The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-01 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, June 29.
(Before Sir L. SHADWELL
HANSARD V. HANSARD.

Mr. J. Parker, with Mr. Rolt and Mr. Soutbgate,
applied for an injunction to restrain the defendant,
James Hansard, late partner in the firm of Hansard
and Co., printers to the House of Commons, from direct-
ing the sheriff of Middlesex to sell the household fur-
niture and stock-in-trade, now upon the premises in
Great Turnstile, Lincoln's-inn-fields, in pursuance of a
writ of execution issued on the 19th of May, 1847.
The defendant, who was lately at the head of the firm,
and is the father of the plaintiff, about the year 1844,
being desirous of retiring from business, agreed with
his son Luke James, the present plaintiff, who was also►
his- partner, that the stock should be valued, and his
(the father's) proportion awarded him. Upon a
valuation of the stock being taken, it was ascer-
tained that the defendant was entitled to a sum
of 22,2614 19s. sd. It was then agreed by deed,
dated the same year, that this sum should be paid
to the defendant in half-yearly instalments of 1,5001.,
with interest up to the day of payment. There was also
a second agreement, by which the plaintiff undertook to
pay to the defendant an annuity of 4001. by quarterly
payments. The due payment of the whole was secured
by a warrant of attorney, with judgment signed, on
which the defendant, in case of default being made in
payment of one instalment, or of one quarterly payment
of the annuity, was empowered to issue execution for the
whole sums respectively. In March last the quarterly
payment being in arrear, the defendant issued execution
immediately, upon which being done the plaintiff paid
the 100/. into Messrs. Hoare's bank. Under these cir-
cumstances, it was contended by the son, Luke James
Hansard, that the defendant had no power to issue exe-
cution, and the present application for an injunction was
accordingly made to the Court.
It was contended by the defendant that he was entitled
at all events to issue execution for the rent due on the
premises, which still belonged to him; and also that
the defendant's object was to preserve the property. It
was stated that the son had been recently neglecting the
business, and had incurred considerable expenses in
starting and conducting a weekly newspaper, called the
Spirit of the Times, of which he was the sole editor.
Mr. Bethell and Mr. Busk appeared fur the de
fendant. •

The counsel for the defendant has not been heard,
but it was arranged that the second motion should
come on at the same time.

MANSARD V. HANSARD.

This was a motion to dissolve an injunction granted
by his Honour on the 3d of June, restraining the defen-
dant, Luke James, who was plaintiff in the suit above
mentioned, from interfering in the affairs of the part-
nership, except under the direction of the Court, or ne-
gotiating bills in the name of the firm. The plaintiff
in this suit is Henry Hansard, the cousi❑ of the de-
fendant, with whom he has been in partnership, as
the plaintiff contended, for several years. A deed
had been executed by which Henry Hansard con-
sented to advance a sum of 2,000 L as a contribu-
tion to the stock in trade, in consideration of which he was
to be admitted as a partner, with one-twelfth share in
the profits. The defendant, in consequence, as it was
stated, of certain eccentricities, was dismissed from his
situation as printer of the House of Commons, and his
cousin, the plaintiff and partner, was appointed in his
stead; shortly after which event the plaintiff caused to
be inserted in the daily journals an advertisement an-
nouncing a dissolution of the partnership. In reply to
this statement the defendant immediately caused to be
inserted in the Morning Herald, of the 21st of May, an
advertisement denying that any dissolution of the
partnership had taken place, and threatening to take
legal proceedings against the plaintiff for havjng made
such a statement.
Mr. Stuart and Mr. Green appeared against the
motion.
Both motions were adjourned at the rising of the
Court.

SECONDARIES' COURT, June 30.
(Before Mr. Secondary JAMES.)
JOSEPHS V. ENGLISH.

The plaintiff in this action is a marine store-dealer in
Aldgate, and a well-known bill didcounter; defendant
is a licensed victualler at Hammersmith. The action
was brought to recover the sum of 31. for pewter pots
delivered.

--The ease lasted a considerable time, but was of very
little general importance, the action evidently being
for " cos. " It appeared by the evidence that
goods were taken to plaintiff, who dis-
cu-ed the price, and refused to take them in.
t?.enitiff then told a man named Bolton to
take the money and give a receipt; on a subsequent day,
he did so, but the writ bad been issued. Defendant
wished the affair to be settled, and paid Bolton and took
his receipt. The question was, had Bolton, in taking
the money, acted as agent for plaintiff or defendant. He
appeared to be now in the position of a stake holder.
The Learned SECONDARY said there had been a great
deal of legal acuteness in the affair, but the jury had
simply to say whether the money had been paid by de-
fendant to an authorised agent.
Verdict for defendant.