The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-15 00:00:00

LAW I

iNCE.

PRIVY COUNCIL, APRIL 14.

WOOD AND OTHERS V. GOODLAKE AND OTHERS.
Sir F. POLLOCK (in continuation from our Evening
Edition of yesterday, said—But notwithstanding these
cases the question was what was the rule and what was its
application. Did B refer to A? The reference must be to
something which, without the possibility of mistake, was
the document produced. B directed the disposal of the
estates "as directed by my instruction," but the instruc-
tions contained no directions with respect to a part
of the estates, and did not, therefore, correspond.
Their Lordships would observe that in paper A, the words
" Instructions for the will of me, James Wood, Esq., of
Gloucester," were not connected with the rest ; there was a
considerable space between them, and these words might
have bren supplied afterwards. He threw out this suggestion
as one among others for their Lordships' consideration.
The reference should be so clear and stringent that a sup-
position to the contrary could not be admitted. Was
the reference here of this nature ? In no re-
spect did paper A correspond with the instructions re-
ferred to in paper B. The only pint of correspon-
dence was the solitary word " Instructions," But
if they were referred to, there might have been
other instructions rather written, or parole, which were
not forthcoming. Then could A stand by itself? It was
altogether in the handwriting of Mr, Qhadhorn.
Mr. Chadborn ought to have instructed Mr. Wood
that such instructions should have been in his own
handwriting, or he should have called in another attorney,
and if, as his Learned Friend had suggested, Mr. Wood
had objected to the expense, he might, in such a ease,
lia4z, paid the fee himself. The paper lied been
in Mr. Cnadborn's possession up to the time of its
annexation, and tinder these circumstances it ought not to
be admitted to probate withogt a great deal more
of proof than that of handwriting. Pe eeetended that
if the document had been attested by three witnesses,
yet, being in Mr, :lhadborn's handwriting, other evidence
would be necessary to establish its validity. If it wore
entirely in the handwriting of the testator, he still con-
£.ended other evidence was necessary, He thought
there was the strongest reason to believe this
paper had ee existence before paper F 3 was
executed, If it had Leen it was impossible but it must
have been then produced. If poduced would it not have
been annexed ca at least ostentatioesly ealailsited ? There
was,ot the slightest evidence that Mr. Ghadborn had
.
Ibsen at the !senator's on the 2d of December, when it bore
date.
Lord LYNDHURST obsenied that he thought it was a
very clumsy instrument to have:ns'en fabricated by an in-
telligent attorney. As the Learned Gentleman appeared
to be proceeding to a new part of the case, he thought
they had better aejourn.
Their Ldrdships then adjourned to the 17th May.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, APRIL 14.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Bowa.N.)
IN RE CHARLES HENRY O'SHAIJGHNESSY.
The insolvent was partner in an eatensive boot and
shoemaking establishment at No. 8, Old Bond-street,
and afterwards carried on business on his own account
in No. 10, Rue d'Alger, Paris. The aggregate amount
of debts in his private balance sheet was 2,800!., in
that of the partnership account 1591. ; a further sum
cf .5001. appeared, for which there W 11.3 no considera-
tion. He had no property of any account now to give
up for the benefit of his creditors. The insolvent and
a cousin of his nained Edward Crean were, on attain-
in; the ate of 25 years, to receive the sum of 1,700/.
share and share ;like, under a will made in their fa-
vour by a relative called Captain Edward O'Shaugh-
nesq, to which will the insolvent's and Crean's mother
administered. In case of the death of ether party
before the age of 25 the survivor was to inherit the
whole, which stood in the Three-and-a-Half per Cent.
stocks. Crean teas allowed to draw his money before he
was of ag:, and having mixed much in eociey di:isieated it
away previous to his death in Angust last. In April
1839 the insolvent was allowed by his mother aad the
other admiaistratrix to draw his portion of the legacy,
previous also to his being of age, to commence busi-
ereis with. He had bi- ea concerned with a person named
Deacea, a eirpenter and builder at the Maath-g,ate,
in bill transactions for the letter's accommodation, end
likewise to carry on a building speculation, and had
taken a house in Bolton row, which he fitted up at
much expense as a !mud and lodaing-liouie. Same of
the furniture was sell, and the test pawned.
The insolvent having le.ea atiej-eaed to a very
lengthened examination by Messrs. Cooke and Nicholls,
The Learned COMMISSIONER said he should adjourn
the case, ia order to procure the attendance of Aire.
Crean, as ho wished to hava Furth(); information t.ouch-
ing the payment of the legacies under Captain
O'Shaughncssy's will.
IN RE JAMES ALEXANDER.
The insolvent in this case was a biker in Walwortb,
and was indebted to several millers, none of whom ap-
peared save the detaining creditor by his attorney.
He was opposed by Mr. Mannirg, a solicitor, who
contended that the insolvent had been taken under a
friendly arrest.
Mr. Young, of the firm of Young and Son, solidi-
tors, Mark-lane, stated to the Court that he was en-
gaged to recover a sum of money due by the insolvent
to Mr. Ward, a flour factor in Malden, and caused an
execution to issue against his effects ; but they were
already taken possession of by the landlord. He would
acknowledge that the insolvent was taken in capias as
a matter of compassion, and at his (Coe insolvent's)
own request, that he might pass through the Court, and
have whatever effects he might be possessed of adminis- ,
terel by it. At the time the execution was put in, one
of the insolvent's chilrea was lying dead, and another
died since.
Mr. Commissioner BowEN said that he could not
consider the present case came under the claszification
of " friendly arrests" in the usual acceptation of that
term. A paraded case had occurred some time since,
where the detaining creditor acknowledged that he was
actuated by a kindly feeling in arresting the insolvent,
yet it was the only way in which he could be served, or
his assets made profitably available to his creditors,
He should therefore order that the insolvent be dis-
charged forthwith.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION HOUSE.

