The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-10 00:00:00

vicE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY

His Honour the VICE CHANCELLOR took cause petitions
to-day, none of which were of the slightest interest.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

SLATER V. WILLIS.
The arguments in this case, which were part beard before
the long vacation, were concluded this morning.
The bill was filed by the assignees of William Austin
Grocock, to establish their claim to certain ships, which ships
were registered in the names of Edward Lowe and Charles
Harris Grocock, and were alleged to be part of the partner-
ship property, the partnership consisting of William Austin
Grocock, Edward Lowe and Charles Harris Grocock. The
partnership was said to have been constituted by a deed ; but
when that deed was executed did not at all with certainty appear.
The business was carried on at St. John's, New Brunswick,
by Edward Lowe and C. H. Grocock, and it was by them the
ships were purchased. On the occasion of the registration,
they made oath that they (E. Lowe and C. H. Grocock)
were the sole owners of the ships, and the ships were regis-
tered in their names. The agents of Lowe and Grocock were
Willis and Slater, to whom a very considerable balance be-
came due from Lowe and Grocock. Lowe and Grocock be-
coming embarrassed in 1824, Willis and Slitter were desirous
of obtaining security for the payment of that balance. ln this
they were assisted by William Austin Grocock, who re-
ceived a power of attorney from E. Lowe and Charles
Harris Grocock, as the owners of two of the ships ; and by
virtue of that power of attorney only, without pretending
to be an owner himself, made an assignment of two
of the ships. That W illiam Austin Grocock was a partner
in the firm appeared to have been known to Willis and Slater
some time in 1824. but not before.
The MASTER of the ROLLS at once delivered judgment, and
after shortly stating the facts, observed the question really
was, whether William Austin Grocock ever bad, or whether
his assigns now had, a title to the ships, and that depended on
the construction to be given to the Act of Parliament relating
to the registration of vessels, His Honour considered the
construction to be clear, that not only must the name of every
partner be inserted in the register, but the name of the part-
nership firm, and the shares to which the respective partners
were entitled, stated. Under these circumstances, William
Austin Grocock never had the legal title to the ships; and as
the bill could not be sustained, it must be dismissed with costs.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

GIBSON AND OTHERS V. TIM EAST INDIA COMPANY.
The question in this case, which arose upon demurrer, was
mainly whether the East India Company could revoke a grant
of a pension made by resolution of the Board of Directors,
confirmed by the Board of Control.
The action was brought to recover the half-yearly instalment
of an annual sum of 1201., which the Company had agreed t.,
pay a person named Mullantine, under the following circum-
stances :—Mullentine entered the Company's military ser-
vice in the year 1808, the Company stipulating by reso-
lution that they would, after a service of twenty five
years, continue to pay to him the yearly sum of 1201. in half-
yearly instalments. The resolution under the 33d Geo. 111.,
chap. 5, was signed by several of the Directors, and approved
of by the Board of Control. Afi er the term of service ex-
pired; Mullantine embarked in trade, and became bankrupt ;
and the assignees now claimed the half-yearly payment which
was alleged to be due. On the part of the defendants, it was
argued that the claim was for an annuity, which could only be
legally founded on a written deed.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE appeared for the plaintiff. He con-
tended, in a lengthened and elaborate argument, that the Com-
pany were as much bound by a contract on a resolution of the
' Directors, sanctioned under the authority of the Act of Parlia-
ment by the Board of Control, as by a written instrument ;
and further he argued, that the agreement being for a remu-
neration, on account of past services, there was nothing to pre-
vent the interest in it passing to the assignees. The Learned
Sergeant ariucd that there was a clear difference between
hal-pay and pensions, the half-pay being designed for the
honour and advantage of the public service, and paid to
those who were at any time liable to be recalled actively into
that service, was considered inalienable; whereas, as to pen-
sions, particular Acts of Parliament had to be passed in those
cases, as in the instances of the Dukes of Marlborough and
Wellington, where it was intended to render them inalienable,
clearly showing that the Legislature did not deem them gene-
rally so.
Mr. Sergeant SPANKIE, for the defendants, urged that
the resolution was to be considered rather as a preliminary
arrangement than a positive contract—that the remuneration
mentioned was to all intents and purposes an annuity, and as
such required to be granted by deed—and that the resolution
was merely to be viewed in the light of a contemplated, art
anticipated, an intended grant, and not the grant itself.
Whether the claimant was entitled to ask, in a Court of
Equity,tlrat the defendants might be compelled legally to execute
the contract which they bad professed their intention to make,
was another question; but surely neither the bankrupt nor his
assignees could enforce the claim by an action at law.
The Court rose at one o'clock (leaving the arguments un !, tart.ExchtT7 Charn,wr. -
Sittihgs at Nisi Trios also took place at the Sessions-
house, NlTestminster, before Mr. Justice PARKE, but nothing of
public interest occurred.