The Sun.
London, England, 1831-04-04 00:00:00

ORDER ON THE DAY,

Coleraine Election Petition—Ballot for Committee at three.
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6.20, ORDER OF THE DAY.
Stage Coaches Bill—Second reading.
THURSDAY, APRIL '2I.—NOTICES OF MOTIONS.
1. Mr. More OTerrall—Bill to empower landed Proprietors in
Ireland to sink, embank, and remove obstructions in
Rivers.
2. Mr. Alderman Wood—That a reduction be forthwith made
in the Salaries of all the Officers of the Government.
commensurate with the increase made to them during the
War, in consequence of the high prices of provisions and
the necessaries of life.
3. Mr. Sibthorpe—Return of all Absentees who have received
Passports in the United Kingdom to any Foreign Country
(except such as have embarked on Diplomatic Missions)
during the ♦ears 1820, 1827, 1828, 182'0, and 1830 inclu-
sive, specifying the period of absence in each Country,
and period of return.
ORDERS OF THE DAV.

1. Knaresborough Election Petition—Ballot for Committee at
three.
Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill—Second rea.ting.
FRIDAY, APRIL 22, ORDERS OF THE DAY.
1. Reform of Parliament (Scot Land) 11111—Second reading.
Evesham Disfranchisement Bill—Second reading; Witnesses
to attend.
MONDAY, APRIL 15, ORDER OF THE DAY,
Game Laws Bill—Second reading.
TUESDAY, APRIL 26, NOTICES OF moTIONS.
.

I. Mr, Slaney—Select Committee, to consider the necessity of se-
curing open spaces in the immed,ate vicinity of large and
administration classes.
the Poor
o
populous towns, fitted to preserve health, and afliird means
m r
.ohzeeirrnc—i
ts
Sadler—Bill
fe
gtolririeciu mlti middlinglabouring,uiro.,,iidnigsattnrihdcetsao
dmfEngland.
3. Sir John Newport-13111 to amend Act 17 and 18 Car. 2, c. 7
[lrish Act], for provision of Ministers in Cities and Cor-
porate Towns, so far as to limit the tune of recovery of
Arrears to three years.
THURSDAY, APitIL 28, NOTICES OP :,10TIONS.
I. Mr. Curteis—Bill to repeal the Duty on Malt.
2. Sir John Newiort—Bill to prohibit plurality of Livings, and
Benefices held in commentiam with Bishoprics.
TUESDAY, MAY 3, NOTICES OF MOTIONS.
1. Mr. Gisborne—Bill to repeal Act 7 Geo. 4, c. 6, commonly
called the Small Note Act; also, 9 Geo. 4, c. 65, to re-
. strain circulation of Scotch and Irish Notes under 5/. in
England.
.2 Mr. Shaw—To present Petition from the Master of the Rolls
• of Ireland.
3, Mr. Shaw—Returns relative to a Right claimed by the Master
of the Rolls, Ireland, of appointing his own Secretary.
Also, for certain Returns connected with the High Court
of Chancery in Ireland, with a view to the reform of
abuses and defects therein existing.
TIf.URSDAY, MAY 5 NOTICE. OF MOTION.
Mr. Frankland Lewis—ltcsolutioos respecting Savings' Banks.
ORDER OF THE DAY.
Settlement by Apprenticeship Bill—Second reading.
MONDAY, MAY 9.
Last Day for receiving Reports of Private Bills.
TUESDAY, MAY 10, NOTICE OF MOTION.
Mr. O'Brien—Resolutions in favour of a provision for the Ro-
man Catholic Clergy in Ireland.
THURSDAY, MAY 12, Nonce OF MOTION.
Mr. Wolryche Whitmore—Resolutions respecting the China
Trade.

TUESDAY, MAY 17, NOTICE OF sioTloN•
Sir Henry Parnell—Reolutions on the management of the
Collection and Expenditure of the Public Money.

NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR Wii;CH NO PARTICULAR DAYS
HAVE BEEN FIXED.
Mr. Spence—To move Resolutions—That it iS expedient that
the Records of all proceedings in the Court of Chancery
should be kept in one certain
place—That it is expedient to
simplify the practice of the Court
of chaneery,..and to re-

due c It to a known and certain system—To alter the form
and simplify the mode of issuing process in the Court of
Chancery—To facilitate the taking of Answers and Pleas,
particularly in Country Causes and the swearing of Affi-
davits—To provide for the more effectual taking of Evi-
dence in the Court of Chancery—Co abolish unnecessary
recitals in Decrees and Orders—To regulate the mode of
proceeding in the Masters' Offices to establish distinct
Officers for taking Accounts ; to abolish the Public Office ;
to provide for the Masters sitting in public in certain cases,
and to enable them to determine various interlocutory
matters ; to abolish proceeding by hourly warrants ; to
abolish Copy-money; to abolish unnecessary recitals in
Reports ; to diminish the expense of proceedings in the
Masters' Offices, and to increase the despatch of business
there—To appoint distinct Officers for taking Accounts—
To enable the Suitors in the Country to have Accounts
taken there, and to appoint proper Officers for that pur-
pose in each County and to provide for such Officers
taking Answers and Evidence, and doing such other
matters as are now performed by Commissioners and
Masters Extraordinary—To enable the Lord Chancellor to
appciint a Broker of the Court of Chancery, and that the
salary of the Accountant-General should be fixed—To
abolish the Equity Jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer,
and to constitute the Chief Baron a Judge of the Court of
Chancery, and to provide for the removal of the Officers of
the Court of Exchequer to the Court of Chancery, or to
assimilate the practice and proceedings in both Courts—
To assimilate the duties of all the Judges of the Court of
Chancery, and to provide for the despatch of business in
their different Courts—To constitute from the Judges of
the Court of Chancery a Court of Appeal for the Court of
Chancery.
2. Mr. Jephson—Motion relative to the Representation of Coun-
ties and Ridings of Counties in Ireland, containing more
.......

than 300,0151 inhabitants.
3. Mr. Jephson—Resolution, requiring that all Members returned
to serve in Parliament shall, before they take their seats,
make oath that they have not, directly or indirectly, been
guilty of Bribery at their Election.
4. Sir Matthew Ridley—Consideration of the Petition of Mer-
chant Seamen, praying to be relieved from the monthly
contribution of sixpence to Greenwich:Hospital.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

CO UR T OF CHANCERY, APRIL 2.

