The Sun.
London, England, 1823-01-28 00:00:00

LAW iNTELIAGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JAIL 27.
coos v; COLLIWRIAGE.
His Lordship gave judgment in this appeal to-day. A part-
nership had been formed between William Cook, James C.;ol-
linridge, Samuel Collinridge, Vieille% Rowley, and George
to carry on the business of coach and harness mak.
iniangiul
nel,iquorpond-street, which expired in MI,• when ano-
ther agreement was entered into to continue the partner-
ship for a further term of seven years: The articles of co-part-
nership contained all the usual covenants, and particularly
pointed out the manner in which the business should be car-.
ried on in case of the death of one or more of the partners'
should such event take place before the expiration of the
partnership, the business in that case to be continued by
the survivors,. for the benefit of the deceased partner's estate,
as much as if he were alive, and at the end of the seven years
the whole stock, &e. in the trade was to be sold, anti the whole
produce divided in the same manner as if' all the part.
nen were in existence. It, happened' sow after this agree-
ment was entered into that 'Mr. Cook was killed, by hav-
ing accidentally been thrown out of his gig after which
the business was continued by the surviving partners, according
to the terms of the agreement to the expiration of the term. A
short time before Mr. Cook's death lie made his will, by which
he appointed his partners, Aliesrs. Collinridge, and his eldest
son, cc. Cook, who was not a partner, his executors, leaving his
property to his widow, three sobs, and other legatees. Soon after
Air. Cook's death a sale of his share in the.partuerahip business
was made by the partners to W. Cook, his son and executor :
nominally the sale wire made by the executors to the surviving
partners, who immediately resold toW. Cook ; but his Lordship
said it appeared to have been the intention of the parties di
through the transaction that the sale should be made to W.
Cook, who bad, in fact, beeniteated by all the partners as a co.
partner for four months before the articles of partnership hiid
been entered into. The plaintiff's, John Cook and his brother,
the younger eons of the testa*, were displeased at the sale to
their brother, and filed a bill to set it aside ; and on its being
beard befine the Vice-Chancellor, his Honour made an order
that the Master should take an account of all the profits of
the partnership business to its termination in the year 1818,
and should inquire whether the sale that had been made to W.
Cook was for the benefit of the testator's estate. The defend.
ants appealed against this decision, and his Lordship in pro-
flouncing his judgment went very fully into the circumstances
of the case. The question to be decided, he thought, arose on
the article of co-partnership on the will of the testator ; and
what had,' been done since ? He tulhered to the doctrine laid
down by Sir William Grant, in Fenwick v.-, that how-
ever well thd parties might have meant towards the testator's
estate, the general rules of equity, applying to executors and
trustees, were so inflexible, that he was bound to say, the sale
that had been made of the testator's shams in the partnership
business could not stand, and that the business in which he was
a partner had not yet determined nor been disposed of. His
Lordship said he would advise the parties to agree among them-
selves how the business should be disposed of, but if they could
not agree among themselves, then he would order that the
Master should take an account of the whole, and inquire how
much was due to the plaintif4 and the other cestai pc truth
under the testator's

Mr. •AT'TORNEY-GENEttm., on the part of defendants,
said he hoped his Lordship would permit 10,0001. , that had
been paid to the testator's wit4ar,, and some other sums that
had been paid under the will, to be deducted out of the part,
nership funds.
Ills Lordship said, he would allow those sums to be act oft
in taking the accounts, and ordered that a statement of them
should be handed to iihn, and he would give hit opiniOn on
them afterwards.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Jaw. 27.
111 E SUNG to WM.
At the Middlesex Sittings after Michaelmas Term before the
Lord Chief Justice' the defendant was found guilty of having
committed erjury in the Court of Exchequer on the prosecu-
tion of the" ring v. William Law," for smuggling, The per-
jury of which the defendant was found guilty was, that he swore
falsely, that on the night-of the 20th of August, lil2l, between
It and 12 o'clock, Williani Law was engaged at a place culled'
the Salt Pans, on the coast of Yorkshire, tri landing a cargo of
day moved for a Rule to
smuggled gin.
belw'bec
aSuos
eywchz ()dine-
thould not be set aside and
GveErdwieEtnoAf Lguthilits9
a new trial had.
Mr. JONES, who conducted the prosecution, said, before the
Solicitor-General mate his motion, he should move that the de-
fendanthe =mined.
The So t,tcyrolt.4 ENE am. said, he would Undertake that
the defendant should be forthcoming.
Mr. Jortzs said, that his eUentS had been looking out for
the defendant for the last, six weeks, but could not find him,
and fur that, reason he thenght it necessary that the defendant
should be committed.
The defendant was then ordered into Court, and he appeared
immediately.
The. Curvy JUht ICE.—Mr., Solicitor, upon what ground
do oat move for a new trial ?
' he 80/FICITOR,GENZILIar.4III .the ground that the ver.
diet was against evidence.
The CHIEF Jusrlez.—Oh, several Plums et the trial
proved that Law was not at the Salt Pans on thiit night.
Thu SQLICITOR filorgl.,--.Yes, my Lord j hilt my
ground is; that the verdict was against the -weight of evidence.
I have also *Vie affidavit&
The Cum. JUSTICE.—ft is impossible for the Court to
• judge of that without hearing the whole report read, and as it is