The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-23 00:00:00

LA

GENC.E.

"-'ll-11.NCERY COUitT.—(THIS DAY.)
tra, v. THE EAST INDIA COMPANY.—JUDGMENT.
"mit)) CHANCELLOR gave judgment to-day in this
of
efi atich was argued before the Court on the first day
erik The only question in the case was, whether
terta
th In documents, being the correspondence between
the Court of Directors of the East India Company and
thee Commissioners for the Affairs of India, contained in
th third schedule of the answers of the defendants,
be:eld be produced. It was said that they ought not,
loause they were part of a confidential correspondence.
deew that was no answer to the production of deeds or
tw„lltlleate when they were referred to in the an-
kJ. But then it was said that they were official
lint meats, and that therefore they were privileged,
ee official correspondence was not privileged
heels under peculiar circumstances. Such being
to Chase it became necessary for his Lordship to look
4,'"e Act of the 3d and 4th of William 111. By that
tray all the territorial property in the East Indies was
Is i,iseft._erred from the East India Company to the Crown,
by tho itl by the Company in trust, and to be managed
3
thi ,ire for the benefit of the Crown. In addition to
the ("14 their property and :estates were transferred to
patii;'"°a; 13, to be managed by the East India Corn-
keit'. in trust for the :service of the Govern-
any ' and they were preeented from carrying on
tiiiipninaercial transaction, except for the purpose of
tern Ing up their affairs, or for the purpose of the G?-
eerhelent of India. This was the state of the East India
WilliPanY by the passing of the Act of the 3d and 4th of
the 411 the Third ; all their affairs were placed under
kisBqerintendence, direction, and control, of the Corn -
4:teners for the Affairs of India ; and in order that
te,:°l might be exercised effectively, it was ne-
e4o,:',7 that the most unreserved communications
48‘tta take place between the Directors of the
V India Company and the Board of Control ;
ltrt;„acans, rdingly there were in the Act of Parliament,
tiee:rarly in the 29th section, and other parts, pron.
Wel
.5Y which the Directors of the East India Company
ke- required to make communications of all their acts
^o its
1 -
c)Pre,aPondence to the Board of Control. It was ob-
It is that public policy required, and looking to the Act
hear that iear that that was the result contemplated by it,
1111,,?, a most unreserved communications should take
1 Ceti', between the East India Directors and the Board of
ohyi'ral, subject to no restraint or limitation ; but it was
' h°43 if at the suit of one individual those communica-
oeldabould be produced in a Court of Justice, the effect
thee, be to restrain the communications and render
dip thought
cautious. On the whole his Lord-
Sitr °Lught the communications referred to, came
:led - ,_l44e class of communications that were privi-
IN, that they could not be communicated without.
khliglPg the policy of the Act, or interfering with the
kki C :uterest. The order, therefore, that had been
1111de 111)(3n ,the motion by the Vice-Chancellor of Eng-.
y'anst be discharged.
~, Nt 1,,,,
L 44 t -,E MATTER OF STAPLETON, A LUNATIC.
„‘41.(1'440, RD CHANCELLOR said in this case, which was
'44 'he lead been considering what he should do.
1 hie
thethninistration of the property of a lunatic
Mtp,e, Court was always conducted upon the
the he," of considering, in the first instance,
oeeefit of the lunatic himself. It was clearly for the
tiuse! of the lunatic to allow his debts to be paid, be-
tile present;
freed him from being arrested or harassed. In
I LC case it was suggested that the arrangement
NC been proposed would be for the benefit of the
a - 1-Cow with respect to that his Lordship wished
Nr.' should be clearly ascertained before he gave his
htlajtkignient. He thought, therefore, that it would be
~,. to ,
!cilia is reLer it to the Master to inquire whether it
'''Q r " for the benefit of the lunatic to acquiesce in
ItleieeNlf rt with reference to the particular debts, or whe-
urther inquiry should take place.
h ll' r_ PRICE V. NORTH.
Oat
gil3;4uenrlt'. sHIP stated that in this case in which he
Ott ti, Judgment a few days ago, he was of opinion.
"4 e Party was not entitled to interest upon his
14 Tebt.
, Ili Ht MATTER OF GUNDRY, A SUPPOSED LUNATIC.
'l,iBsr,-3 Petition, pea object of which is to obtain a com-
irl°r4Ctill,nc)f lunacy gainst Mr. Gundry, who figured a
'''4e yfr ago at Marlborough-street, in consequence of
Ls 1, o,ent''acts, while in a state of great excitement,
1 lif;°BltPened till the first day of next term.
t,t4lltti,'''°ltDSHlP, after disposing of the whole of the
we Petitions in his paper, and several motions, rose
I°lle and two o'clock.
'rral. ourt will not sit again till the first day of next

