The Sun.
London, England, 1825-11-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCZ

" . COURT OF CHANCERY, Ilisv3* LI
THE LINCOLNSHIRE BANE. WO
Mr. MorrTAGu wished to know when his Lo
case
give judgment in this case. the
case
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that this was among .ntejoed
whieh had occupied his head during the vacation. Mei,le 1(1
to give judgment in that and several others, of win° "
give notice in a few days.

VICECHANCELLOR'S COURT, I\'°v'°V.„' I a
TILLAI"
EDWARDS AND OTHERS V. HARRISON, CHAN'''.
AND THE BANK OF ENGLAND• rdS,
A bill was filed in this case by a lady named dwa. onts
behalf of herself and her children, praying that the deleotiffs,
might be compelled to transfer into the names of the p of the
a sum of 4,0001. consols, which had stood in the narliill, 35
two' first named defendants, Harrison and Chamber 'ld out
trustees fOr the plaintiffs, and which money had been se Bank
by virtue of a forged power of attorney. To this bill tl..
of England (for whom Mr. IIonNE appeared) dollar'
After the pleadings had been read,inert.
His HONOUR observed, that it was a case of great
tiffi
ance, and all that he could do would be, to put the Pl%ofor
a course of obtaining relief. It appeared that the best 0).! actica
such a purpose was, by directing the plaintiffs to aringau_ thef
dp
ee againstcrimd eittwitnhh4ee
tthEheearmnokrt
oon fodEtosnlsilocabn da,lnnianettthihoaent namesewaosuelad ri the Court
rt et
Ifn•i ta:
Mr. TRESLOVE, who appeared on behalf of t e of the
said that he should willingly accede to the suggestar,..d
Court ; but the question, he said, had been already decia'
thenu of C
Coommon Pleas.
inheenVter:EupHn.ANltcEwLasLaOnltwas action
ro not aware
bo ya l f such a (10udi
Mr. TRESLOVE observed, that the case had been
l, Tnamed
ra co
in tba
Davis, against the Bank of England, and was reppeertstoed
second voulume of Bingham's Reports. The case, ace9Jed to
to the Report, was briefly this :—The plaintiff was en.o_othet,
10,0001. 3 per cents. On the 6th of October, 1819, his
sold out
Js,oohonol.Doafvtihsisbitocvkir,tauned oefn at forgedile 12 th power of os
same
mattorney °:`
same fraudulent means, sold the remaining 5,0001/I.l"th'Al;Yarcb9
1820, John Davis was apprehended on another charge elfnf,°,./i,gelrif;
and shortly after his apprehension, in a ,conversation n)`;
brother. when in prison, he admitted, on being ask°, frail'
plaintiff, that he had obtained the 10,000/. in question asked,
from
&dent means. On April 7 following, John Davis escap
confinement, and on Sept. 30, his broker applied to tne,.'.:Auci
for his dividends. The only difference between that ce-'.`, the
the present was, observed the Learned Counsel, that Pay.iio
plaintiff, had concealed from the Bank the knowled:;e4ooo
had of his brother's guilt from April to Sept. 30, 3g been
dividends had in the interim accrued due, and had not tlasi:
claimed by him. In consequence of this concealment th.e.;,ery.
were prevented from prosecuting the brother for the forgery
the
The case was much argued in the Common Pico, Ind
Court delivered an elaborate judgment, to the effect that n lost
tion was maintainable—that the dividends which had hee
tbiymmt
ietawnsaso f
noa forgedanswer ptoows eurcho
af
na teotri
onney,
towwere rtehcaotv
teiri lalo ti
e
concealed his knowledge of the forgery. ur, Kb
The report of the case was handed up to his Hono
oFt
read it. had
Mr. HORNE said, that the case which his Honour vrit o
examined could not be taken aS a decided case, for it.
error was now depending in the House of Lords resp.-Te..c7dta
Mr. TRESLOVE submitted, that the present was a T,„,11
case than that which he had cited, because here there Tel.for,
concealment from the Bank of England with respecoered•
gftserTaynh,efauuvrtliictoErwcatcys communicated as.soon as it was ca-
The
oArldr .Ch BORNEf Justice
t the
he
of recovering dividends.
L
case, and a good deal of discussion had arisen uifen
ie
Mr. TRESLOVE obseried, that his Lordship had r
Ht
said
capAei NdsßhC oeEswtL,
that
shouldLt Ota wtt
aWas
nabsseoa:canitdcfi
oloitnpnhteelecvilloa.utwol consider itdoe ter t
been cited ,before the Lord Chancellor in 31311auird.t ktd'io'newuncnatlbsirell;.aii
the decision to have been good. 'the 1334 °'
Mr. HORNE denied this, and contended that if
_vd rio,!
England were liable at all they must be liable at La" 1,,35r
in Equity.. Why was ,tot an action brought in a Court etivcd
Mr. TRESLOVE said, Decause the parties being derars,i4ol
their property, were not able to do so, unless they vier'
by.their friends. e casehipea°
The VICE-CIIANCEI:LOR was anxious to p.- :had
shape in which it might be decided ; and if the parties court
agreed upon the facts, he would have stated a case fora ,"niiirrer
Law. He was, however clearly of opinion that the LI.
could be sustained, and therefore it was overruW•
to file o"Mr. 1-10nrit then prayed a month's further time
answer, which was granted.