This report was omitted in THE SUN of Saturday
from the negligence of the Reporter.]
HARMER. V. WESTMACOTT.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said this was an application
for an injunction and the appointment of a receiver of the
profits arising from a weekly newspaper called the Aye.
The case stated by the plaintiffs, who were assignees of a
Mr. Richards, alleged that the property of the paper had
once been vested in Richards, and had been purchased by
Mr. Westmacott, not directly from Richard., but through
the intervention of Mr. Bowden. The question was whe-
tiger the assignees of Richer ds, appointed under the Insol-
vent Debtors Act, having brought their bill to set aside
the purchase, on the ground of the consideration being
grossly inadequate, and that Richards had entered into the
contracts under pressure of great distress, were entitled to
the extraordinary interference of the Court, for which
they prayed. His Lordship did not mean to say that there
might not he cases in which, although the right to pro-
perty was nut clear, the Court would not take care to pre-
serve that property by an appointment of a receiver. It
would, however, be in all cases highly inexpedient to ap-
point a receiver, when doing so would have the effect of
injuring the property. To a daily paper such a measure
would be undeniably mischievuus,—to a weekly paper it
might be destructive. The application here was that the
publication of the piper by Mr. Westmacott might be re-
strained, and that the publication might be managed by
some other person, under the direction of the Court, and
that the profits might be received under the authority of
the Court. In this case it was clear that to grant the ap-
plication would have an immediate effect upon the paper
itself. The circumstance principally relied upon by the
plaintiffs was the alleged gross inadequacy of price. In
other parts of the case there was a most painful conflict of
evidence, and it was clear that some peraons must have
sworn to what was directly false. There was, however,
no great conflict with respect to this-point. Messrs. Cun-
ningham and Salmon swore that before July the paper was
in great circulation. So it might have been. Before
that period, an event happened which makes it doubtful
whether the paper was worth any thing. Cunningham
and Salmon swore that it was worth 1,0001. or 1,5001.—
Now, this was very vague-1,0001. was very different
from 1,500/. If they, who were the printers, and per-
fectly acquainted with the state of the paper, could come
no newer, it was impossible to place much reliance upon
their statement. It might be doubtful, too, whether they
meant the whole or the half of the paper. A witness of
the name of AC.atris swore the value to be 700/. or up-
wards. There was, then, a great difference between his
estimate and Cunningham anti Salmon's, unless the latter
meant the whole value. Their testimony, then, was ex•
trernely vague, and coming from persons who might know
much more about the matter, their statement might have
been more accurate. On the other side, there was the
evidence of several respectable persons that the full value
had been given for the paper. Mr. Baylis, a respectable
printer, Mr. Duckett, Mr. Fisher, and Mr. Hutton, all
said that the price paid had been more than enough;
their calculation was founded upon principles well known
in their trade. Then Mr. I•Iolt stated an event which was
of great importance; lie said that the publication of the
paper was suspended on one of the days on which it
should have come out, whereupon the circulation went
down from about 2000 to 800. Although, therefore, it
might have been true that before July the paper was in
great circulation, it might be likewise true that it after-
wards became of little value. The argument which had
been pressed on the part of the plaintiffs at the bar, in
order to explain Richard's application for the loan of
money, assumed that the value of the paper had become
next to nothing ; for it was said he did not demand any
share of the profits, knowing that there were no profits.—
Then what became of the case of gross inadequacy, leaving
the other parts of the case, to induce the Court to grant a
receiver? The property might since have become valu-
able, but what had that to do with the ground which had
been stated. His Lordship thought, therefore, that there
was nothing alleged proved, that should induce the Court
to interfere between the parties to the extent here prayed
for. If he were to appoint a receiver—if he were to put
this paper '' into Chancery," he should probably be putting
an end to the possibility of future profits. This view of
the case rendered it unnecessary to go into the other parts
of it. His Lordship could not, however, omit observing
upon the letters of Richards, written long after the sale, in
which, at the time, according to the plain•iffs• statement,-
he was still the proprietor or the part proprietor of the
paper, he begged Mr. Westmacott to lend him small sums
of money, such as 2/. and Si., and in one of which he com-
plained of the difficulty he felt in screwing out of him
2/., and of his wincing at the mention of a loan. In
none of these letters did he think of setting up any
claim of right. It was remarkable, too, that in one of
these letters (although he had received 70/. fur his own
labours in writing articles for the paper during a period be-
fore the sale) he recommended to Mr. \V. a person of the
name of Gillon, whom he requested him to employ about the
paper : but he did not, even in this letter, assert that he
had any authority over the Paper, or any voice in the ap-
pointment of the persons who were to be employed upon
it; bat on the contrary, he treated Mr. Westmacott
throughout these letters as the sole proprietor. The con-
duct of Richards in this, and other parts of the case, was
wholly inconsistent with the representation that he had,
or thought he had, any interest in the Paper. With re-
spect to the other pelts of the case, the facts alleged by
the plaintiff were denied by the depositions on the part of
the defendant. This conflict of evidence could not be
cleared up satisfactorily by any means but the viva voce
examination and cross-examination of the witnesses.
It was, however, impossible to say whether Richards' as-
signees could have any right like that they claimed, when
that claim was totally at variance with all Richards' acts.
This led to another point in the case. It was clear
that in a Court of Justice a person could not be permitted
to represent himself as divested of pro!. erty at one time, and
at another come and set up that title to which he had him-
self repudiated. He would be met at every stage by his
own conduct and his OWII declarations. If it were an
action for the recovery of goods at Nisi Prius, what
chance would a man have before a Judge and Jury, if he
were to set up such a title to property, the possession of
which he had so abandoned ? Why then, if a man would
be precluded from making such a claim, ought his
assignees to be permitted to do that in his name, and
through his right, which he could not be permitted to do
himself ? Certainly not. Upon the grounds ho had stated,
his Lordship was of opinion, therefore, that the injunction
could not be granted, and that the application for the re-
ceiver !oust also be refused. Under the circumstances of
the case, his Lordship would not now direct the payment
of costs, but ordered them to be made costs in the cause.

The Chancellor BROUGHAM has been sitting
to stvitEß for his bust.

The Bristol Assizes commence on Monday
next, the 11th instant, before Sir CHARLES WETHERELL,
the Recorder. One of the most interesting cases will be
that of ALExArtriEe. BALL:tit, a commercial traveller, of
great respectability, who is charged with being in posses-
sion of three 101. Bank of England notes, part of 3001.
that was contained in a letter, stolen from off the counter
of the Cardiff Post-office in December last. Mr. B. was
then in the Isle of Wight. He gave gold for the above
to a gentlemanly-looking man lie met at an inn in Bristol,
and whose address he is not acquAinted with. He paid
the notes the next day to his employers at Uley, and wrote
his name at full length on the back of theta,