The Sun.
London, England, 1836-05-05 00:00:00

couRT-11,5 DA

)

CHICHESTER V. IFUNTER.
M. PEMBERTON applied that the common
had been obtained to stay trial, for want of an answer l n
original Bill, might be extended until the defendants talon- 1
at
swered the amended Bill ; the plaintiffs making th su,
affidavit, that the facts stated in the amended Bill had come to
their knowledge since the original Bill was filed, and that they.
expected a material discovery from the further answer. 2.
appeared that the plaintiffs, Lord John Chichester and, M r
Injunction which
Rich, being officers in the army, were quartered at 1 orts-
mouth, ar.d, having occasion to raise money, they
applied to a Mr. Bullen to assist them
Mr. Bullen sent down a Mr. Lewis Levy, who
told..
them the best mode of raising money was to draw and aceep!
bills, which they should place in his hands, and that he wllld
get the bills discounted, and remit them the proceeds. Bills
to the amount of 10001. having been drawn and accepted, were
endorsed to Mr. Levy, but tbe proceeds never made their ap-
pearance in the shape of a remittance to the drawer or se-.
eeptor.. The plaintiffs then took proceedings for the purp.oseet,
in so doin
recovering back the whole of the bills ; they succeeded in ob
nining all the bills, with the exception of one for 300/., whic.b
had got into the hands of the two defendants, and upon Uther,
the action at law had been brought by tho defendant, titcesterher,
who was carrying on business as a gunsmith in Lei-
street, Leicester-square, under the firm of Forsyth and CoiF
piny. Uther in his answer to the original bill stated, that 13?
had the bill for 3001. assigned to him by Heater, wh had
Vaer
.
purchased of him three guns and 4, brace of pistols.
had put in an answer to the original bill, but Hunter had 1!101
stained from putting in any answer at all. Under these ells ..
cumstancs, Mr. Lewis Levy being in prison, the pl.ainti
made their application for the extension of the common injunc
tion, until they had obtained a discovery by the answers of the
defendants, which they believed would be material for their
de
mfence in the on law.
r. KEENE for theat defendant, opposed the application,
lob!
contended that the plaintiffs had proceeded irregularly: bill
action at law was not commenced until after the original .
was filed; the plaintiffs then amended their bill and obtained
the injunction, whereas they ought to have filed a suPPle-
mental bill. Further, if it was a fraudulent transaction, there
was nothing to prevent the plaintiffs from availing thereselles
of that as a part of their defence in the action ; and consider;
ing that a fair notice had been given, and that the °rigida'
bill had been filed so long ago as the month of December, th,!
Learned Counsel trusted the Court would refuse the aPlflt
cation.
case
eMmAaSdTeERit oi
incumbent
club
eRn
to Lot,:
the
thought
ehntd
at
nh
Les e itroe u;sot alien:: 1
itnhfeTormation in their power relative to tile nature of the trgnr...
.actions ; and stated that he had no hesitation in extending Ow
LANGFORD V. LANGFORD. t:
injunction.
Mr. SKIKROW moved, on the petit of Lady Langford, qii,„
troc
ocer
sdrThtteoaehrriren:odfiLpntreooljapmhpe
erpertedyrawcnG which
sequestrationlui hadcotnhhusiacestesi
suthee
was
debr
Gloucester-place,
I::
duictnreease:ktstebrs niaLyntogo ror
tmsheLies sga sequestration,hni
Conofpou oarryfdt, ba
wur
ieint.l.o psi,done
rb
vb :0 ,
loft.