The Sun.
London, England, 1824-01-21 00:00:00

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1924.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JAN..2O,
CLAIIGHT.ONI). HAMMON%

Mr. LovAr pursued the argument which had been adjourned'
ftom yesterday, against the motion for an injunction in this
case. It had-been said that the plaintiff:bad had notice from
the.assigneeaa.Lea, that he- should,nbt, Pay but-that
could be no ground for preyenting,theJlefendant from -recover-
ing the bill taVen for bona fide torAtleration. As to the matter
of-fact, upon the naked s,:Atern•eritTeund- in the Oiintiff's bill,
he had. employed Lace for at least-a year end a half and the
business upon which he -eMployed him- was avowedly to raise
money for the use of the plaintiff, by -tneens of hills. or loans,
or.any other. available. means. ; ][t-appeared:that. in that time
they had raised at least 40,000,1. The plaintil -.declared that
the Africati•and-Cape-of 6-ccd 116pe Companies were chimeras
which had no eXisterice,but in 'the :brain of Mr. Lee: 'lf he
were to travel out of the record, as the other side had done, he
could prodUce to the Court one el' the bilis of theefirzo beacit.r.-
fiallz. engraved, wrnch wont i meet- declaratiod 'fully: But
he, did. not teel• himself. authorizad by the irregularity Of his
opponents to follow that coursea',
- The..Loivia CilANtEur..6ft.risked why the Learned Counsel
mentioned them ;.either he was or was rot entitled to intro-
duce that matter. He wished to know if-the cause had been'
ea:lad en this-inorning in the 'Courts halals?
The Solicitors replied that it was the third in- the piper.
Mr. LOVA T returned to the argument. lie; showed from the
contents of the answer that the defendaat most positively denied
all knowledgeaif the nature of Mi. Lee's- agency, or that he.
had been dismissed from the,agency before the date of'the bill
now in action, and upon which. a verdict had in all probability,
by this hour of the morning, been pronoun Ced fat the defendant,
The plaintiff had moved in November- hit for this injunction
in the Vice-ChaOcellor's Court, and the motion wasdismissed.
They had suffered four seals to go over subsequently without.,
any application : they had launched their case in a Court of.
Common Law, and they were not nuw entitLed. to -disturb the
proceedings there, which wore now, going on, if they were not
-by this time deterinined in favour of thddefendant.
The Loan CHANCELLOR wished to know upon what' me-
rits the plaintiff went before the Vice-Chancellor. He could
not understand what equity there was in this case, which was
unfit for-the decision of a Court common law: ' •
Mr. LOvAT felt satisfied with the suggestion of the Court.-,-
1-le would pass by the other merits of his case, and content him
self with observing, that not only ought the plaintiff not to
have an injunction to stay the action. but he- would not be en-
titled to stay execution. If the Court should differ from him
upon this last point, he felt sure that the present motion would
be dismissed with the costs not. only of this Applit!ation, but
also those costs which occurred in that before the. Vice-Chan--
cellor.

4 t
Mr. AGAR felt that he had been unfortunate in his ars. ad-
dress to the Court, for he thou, ht be had shown a very suffi-
cient equity for the application. The bill shoiied. that after
discovery undei Lee's bankriiptcv, the defendant had none*,
that the plaintiff was cautioned not to. pay the Money. Inn de-
fendant had knowledge of the fraud, .which was :plain Py his
own admission that be had taken double security for tile pay-
ment, and that, he had effects of the bankrupts to the anioant Of
7001. more than the value of the bills.
The Lon CHANCELLOR asked if the defendant admitted,
payment of. his account by the means now, for the first time,
mentioned in the cause.
Mr. LovaT said, so far from that, the defendant declared,
that if he recovered the amount of the bills it would not cover
the debts clue to him.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that the ground laid first
for the motion was, that no consideration had been given for
the bill; now that the value of the bib had been more than.
paid, which raise an entirely new
case, he was at a loss m know
how the plaintiff could proceed better to determine the:rights
of either party than by producing that which was now ad-
vanaed in evidence
•
before the. jury. .sVio much of it, how.
ever, there did not seem to him to be any equity at all.- :There'
.
was a groat deal said about blank bills issued by the plaintiff,.
and filled up by Lee as his agent. It was in some casses diffi-
cult to say what was precise Justice in cases where blank bills.
were given to be filled up at the discretion of another party ;
but it blank bills had been given for Lee to be filled up as the.
agen tof Mr. Claughton, the assignees could pretend no right
to such bills. And as to the liability.. of the plaintiff, he -re-
membered when a question of the kill was tried at N;si Pries
at Derby, Lord Mansfieldsdeciared that the parts' for whom
bills given in blank were filled
up, was just as much bound ofin a bill fully drawn, and afterwards regularly accepted. To
shorten the case, aawever, by this timeathe action in the lower
Court was now either in course of trial, or was decided in ver-
dict. He ordered, therefore, that the plaintiff here, in case the
verdict were pronounced against him should pay the money
into Court, give the defendants the costs of the motions unsuc-
cessfully made before the 'trice-Chancellor, and undertake to
abstain from proceeding to a' writ of error.
EXPARTE GRIMSTEAD INTTiR HOWARD AND OTP.BS.
This is a BankrupaPetition, which. has been for a cons4er-
able time on the paper for argument, and the hearing of which
hai been postponed. The question is one which has excited
veryabi considerableicbothin
Courtsinterest,
ofi ana
andhaEsqualirtyea.dgeeeripai-bnetfoart issue
pe
bet Ween the parties is, whether a sum of a 2.0001. advanced by
Mr. Grinistead, to the firm of Howard and .Clibts before their
banktun, tcy, was such a claim as would render him a creditor
under the commission, or whether; on the other hand, it was a
usurious transaction. The question was, &et, under the con-
sideration ofhig Honour the Vice-Chancellor, aad an isSue was
subsequently' directed to a -Court of Law. In the Court of.
Common Picas, before Ma. Justice Dallas, a long investiga-
tion took place, and the result was a verdict against the claim
of-Mr. Gnmstcad. The case now came before he Lord Chan-
and the petition prayed either that a -flea' trial might be
granted, or that . his Lordship .should at once decide that the
petitioner shoUld be allowed to prove his debt under the Com-
mission.

