves was to be considered as property which
they were entitled to ; and it was equally clear to
the mind of the Court, that persons forming a society ,!
could not deal with the funds and make the repro_
sentations which these gentlemen had done. But there
was a sort of technical objection raised to the relief in this
case, becm•e it was said the property was worth 25,000/.
The Court considered that quite immaterial, because the
question was what suns was held out to the Company as •
the sum actually paid. No person could doubt that great
misrepresentation had been made in this case, and the per-
sons making such misrepresentation must, in the opinion
of the Court, make good the consequences of it. Under
these circumstances the Court was of opinion, that a decree,
must be directed to be
Clarke and Sir Wrn. Congreve
were liable to pay the whole sum of 15,0001.
such
made,a evsidaasr i nagsk biNyl e stsbres Bill,
f

7 ------- ---
At Beaurnaris election the Earl of UXB RIDGE
repeatedly spoke of his Noble Father in terms of warm
affection. " Lord ANcLascA," said he, "is deeply
anxious that his brother should be returned for the Car-
narvonshire boroughs, because it will be for the public
good. Lord ANGLESEA, Gentlemen, I can assure you, is
no boroughtnonger ; if he had twenty borouAs, he would
most gladly lay them on the altar of his country." It is
needless to speak of the enthusiasm with which such de-
clarations were received.— Carnaro7l Herald.