The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-24 00:00:00

IN THE MATTER OF STAPLETON, A LUNATIC.

The Loan CHANCELLOR said in this case, which was
heard, he had been considering what he should do.
The administration of the property of a lunatic
by the Court was always conducted upon the
principle of considering, in the first instance,
the benefit of the lunatic himself. It was clearly for the
benefit of the lunatic to allow his debts to be paid, be-
cause it freed him from being arrested or harassed. In
the present case it was suggested that the arrangement
that had been proposed would be for the benefit of the
lunatic. Now with respect to that his Lordship wished
that it should be clearly ascertained before he gave his
final judgment. He thought, therefore, that it would be
right to refer it to the Master to inquire whether it
would be for the benefit of the lunatic to acquiesce in
the report with reference to the particular debts, or whe-
ther a further inquiry should take place.

PRICE V. NORTH.
His LORDSHIP stated that in this case in which he
had given judgment a few days ago, he was of opinion
that the party was not entitled to interest upon his
bond debt.
IN THE MATTER OF GUNDRY, A SUPPOSED LUNATIC.

This petition, the object of which is to obtain a com-
mission of lunacy against Mr. Gundry, who figured a
short time ago at Marlborough-street, in consequence of
some violent acts, while in a state of great excitement,
was postponed till the first day of next term.
His LORDSHIP, after disposing of the whole of the
lunatic petitions in his paper, and several motions, rose
between one and two o'clock.

The Court will not sit again till the first day of next
term.

ROLLS COURT, Dec. 23.
COCKELL V, BRIDGEMAN.

The MASTER of the RoLLs gave judgment in this case,
which was heard on the Bth inst., and reported in The
Sun of that day. His Lordship said the bill was filed by
the indorser and holder of a lost bill of exchange against
the acceptor, for payment of the amount due on the bill,
upon giving proper indemnity. The plaintiffs bill
alleged the loss of the bill, and the defendant ad-
mitted that he had never paid it. Plaintiff al-
leged that when it became due he had re-
quired payment, but that since the 23d of
May he had never been able to find the bill, and that
it had been lost, mislaid, or accidentally destroyed ; and
defendant admitted that plaintiff had frequently required
payment, but alleged that he did not know whether the
bill was lost or not. Both parties had gone :into evi-
dence, but plaintiff had given no evidence that he had
made diligent search for the bill, or that he was unable
now to produce it, except by an affidavit of his clerk.
This affidavit was no evidence that the bill was lost, but
it was required for propriety of jurisdiction. Defendant
had not admitted the loss, and plaintiff alleged that no
proof could be given of the loss. In some cases losses
must be clearly proved, in others they might be inferred
from circumstances, but here was no evidence, either
direct or circumstantial. The plaintiff therefore fails,
not from want of right, but from defect of evidence. The
bill must, therefore, be dismissed with costs, without
prejudice to the right of the plaintiff to file another bill
if he shall be so advised.

SMITH V. JEYES.

The MASTER of the RoLLs also gave judgment in this
case, the facts of which were reported in The Sun a few
days ago. His Lordship said the plaintiff and defendant
were attorneys and solicitors, and on June 1, 1835, en-
tered into partnership for ten years under an indenture,
by which it was provided, among other things, that for
the several causes therein mentioned, either party should
beat liberty to determine the partnership between
them at an earlier period. Plaintiff had given
notice of dissolution on the 21st of August last, and
subsequently filed a bill to have it declared that the part-
nership was dissolved, and he now moved to have a re-
ceiver appointed to collect the debts, and to wind up the
affairs of the partnership, and for an injunction to re-
strain the defendant from interfering therein. The
plaintiff was not entitled to such an order, unless he had
shown a right to dissolve under the deed, or had shown
facts to entitle him to a decree for dissolution.
One cause alleged was outstanding debts, and
another that defendant had not brougt in capital.
Defendant alleged that if the plaintiff had got in the out-
standing debts there would have been sufficient capital,
and that if defendant had retained moneys of the part-
nership such money was less in amount than the subsist-
ence money, to which he would have been entitled if the
outstanding debts had been collected. It did not appear
to his Lordship that the plaintiff had been guilty of the
supineness laid to his charge, or that the evidence justi-
fied the allegations of the defendant. It appeared to him
that the conduct of the defendant had been such as to
make it impossible that the business could be carried on
in partnership with mutual benefit. The neglect of the
defendant to account for the moneys'he had received on
account of the partnership, and his refusal to sign cheques
to enable the business to be carried on unless cheques
were signed for his own use, were acts inconsistent with
the duty of a partner. These acts were not disproved or
satisfactorily explained, and being such as if proved at
the hearing would have entitled plaintiff to a dissolution,
it appeared to his Lordship that he was entitled to what
he now asked. The order prayed for must therefore be
granted.