The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-10 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, DECEMBER lO, 1841.

The following gentlemen were then elected Direc-
tors :—Messrs. G. R. Robinson, H. Oxley, Bolton Rennie,
and R. C. Price, in the room of Messrs. Blount, Burton,
Innes, and Jerningham.
The SECRETARY then stated that the number of policies
issued during the past year was 1,040. In the first year of
the Society the surplus amounted to 46,0001., the second
to 60,0001., the third to 72,000 L, the fourth to 79,0001., the
fifth to 93,0001., and the sixth and last to 104,7651.25. 6d.,
whilst the annual expenses
its proportion
remained stationary, thus
diminishing every year in proportion to the income.
Mr. BOUSFIELD called on the members to exert them-
selves, and they would soon raise their present per tentage
Thanks were then proposed to the Chairman, and the
Meeting adjourned.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
ROLLS COURT. Dec. 9.
SMITH V. JEYES.
This was a motion, on affidavit of the plaintiff, for the
appointment of a receiver of the moneys belonging to the
business carried on by him in co-partnership with the
defendant, as solicitors in Chancery-lane, and to wind up
the affairs of the partnership; which had been dissolved
by the plaintiff on the ground of direct violation by de-
fendant, of the articles entered into by him with the
plaintiff.
Mr. PEMBERTON, with whom was Mr. Parker and Mr.
Romilly moved for an order to have a receiver appointed
of the debts due to the partnership which had subsisted
between the parties in this cause, with power to wind up
and settle the affairs of the partnership.
It appeared that in the year 1835 the defendant, who
had long carried on business as a solicitor in Chancery-
lane, entered into partnership, for a term of ten years,
with the plaintiff, and that articles of partnership were
executed between them, by which it was stipulated,
among other things, that for the first five years of the
term the defendant should provide two-thirds of the ca-
pital necessary for carrying on their business, and the
plaintiff one-third, and that for the remaining period the
capital should be subscribed by them in equal moieties ;
and after a number of directory clauses, providing for
subsistence-money, it was provided, that if either party,
without the consent of the other, should withdraw, or
take any of the money, effects, or property, which, for
the time being, belonged to the partnership, other than
or besides what he was thereby authorised so to do, then
and in any such case it should be lawful for
the other of them, within thirty days after the
discovery, to dissolve the said partnership, by
giving notice thereof in writing, and that immediately
after 'such notice had been given the said partnership
should cease, and be void to all intents andpyrposes.
The partnership thus constituted bet teen tire parties
continued until the 21st of August last, When the plaintiff
served defendant with a notice of its. dissolution, and
took possession of, and removed from the offices, all the
books and papers belonging to the business. The
grounds alleged for this step, and for the present motion,
were, generally, that the defendant had directly violated
the covenants entered into by him with the plaintiff in
the articles of partnership, by net bringing into the busi-
ness his stipulated share of capital; by taking away from
the business capital by which the business ought to have
been carried on, and appropriating it to his own pur-
poses ; by misapplying moneys received by him on
account of the partnership, and giving n 2, ac-
count of the same; and by refusingoncur wiffi the
plaintiff in acts necessary for carrying the business of
their partnership. Several acts were alleged in the bill
as committed by the defendant, and constituting the
breach of contract ; but the three following were
chiefly relied on in support of the motion. First,
that on the 28th of August, 1840, the plaintiff
had remitted to the defendant, from Liverpool, a note
for 50Z for the purpose of paying the expenses of certain
witnesses necessary at a trial about to take place at the
Assizes in that town, and that defendant had not so
applied the money, but had received and not accounted
for the same, whereby one of the clerks of the firm had
been obliged to borrow money of the plaintiff's brother to
defray the witnesses' expenses. Secondly, that defendant
had received the sum of 54/. 95.10 d. from a Mrs. Eliason
on account of the partnership, and had neglected to ac-
count for it until some time afterwards, and thirdly, that
defendant had received the sum of 556 L Bs. Bd. on ac-
count of the partnership, and for the purposes of paying
the same to a gentleman named Stow, in exchange for the
conveyance of certain lands, to be sold by a decree of
the Court of Chancery, and had drawn a check for
the amount, and handed it over to a clerk of the partner-
ship to be so exchanged, but the conveyance not being
prepared after the clerk had gone several times for it, the
defendant had again obtained the check, and received
the amount, and applied it for his own purposes. The
bill also charged the defendant with improper behaviour
towards the plaintiff, with neglect and mismanagement
of the business; in proof of which it was, among other
things, alleged that the proctors of the parties having
applied to them for payment of their bill, and threat-
ened to take proceedings unless it was forthwith dis-
charged, the defendant caused several copies to be made
of this letter, and sent to clients who were indebted to
the partnership with a letter to each requesting
that their accounts might be immediately paid to enable
them to meet their proctors' demand. Under these cir-
cumstances it was contended that the plaintiff was justi-
fied in dissolving the partnership and entitled to the re-
lief prayed for, with the costs of the motion.
Mr. KINDERSLEY, with whom was Mr. Wright,
stated that the defendant in his answer alleged that in
the year 1835, having been many years engaged in
carrying on an extensive and lucrative business, and
being desirous of being relieved from its labours
and anxieties, he had taken the plaintiff into
partnership for the purpose of conducting his business,
and had provided that he himself should not be called
upon to interfere with it further than should suit his own
convenience. It had been for many years his practice
to require from his clients annually payment of the
sums expended by him on their account, which generally
amounted to from 60 to 65 percent. on the bill of costs,
and that consequently before plaintiff became his partner,
he had never had any deficiency of capital for the pur-
poses of his business; but that after plaintiff had under-
taken the management of the business, he had neglected
and refused to require payment from his clients accord-
ing to the custom of his office, whereby they became
greatly indebted, and great difficulty was incurred in
procuring payment of their debts, and in obtaining funds
for carrying on the business of their office ; and that
and ingratiated him-
self'the plaintiff had at-
temptedh having inpgy with
e rs thus
n
tooadissolvelformedl ad
the
connection, onnst s n
clients,e
partnership
between them, with
a view to defraud defendant of his business. Defendant
denied that he had committed any act in violation of the
articles of partnership from the date of the
notice of dissolution, alleged that the notice was conse-
quently null and void, and the partnership still subsisting.
With respect to the three articles mainly relied on by
the plaintiff. Defendant alleged that having received the
note for 50/., for the purpose stated by the plaintiff, he had
expended El. there in endeavouring to subistena the wit-
nesses, and to tender them their expenses, but without suc-
cess, and that, although he had left town with the balance
before the witnesses departed, there was, nevertheless,
sufficient funds at the office to pay their ex-
penses, and that he had not attempted to con-
ceal the receipt of the money, but had made,
a memorandum of it, according to the custom of the
office, and, moreover, had acknowledged it in a letter to
the plaintiff on the following day. That, with respect to
the sum received from Mrs. Eliason, it was true that he
had omitted to enter it for four or five days after he had
received it, but that he had done so accidentally, and
that, if it were otherwise, the appropriation of this sum
and the preceding would not have constituted a
breach of the articles of partnership, as thero
was at that time, and still is, due to him for
subsistence money, according to the terms of the arti-
cles, a sum of 1,2001. With respect to the sum of
5561.85. Bd., defendant alleged that the sum could not
be paid to Mr. Stone, as the payment was to depend
upon the Master's report, which was not yet made, and
that thinking a cheque for so large a sum ought not to
remain in the hands of the clerk, he had procured it from
him on the very day on which he received from Mr.
Smith notice of the dissolution of partnership. De
fendant also denied that he had refused to sign
checks for money necessary for carrying on the busi-
ness of the partnership until plaintiff had refused to
pay him a sum of 140 L, due to him for rent of the offices ;
and with respect to the proctor's bill and letter de-
fendant alleged that he had only communicated it to
two friends who were indebted to the firm in order to sa-
tisfy them they really required payment. The answer
also contained detailed replies to the several other alle-
gations in the bill, and prayed that it might be dismissed
with costs.
The case was not concluded at the rising of the Court.