__ o
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, S°v• `,:pso,r. a
-MELLISH', PLAINTIFF' IN ERROR, V. icilit.-,,heCoa-
This was a writ of erronto set aside a judgment °I I,,,illect°
of Common Pleas. The defendant ,in error had I:41 eOr
verdict in the Court below for 75001.. as damages for
.tr'zi with
performance of an agreement into.which he had eehollsor'
3lr. Mellish, by which it was stipulated that Cap t. Itic 1101'
who then commanded a shi (the Minerva) which 31r:'0115,
was about to purchase, was' to exchange with CaPt3'll';eing i'•
ot
who then commanded the Marquis of Ely, both sills -
the employ of the East India Company, and in trio assL'il
certain contingencies, Captain Richardson was aga-n .colav-114
the command of the Minerva. One of the contingeneztr ct, 00.
occurred and Mr. Mellish refusing to fulfil the cc'hil,:o3aght IL
reappoint Captain Richardson to the Minerva, he '"' ,
action and recovered damages, as above stated. 1 ilei f
of
31‘thilrer.
the part of the plaintiff in error, that the agreement wa5;01,0
want of consideration, and also as .being contrary to the
judgment, and he. coon. cupport ° bit,
'49SAteiri3giGepaennoE:
LNISLI'I,iLDE no; argued at considerable e
~oid fo..
or loss, be 'it ever so trifling, was sufficient consider.l: the jr
here Richardson had engaged to go the first voYageninosed tv
nerva, if the consent of the India Company to the rrbt ' .
ntfeotnrhdepedroetvhtehenrattsiniadgny,thaeirtglSioelndevoeinfoi:::::troo:ifa;
change could not be procured. He else ontendco ,to eN
statute of the 49th George 111. could never be construct'
~."
,
tending to an affair of this sort.
The COURT postponed giving judgment till a future
431
This case occupied the Court the whole the day.

v
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, 0° ' 'vas of,
basnekrriPtelupanßt,
tLs.
stbcprA.oA:ThrEeori.NE s IN NUMBEUS.---)SIAVOR v. Fxsigoce et
This was an action instituted in the name of the,
th'e vricee,e
appeared to be these:
a bankrupt, Wm. Henry Pine, for the recovery o,i pine,
certain parts of an architectural work, from Jour' fact'
to publish in periodical numbers, an Historico-p,lcorr!be Olio
.;_coniudru.clteldrmth.
He pelnariyntrrin'es
p.craos;..o::ellivhicroe,lool
be entitled " A History of Royal Residences. 'lt Po;
each publication was fixed at every second month...f ortS.ded
of each number one guinea, and the total numbefl jroce.,'44s
to be twenty-fbur publication commenced, an:: ,roth''
to the 18th number.;' several of them were decoratea
jeter:
iiie
of royal residences, as of Windsor Palace and KensiZt or ed‘.
Mr. John Pine, the defendant, took seven or e f,,he iv re,
numbers. Mr. W. Pine, the principal proprietor, 011); tbel)rep.
was made bankrupt in 1818. His assignees Sous the poa)
sent action to recover the amount of the value of
'
delivered. ved, ~ the
The facts of the plaintiff's case having been POitted AP oe
Sergeant VaticirrArt, for the defendant,
evidencesithu oleo
jection which he considered would render any A COJ 110
defence unnecessary. . His objection was founded c),:, co 01,014.
the Statute of Frauds, which declared that an aqc'atioe s'l, ot
be brought. for a work, the term of whose pub'?
_ted c 3
exceed one year. It had been so ruled in the edam' fr
Boydell, when the principle was fully argued.
.01 rbea
The CHIEF JUSTICE thought the case of. I;Tiiter, cor
nro. _..„r ,
vourable to the objeCtion urged by his Learned. ,
__. of rt 0.0,
by virtue of a contract which specified the Partsany
of
toit Fad
in several. portions, and different times, any hoed , iiltp
proved to have been delivered, the receiver was,l .'cor,trae.,iceo
theiratfeon nradthoseeldrhatil
ghu
le: pb oflpaerrnt
iilloveenososr
f,i :
is,
sEe,
uvi
English
usually
hiposuuo literature,bnpublished
theiiesie%,
dh iwci
in
which
:111raoed,f
ei
,ritr: ;floret::
theno t
dyeelttpv
eerrefodr npieetdti,
portions
sand an actionele arlsustainable.yfo r til e refleoll,this!rte
noolltseirfocete!
different times. Theca roprietors were, as bed •f"iliose :e ett!',
generally men wl' Il^ 'n their head ;,, I, e„ cao ci,
Ipita ~.y i
men were not to be paid for the numbers a.,,crti volo'!t ats,
how could they be expected to be able to corgi t-ticteviwirove'
and expensive works to a conviction.
Thleich OOP t
clearly bound to pay for the numbers (els defend
w-1 3" i
escs
to have been delivered to him. tto the h- Pr 'ng
. A release for 1001:executed by the bankruP or t , ii,oi
was put in on the part of, the defendant, to,
ii of its_t,
for
claim, btu was declared to be invalid on the groltenordateraict
been given 'by Mr. W. Pine after he had becoon,.nd a v
The CHIEF JUSTICE directed the Jury t 11
the plaintiff for the price of the eight numbers. et t),f;
Verdict for the plaintiff—eight guineas.c .
._ ,i3ve beerillocti•
pawnbroker, was stat cl,t'ol,,ai jz, sly
the conducting proprietorsof the " Historyof -I"

s°'
Printed and Published for the PROPTt 13 lETORS,
Ogs
OFFICE, No. 112, Strand, by J. l.
..