The Sun.
London, England, 1822-12-24 00:00:00

NEWTON V. STANIFORTH.

Mr. Hon et applied to have the injunction granted in this
case dissolved. Mr. Newton was only a nominal plaintiff,
the real suitors being Messrs. Beatson, his agents. Mr. New-
tiki bad signed a charter-party with the Capfagi of the Urania
ship belonging to the defendants) at Quebec; for the convey-
ance of °s a full and complete cargo" of timber, the size and
quality being regularly specified, to England. The timber
was not enough for a complete lading, and Mr. Newton ob-
tained other freights at a higher rate than he had bargained
for. The timber was consigned to Messrs. Brockindale and
Co. ; the other goods to the several consignees, after paying the
freight. The conditions of the charter-party were to pay down
halt in money and the other halfin good bills. The port dues were
to be paid by the defendants : but Messrs. Beatson, wishing to
take possession of the cargo, paid the port dues, and had since
brought an action against the defendants to recover them. The
defendants claimed the freight, took possession of the cargo,
and proceeded to deliver out the goods. An injunction was ob-
tained in the name of Mr. Newton, and the aditional freight
was claimed for him by Messrs. Beatson and Co. On what
pretence Mr. Newton was to have the freight, the defendants
could not understand, as they strictly fulfilled all the terms of
the charter-party. It was not known that he did really intend
to claim it, though his name had been used in the suit.—
It seemed more like ,an attempt, under the guise of seek-
ing -a remedy in the Court, to injure the defendants as mer-
chants and destroy their credit. lie complained of the asper-
sion which had been cast upon his clients by the assertion in the
affidavits, that the petitioners believed the defendants to be in
an insolvent state. It was true that one of his clients had been
borne down by adverse circumstances, and that he had been
brought to compromise with his creditors ; but those creditors
had all expressed their satisfaction at the conduct of the gen-
tleman. This took place in 1319. He had since that period
entered into partnership- with a Mr. Gosling, a gentleman of
unimpeachable credit and good substance. lie deprecated the
use which had been made of the former circumstance to wound
the feelings and prejudice the interests of a firm of mercantile
gentlemen of as great respectability as any which had ever been
brought under the observation of the Court. As the injunction
had been granted under the rash and improper allegation of in-
solvency, he hoped the Court would immediately dissolve it.
Mr. STEPHEN s followed on the same side.
Mr. KNIGHT contended that the plaintiff had hired the ca-
pacity of the vessel, and was, to all intents and purposes, in the
situation of owner, as far as it regarded the lading and the
owners of the goods. He wondered at the arrogance of the de-
fendants in resisting an ordinary form of proceeding, because
the course of jqstice made it necessary to call in question the
solvency of their firm.
Mr. lionsiE replied.
The Loan CHANCELLOR said, that he had conversed with
the Vice-Chancellor upon the subject of this injunction, and it
appeared that his Honour was not rightly understood. He had
not refused the injunction because the sum was too small to he
an object for the treatment of a Court of Equity, but on the
ground that it would be quite enough to give the parties notice
of motion for the next seal. With respect to the case itself, his
Lordship had granted the injunction on the ground ofalleged in-
solvency. Great care was necessary in stating such a circum-
stance. on account of the serious effects which it was calculated
to produce upon the characters, credit, and property of the parties
charged with it, as well of commercial men and commercial pro-
perty. The Court generally felt itself bound to give such an alle-
gation immediate attention, not because insolvency was in itself
an offence, or to be considered disgraceful (consequences which
must depend upon the circumstances of the case), hut for the
security of any property belonging to others, which might be im-
properly left in the power of the parties. But the Court would
seriously resent any wrong allegations of insolvency—not only
on behalf of the injured parties, but because of the danger of
its being led into the commission of an injury. It appeared
that one of the firm of Staniforth and Co. had been insolvent,
and compromised with his creditors: but he was now in another
partnership which, for all that appeared to the contrary, was
possessed of good property, and the credit of which was not
suspected. The injunction had been granted on the ground of
insolvency alone, and could not have been obtained upon any
other grounds. It must therefore be discharged with costs.