The Sun.
London, England, 1836-12-15 00:00:00

THE SUN

CHANCERY CO

DAVENPORT V. WHITMORE.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment this morning in
this case, which was an appeal from the decision of the pre-
sent Master of the Rolls allowing a demurrer to the plain-
tiff's bill. The case made on the face of the bill was, that
the plaintiff was entitled to three-fourths of a ship called
the Wellesley, which he mortgaged to the defendants. who
are bankers in Lombard-street, for the sum of 1,5001.
That mortgage was regularly registered. The plaintiff after-
wards became bankrupt, and obtained his certificate. By
an arrangement which was entered into between the de-
fendant and the plaintiff, the former purchased the Welles-

ley. Prior to this purchase, it was agreed between the par-
ties that the ship should continue to earn freight, and the
plaintiff was to have the management of it. The freight
that was received was to be first applied in payment of what
was due to the defendants upon their mortgage, and also
for what they had paid for the purchase of the ship, and
the plaintiff was to be entitled to the surplus. When
the claim of the defendants was satisfied, it was to
become the property of the plaintiff. Another arrangement
afterwards took place between the parties, by which it was
agreed that the debt proved by the defendants under the
commission should also be paid by the freight, and the de-
fendants agreed to lend to the plaintiff 5001. for the purpose
of maintaining himself, for which he was to give his note,
which was to be renewed as long as the connection should
subsist between him and the defendants. The plaintiff
under this arrangement continued to procure cargoes for the
ship, and the defendants had received on that account many
thousand pounds. In November, 1834, the Wellesley was
pronounced unfit for service, and it was then agreed between
the plaintiff and defendants that that ship should be sold,
and the defendants should purchase another vessel, and the
difference between what the Wellesley should sell for, and
what the defendants should pay for another ship, should
be an additional charge upon the plaintiff. In every other
respect the contract entered into with respect to the Wel-
lesley was agreed to be observed. The Wellesley sold for
1,4001., and the defendants purchased the Sarah Barry
for 2,450/. The plaintiff, in pursuance of the arrangement
that had been entered into, continued to act for the Sarah
Barry in the same manner as he had done for the Wel-
lesley. He went one voyage with her to the West Indies,
but the defendants afterwards refused to continue the ar-
rangement, and ordered the ship to go to the East instead
of the West Indies. Upon this the plaintiff filed his bill
for the purpose of having an account of the freight and
earning of the ship, and the proceeds of the sale of the
Wellesley, and also an account of what was due from the
defendants to the plaintiff, and that he might be at liberty
to redeem the Sarah Barry. In the bill, a general de-
murrer had been put in by the defendants, which
had been allowed by the Master of the Rolls, and
from that decision the present appeal was brought. His
Lordship was clearly of opinion, that independent of
any question with respect to the Ship Registry Act,
the bill contained allegations which, if proved, would
entitle the plaintiff to some part of the relief which he
prayed ; and such being his opinion, his Lordship felt bound
to reverse the order pronounced at the Rolls, and overrule
be demurrer.
This being the third Seal, the Court then proceeded with
\dons.

VICE-CHANCERY.--(THIS DAY

DAY V. WIIITTAKER.
Mr. KNIGHT applied in this case, upon notice for a spe-
cial injunction to restrain the defendants, the eminent pub-
lishers of Paternoster-row, from publishing a work, called
" The Science of Etiquette." In February, 1836, Messrs.
Longman published a work, written by a gentleman named
Day, residing in Penzance, Cornwall, entitled " Hints on
Etiquette, and the Usages of Society," at half-a-crown.
In September last, Messrs. Reid and Co., of Glasgow,
published a work, called " The Science of Etiquette ; being
a careful Digest of the Rules of good Conduct in Polite
Society, embracing every substantially good Maxim con-
tained in the Hints on Etiquette, lately published at half-a-
crown." The price of this work was only one shilling.
Messrs. Oliver and Boyd, of Edinburgh, and Whittaker,
London, were the agents for the sale of that work, which
the plaintiff alleged was almost entirely a copy from
his work. Considerable amusement was created in
Court, by the reading of the different passages in
the two books. In the plaintiff's work the following
passage occurred :—" Finger glasses, filled with warm
water, come on with the dessert ; dip the corner of your
napkin, and wipe your mouth." In the work published by
the defendant, the same advice was given, substituting only
the word " towel" for napkin. For the defendant it was
contended that the alleged pirated work was taken princi-
pally from two American books ; one entitled the " Laws of
Etiquette," published in Philadelphia, and another called
the " Polite Present," published at Boston in 1831.
Mr. TURNER appeared with Mr. R.NlGitqc in support of
the application.
Mr. JACOB and Mr. CHANDLESS opposed it.
The VICS-CHANCELLOR granted the injunction ; the
plaintiff undertaking to bring an action within ten days.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.

