The Sun.
London, England, 1831-12-02 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY, DEC. 1.

WINCHESTER AND THORNTON V. YOUNG.

Mr. PErvs moved that a person might be appointed to
manage The Sun newspaper, and to receive all outstand-
ing effects belonging thereto, and that in the mean time
Mr. Young, the defendant, might be restraine I by injunc-
tion from interfering therewith in any manner by which
the property of the piaintilis might be affected. The bill
was filed by the assignees elected under a commission of
bankrupt against Mr. Peter Grant, and stated, that in the
year 1826 that gentleman purchased The Sun news-
paper, of which he thereby became the sole proprietor;
that in 1828 he sold one-fourth share of the whole con-
cern to Mr. Young, the defendant, and that the parties
thereupon entered into a deed by which it Was stipulated
that they should carry on their business in partnership to-
gether,—tbat Mr. Young should reside in the house
where the newspaper was published, and that he superin-
tend, manage, and conduct the same. Under this
deed the paper was curried on until 1830, when a
commission of bankrupt having been taken out against
Mr. Grant, the assignees proceeded to convert his interest
into money, and for this purpose offered the paper for sale.
Mr. Young proposed to give 7,500/. for Mr. Grant's
shares, and Mr. Westley, a bookseller, offered to give
9,0001., whereupon Mr. Young raised his offer to
9,000/. which the assignees at a meeting of the creditors
were authorized to accept. That a deed was prepared to
carry into effect the sale at the last mentioned sum ; but
that on that day on which it was to have been executed, a
further offer was made by the other parties ; that Mr.
Young thereupon again increased his offer, and that at
length a sum of 13,0001. teas offered by a Mr. Lomax.
Mr. Young, however, relying upon the agreement which
bad been come to, insisted that be had a right to purchase
the shares at 9,000/., and had filed a bill to have his right
in that respect declared. The assignees then filed a cross
bill, and they now came to the Court to have the property
of the newspaper protected, by a receiver and manager
being placed over it. The circumstances in which they
were placed justified this request, because the property
might be, and they alleged it was, in great peril.

The LORD CHANCELLOR s id, in a former case con-
nected with newspaper property, it appeared that next to
preventing the publication altogether, the appointment of
a receiver was the worst thing that could be done for a
newspaper.

. .
Mr. PEPY6 said the assignee* had considered that, but
the duty of protecting the property had left them no alter-
native. Ile then proceeded to read parts of the answer in
which the defendant relied upon his right ender the agree-
ment to sell to him, and contended that it was im-
possible for him sticceasfully to rely upon that agreement
which had been left unfinished, or that the assignees
were to be bound to accept the offer he then made, anotl.er
and large offer having since been made. Indeed, the de-
fendant's own conduct in having at the meeting refused to
increase his offers was sufficient proof that he had not in-
tended to abide by the agreement which was first made. In
another part of the answer the defendant admitted the
expense of carrying on the paper exceeded the profits.
This was of itself ground sufficient to justify the appoint-
ment of a receiver, because, if the fact were so, the bank-
rupt's estate might he diminished. It was, besides, ad-
mitted that there was a debt of 3,000/. and upwards due
from the concern ; and this, coupled with the admission
that the paper was carried on at a lot*, entitled the as-
signees to the relief they sought. There were, besides,
affidavits in the cause which had been filed, to show that
the defendant was committing waste, or so mismanaging
the property that his conduct was analogous to waste. In
the first place lie would read the affidavit of Mr. Thorn-
ton, the assignee.
Sir EDWARD SCGDEN objected to this affidavit being
read. It was filed before the coining in of the answer, and
every one of the allegations it contained had been met by
the answer. Ile did not mean to dispute that affidavits
might he made and read for the purpose of obtaining an
injunction after the answer ; but in that case such affida-
vits must be confined solely to the point of waste, and
must show that the waste was continuing. The affidavit
which Pepys was now about to read, was by Mr.
Thornton, who swore to no one fact positively; but stated
a great many things upon his information and belief, which
were contradicted in express terms by the answer.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he disapproved, and he
had often expressed that disapprobation, of the practice of
making affidavits as to the information arid belief of par-
ties. As, however, it appeared to be the practice of the
Court to admit such affidavit-, lie could not now reject
them. The affidavit ought, however, not to be read upon
any other points than those connected with waste.