COURT OF (,QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 9.
CONSPIRACY TO CARRY THE ELECTION OF
BRIDGEMASTER.

THE QUEEN V. bIACNAMARA AND SIXTEEN OTHERS.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Thomas Pether had made inquiries at the addresses
appearing in the six lists of persons which had been
produced. and there were no such persons residing at any
of the addresses given.
Cross-examined by Mr. KELLY - The answer
I got at John Archer's, Fore-street, Limehouse, was,
that he was not known. Fore-street, Limehouse, is a
long street. I made inquiries at a chandler's shop, and
several other places. My memorandum opposite the
name of Samuel Shervill, Curtain-road, is—Not
known. Could not find a Sherwood in the road.
By Mr. JERVIS—I am not employed as the City so-
licitor's clerk, but am employed by him occasionally to
make these sort of inquiries. I have known Mr. Pearse
twenty-five years.
Re-examined—ln many instances I could find no such
street as that given in the list.
Mr. L. Knapp--I am clerk to the Haberdashers' Com-
pany. William Trye (one of the defendants) is not a
liveryman of that Company.
Mr. C. B. Luttley_l am clerk to the Dyer? Com-
pany. Samuel Shervill, of Curtain-road, Shoreditch,
is not a liveryman of that Company.
The clerks to the respective Companies of Coach-
makers, Brewers, Blacksmiths, Clock-makers, Merchant
Tailors, Drapers, Weavers, Needle-makers, Farriers,
Glaziers, Barbers, Lorimers, Spectacle makers, Cooks,
Bakers, Leather-sellers, Plasterers, Cordwainers, Gold
and Silver Wire-drawers, and Inn-holders, were
called, and proved that the names appearing in these
lists put in, and which had been extracted from the
poll-book, as those of persons polling at the late election
for Bridgemaster, as liverymen of the different Compa-
nies, were not to be found in the lists of their respec-
tive Liveries. The names thus appearing in the poll-
lists, without
numerous. They likewise proved that the proposer and
appearing in the livery lists, were very
seconder of one of the candidates were liverymen.
James Kemp--I am a liveryman of the Farriers' Com-
pany. I voted for Mr. Gibbs at the last election for
Bridgemaster. I voted only once at that election. I gave
my address 7, Typen-street, Bethnal-green. I said no-
thing about living in Fleet-street when I voted.
James Thorne—l am a freeman of the Brewers' Com-
pany, but have never been admitted to the livery. I did