This being the Third Seal after Michaelmas Term,
Court was occupied with motions.
HUGHES V. POWELL.
Mr. LOFTUS WIGRAM moved that the purchaser of cer.
tain collieries and mines, situate at Newport, in the county
of Monmouth, might be ordered within ten days after
service of the order, to pay into Court to the credit of
the cause, the sum of 22,8001., together with interest, at
the rate of 5 per cent., from the Ist of December, being
the day on which, according to the conditions of sale, he
ought to have paid his purchase-money.
Mr. TEMPLE appeared for the purchaser, and submitted
that the Court would not order his client to pay the pur-
chase-money into Court, especially with interest, the vendor
up to the present moment not having furnished him with a
title. He also had an affidavit, stating the collieries had
been materially damaged through neglect, there having been
no fire in them for some time past, which was necessary to
keep out the foul air ; and that the vendor had refused his
client permission to inspect them. However, he would not
object to his Learned Friend taking a reference as to title.
He had been instructed to ask the Court for liberty to in-
spect the mines ; because if his client found the mines to
be in the state in which they were sworn to be, he would
then be in a situation to seek for a reference to the Master
as to the amount of compensation—he would be entitled
to deduct it from the purchase money.
Mr. PEMBERTON appeared for the defendant Powell,
who had been desirous of purchasing the property, sus-
pecting the present purchase would not be completed. He
submitted to any order the Court might think proper.
Mr. LOFTUS WIGRAM, in reply, contended, that as one
of the conditions of sale expressly stated the only title the
vendor would produce would be " the leases and agree-
ments, if any," and as the deed had been handed over to
the purchaser, he could not oppose the motion on the ground
of want of title. Further, be had bought the property on
speculation, and therefore had no right to inspect the mi
after he had made the purchase, before he paid the pur.
chase money.
Lord LANGDALE would make the usual order, which he
believed was generally made on application that purchasers
might be ordered to pay money into Court, namely, a re-
ference to inquire whether the vendor had done that which
he ought to do. If the purchaser wished for liberty to in-
spect the mines, he must make a:special application for that
lurpose.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Lord DENMAN and a Com-
mon Jury.)
•
SLANDER.—CUTTLE V. SCATCHARD.
Mr. KELLY, with whom was Mr. HOGGINS, stated the
case. It was an action for slanderous and defamatory words
spoken by the defendant, and tending to injure the character
of the plaintiff, who before that time had sustained a most
unblemished reputation. The plaintiff had resided for a
great many years abroad, and after his return to this coun-
try in the year 1834, he became acquainted with several
maritime officers formly er in the East India Company's
Service, who were engaged in an undertaking of the greatest
possible moment to themselves. It might be known to the
jury that in the year 1828, an Act of Parliament was passed
by which the trade of the East India Company was thrown
open, and a very considerable change took place in the position
of the officers serving under it. In that Act compensation
was provided for various classes of the officers, but all who
had not been in actual service afloat at a particular period
were excluded from compensation. This excluded class
comprehended a great many individuals, who had performed
most zealous and efficient services to the Company—they
thought their exclusion an act of injustice, which, if pro-
perly brought under the consideration of the Company and
the Legislature, would be redressed. An association of
officers was accordingly formed, and the plaintiff, Mr.
Cuttle, being known to be well acquainted with affairs of
that sort, was invited to attend and give his assistance. Mr.
Scatchard was appointed chairman of the committee, and
the plaintiff, Mr. Cuttle, treasurer and adviser. The
Learned Gentleman here read an extract from the books of
the committee, dated the 18th February, 1834, notifying
the appointment of the plaintiff and defendant as he had
stated. That entry would at once put an end to the plea
that the plaintiff was not an agent of the committee. Every
exertion that could be made was made by Mr. Cuttle to pro-
mote the views of his employers, and it was not even now at-
tempted to impute to him any impropriety o fconduct as the
only answer now given by the defendant was a denial that
he had used such words. It was arranged by the Associ-
, ation that Mr. Cuttle should hcve ten per cent. upon the