The •SOLICITOR-GENT.RAL appeared as Counsel for the
petition, and occupied the Court for nearly four hcura in the
statement of the facts from the petition, and in conimenting
upon 411°9v-circumstances which he 'thought most deserv-
ing the consideration of his Lordship: The first allegation
contained in the' petition was, that , the petitioner had from
time to time paid into the bands of Messrs. Howard end Gibbs
large sums is ceash,• to the amount of 60,00e1. and upwards, and
that these sums had been so. paid to them in their characters of
annuity-brokers. The petitioner , had been enabled to obtain
from them in part payment of his whole demand,. annuities to
the amount of about MOON. The residue of the balance formed
the sum of 32,000/= now in dispute between the parties ; and the
petitioner stated that the annuities to alit amount noa.having
been handed over to him by the bankrupts, he was thaw a cre-
ditor under the commission for the sum so left Unpaid. The
only answer which the petitioner had received to his demand
was, that the transaction was usurious. The Petitioner was
now actually in prison for havii . accepted bill a for the bank-
rupts to the amount of 25,000/. qlhe holders of those bills being
unable to get their money, had lodged him in• gaol, where he
still remained. The petitioner proceeded to state that, in the
year 1777, he wasleft, by the will of his father, real and personal
property to the amount of '66,oool:and that the landed'estates
were situated at -Leatherhead in Surrey, and Ashatead, in Kent;
adding that the petitioner had been a Magistrate of. Surrey for.
fifteen years, and was well known by the head
residing
in that county. The proceedings which had now been in-
stituted, had tended not only to the total ruin of his for-
tune, but to the loss of his honour and his character. The
Petition then stated, that on the lath Ntivember the Peti-
tioner was arrested by Henry' Berry, for a bill of. 7,001. In
January, 1821, an accommodation was entered into, under
which two other bills were drawn and accepted by him. On
the 6th February following a Commission of Bankruptcy was
issued against Messes. Howard and Gibbs. The Petitioner
being recommended to leave the country, took ship; and ar-
rived at Calais on the Bth February. The sole cause, the
Learned Counsel clmerved, of Mr. Griinstead's leaYing; the
country was on account of the acceptances tie had given to
these Bills of Exchange. The Petition proceeded to state,
that inquiries were trade by Mr. Wilson • respecting the an-
nuities to Mr. Henry Grey Bennett, MraPaget, Mr. Grosve-
nor, and others, and they were found to be all fictitious trans-
actions. The Whole amount of these fictitious annuities was
36,000/., and it was cliscavered that,, the alleged annuitants
mentioned in the passabook were men of great wealth arid
consequence in the world, never having been in the character
of annuitants.• Upon inspection of the pass-bcok, upon which
so much had been said, and so niuch defended, it was evident
that it was blotted, and in many parts erased. The whole ob-
ject of thise corrections and obliterations, the Learned Coun-
sel contended, was to blind this unfortunate country gentle-
man, who had thus been gained and grossly deceived' by the
bankrupts. - The Petition, then referred to certain annuities