Wm. Lloyd, Secretary to the North Staffordshire
Colliery Company, was summoned before Sir PET2.II
LAuntr under the following circumstances

Mr. Henry Brown, engraver Find printer, of No. 14,
Nichol-square, Cripplegate, stated that in the month of
September, 1839, he was applied to by Messrs. Lloyd
and Robinson, Secretaries to the North Staffordshire
Colliery Company, to print prospectuses and to make
account beaks for the Company. The term of credit
was said to be about two months, and all orders were
signed by Messrs. Lloyd and Robinson, servants of the
Company, a course which prevented them from being
amenable for the amount of the debt incurred. They
lived in New B.lsinghall-street, and described them-
selves as Secrctarics to the Company, when he (com-
plainant) had his dealing with the concern. The time
arrived for settling the account, which amounted to
451. 11s., but as no attention was paid to his application,
he placed the business in the hands of his solicitor, who
wrote to those of the parties whose names appeared in
the prospectuses as Directors ; Mr. Woollctt, of Hol-
born-hill ; Mr. Maclean, of Bas:ngball-street ; and Mr.
Luntley. The two first gentlemen returned the follow-
ing answer :

" 92, Holborn, Dec. 10, 1839.
" Sir—/I disclaim any connexion with the Company
you wrote to me concerning. My name, it is true, was
published, but without my consent. I have had nothing
whatever to do with the Company, neither intend to
have. You must look to those who contracted the debt.
Ido not even know the party for whom you write.—l
am, Sir, your's, obediently. GEO. WOOLLETT."
" 7, Basingball-ttreet, Dec. 10, 1839.

" Sir,—lam neither a Director nor Shareholder in the
North Stafforshire Colliery Company, and never was,
and I know nothing at all about the concern.
My solicitors are Messrs. Sweet, Sutler, and Co.
of this street.

" I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
" D. MACLEAN."

The third party did not think proper to make any
reply. Thus the account remained unsettled, and he
(complainant) thought that, under those circumstances,
the most proper course• he could pursue, was to sum-
mon Mr. Lloyd before Sir Peter Laurie to explain the
conduct of the Company.

Sir P. LAunIE—Do you mean to say that in conse-
quence of the issue of the names of these parties as
Directors you gave credit ?

Mr. Brown—Yes, in consequence of that and having
known Mr. Lloyd before.
Sir P. LAURIE—If any Company put forth the names
of parties without their sanction, there can be no second
opinion as to the character of that Company. Lord
Denman has done great good in expressing himself
recently on that point, in the case of the Independent
and West Middlesex Life and Fire Assurance rob.
buy ; and Mr. Thesiger, the counsel, has done him-
self credit in throwing up the brief of one of the persons
concerned. Now, Mr. Lloyd, it remains for you to
defend yourself. You have
come here at once to meet
this complaint in the most prompt and candid manner,
and I give you eivesrhyould
,fishr suteoh conduct.
Mr.
whether 1\ I LAIIerY. (IB—rionw riii,aszdaysot.t.3o(.3ardwiolfeDieicalecetdorsfirostf
e tiniehhec
ofG tolrillepDaniryectcrs there, and whether—ether
he
saw
athney
teeaelterations in the printing,
,ildbootitistoma
driedecaityteedndanayt
directions from them ?
and he saw, he thought, Mr. Luri:l
y there. He was
told th:A nas the Director's naroc.
B I‘S
hia37-street costa
Sir P. LAuratE—Pray, is the Compr,y prosperous ?
Mr. L!oyd—lt is now in abeyance.
Sir PETER LAURIE—What amount was subscribed?
Mr. Lloyd—About 2001. altogetber,
Sir PETER LAURIE--"By the public?
Mr. Lloyd—By the public and the friends of the
Dirc;;ors.
Sir PETER prospectus says the capital
is to be 100,000/., with pov.er to cxtenti 11. to I:30,000/.
It contains a long list of DircA,)rF, two out of
three of those to whom the coinpliinant's solicitor wrote
declared that thoy knew nothing at a about it, and die-
claim it altogether. What sort of a Company i this?