Some further discussion took place respecting the ad-
missibility of .this and other affi.lavita, and ultimately
parts of them were read. The affidavits of Mr. Clarke
' and Mr. Hickman were to the effect, that the defendant
had said, that sooner than he would permit the assig-
nees to deprive him of the paper, he would ruin the
concern, and sell off every stick and stone belong-
iag to it : and the affidavits of Messrs. Golding
and Ferriday, printers, stating that a newspaper of
the circulation of 2,900, with a profit of 01. per diem on
advertisements, would produce an annual profit of 3,0001.
or thereabouts. Mr. Pepys, therefore, contended, that he
had made out a vase for the interference of the Court, by
moving that the property of the newspaper was in peril ;
and that as, by good management, it might have been pro.
fitable, if it had not proved so, it must have been by the
mismanagement of the defendant.
The Loßn CHANCELLOR asked if the affidavits went no
further ; and being answered in the negative, said he had
certainly expected, from the nature of the motion, some
charge much more specific.
Mr. KINDERSLEY and Mr. PALEY were heard on the
same side.

Sir EDWARD SUCDEN appeared for Mr. Young, the
defendant. He said lie certainly nerer recollected a ease
in which an order was made for the appointment of a
manager of a newspaper ; and if one was appointed in
this case he should witch the operations of the order ap-
pointing the receiver with some curiosity.

The Loan Ctr.oicar.toa inquired if the case of " Har-
mer v. Westmacott" respecting the Aye newspaper, was
not a case very similar to the present?
Jir EDWARD SUDDEN was Counsel in that case. The
application there was for a manager, but it had met with
the same fate that the present application must share—the
Court refused to interfere. If a manager were to be ap-
pointed I apprehend (said Sir Edward) it would subse-
quently have to be referred to the Master to settle
the terms of the prragrapha that were to be in.
serted in the paper; referred to the Master to
ascertiin wheher a leading article was proper to
be inserted or not. The Master having decided upon
the propriety of inserting that leading article, it would
then some before your Lordship, sitting here as Lord Chan-
cellor, solemnly to pass your judgment upon whether the
article would be the safest for the country to appear in
The Sun newspaper or •ot. That being so, it would
depend probably very much on the political views of the
Learned Judge sitting here whether The Sun should con-
tinue.to illuminate the people at night or not—l spy to
illuminate the people at night, my Lord, because that's the
great distinction between our Sun and the sox in the
horizon--our Sun is always shining ; it shines and en-
lightens the people in the dark even when the other
has withdrawn from our view.—(Laughter.) Suppose
your Lordship had a particular line of politics—as a Judge,
of onuree, you don't know any thing about politics; but
suppose your Lordship were to be so imbued with politics
as to find it impossible to divest yourself of all political
feeling in your judicial capacity, then you would, of course,
decide upon that strain of paragraph or leading article
which fell in with your view, politically speaking.
The Loan CHANCELLOR—I should be bound to do the
best I could for the paper you know—the best I could for
this Ward of Court—this Son.—(Laughter.)
Sir EDWARD SUGDEN—Certainly you would, and I am
quite sure there would not he a paragraph written that the
parties would not be coming to your Lordship with to say,
just do us the favour to settle this article•--be so good, my
Lord, as to give it the proper terms.

The LORD Cuar,rcoa--That I certainly should
decline.--(Laughter.)

Sir E. Suarmi—Probably your Lordship would, but
I am perfectly certain that that would be the consequence
of your Lordship's appointing a manager of this news.
paper, and I am perfectly positive that the parties would
be squabbling from morning till night, and that it would
he utterly impossible for the paper to go on one day. My
Lord, we are told—l dare say it is not true—but we
are told that the politics of newspaper editors have no-
thing to do with their personal gain. We are told
that newspaper editors never think of whether what they
write will he calculated to induce a sale of the paper or
not; but that whatever they think is for the benefit of
society they write it, whether it will be beneficial to the
till or not. But suppose it should happen that there were
two parties, as in the present case, disagreeing upon the
line of politics, and that the question was to be put to the
vote, what situation would we be in before the Master ?
Why we should have one party saying to the Master, " I
can assure you, Sir, that unless The Sun immedi-
ately adopts Tory politics, if there are sueh politics,
iwmena esdhioauld h
tely
av have
the other party saying,
extinguished, and extinguished
46 It is utterly impossible for The Sun to continue
to shine, unless it adopts Whig politics, if Whig
politics there be." And in that way I am perfectly
forit sill
ever;"be