hot.,
1 It 7"1148' COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
i vie lit, COCKELL V, BRIDGEMAN. .
kith _ *ITER of the ROLLS gave judgment in this case,
l't,il oats heard on the Bth inst., and reported in The
Z itkirt day. His Lordship said the bill was filed by
ke4ecetser and holder of a lost bill of exchange against
k 'tor, for payment of the amount due on the bill,
tet
tifl proper indemnity. The plaintiffs bill 416, the loss of the bill, and the defendant ad-
*l4 that he had never paid it. Plaintiff al-
1f444.• that when it became due he had re-
Itty h payment but that since the 23d of
thtki heeerlnd never. .been able. to find the bill, and that
Nilin t°B!, mislaid, or accidentally destroyed ;
.and
,yra.., t admitted that plaintiff had frequently required
411,,74ti but alleges that he did not know whether the
1111e,:ts", or not. Both parties had gone :into evi-
: d Plaintiff had given no evidence that he had
Th. tql,ent search for the bill, or that he was unable
41:s afharvkle, e it, except by an affidavit of his clerk.
6,,, as il, .II was no evidence that the bill was lost, but
h,4 ilot aricilltred for propriety of jurisdiction. Defendant
kr)qc,Pitted the loss, and plaintiff alleged that no
t4st be,u be given of the loss. In some cases losses
elti , clearly proved, in others they might be inferred
htre ellinstances, but here was no evidence, either
"ritipt°P circumstantial. The plaintiff therefore fails,
'lll ,°4l want of right, but from defect of evidence. The
Pteii,',,tist, therefore, be dismissed with costs, without
ItiiQ'lee to the right of the plaintiff to file another bill
s'all be so advised.
N
,h,
, SMITH V. JETES.
- 'IASTER of the limas also gave judgment in this
- - ----

facts Sys the
".
of which were reported in The Sun a few
Le: His Lordship said the plaintiff and defendant
eYs and solicitors, and on June 1, 1835, en-
Rhieku.Partnershipfor ten years under
.an indenture,
seii'istevvas provided, among other things, that for
4t lorttyautsnes therein mentioned, either party should
determine the partnership -between
lioeti", at an earlier period. Plaintiff had given
16: dissolution on the 21st of August last and
44tslitue,a,tlY filed a bill to have it declared that theypart-
k6lvtt, 'as dissolved, and he now moved to have a re-
"P,Pointed to collect the debts, and to wind up the.
titai the partnership, and for an injunction to re
itili44tifisf defendant from interfering therein. The
t "as not entitled to such an order, unless he had
n
t 4 right to dissolve under the deed, or had slun
;,° entitle him to a decree for dissolution.
11"5th,;.aai_se alleged was outstanding dbts,
.atnad.
-},S4 that defendant had not brought in capi
ah°Nrid•hatit alleged that if the laintiff had got in the nu
14.44 i',lfeb,ts there would have. been sufficient capital,
e 84ip defendant had retained moneys of the part-
uch money was less in amount than the. su.bsist-
tot'at,so4ee
:tcleY, t 0 which he would have been entitled if the
14),.al debts had been collected. It did not appeart_e
fielnenes7Bl_lliP that the plaintiff had been guilty of h.
th the ), 'Aid to his charge, or that the evidence justi-
b,r'at th,,k'sgatio the defendant. It appeared to him
'alce ei°aduetnOfofthedefendant had been such as to
414,fPartinteapossible that the business could be carried on
escl ''HIP with mutual benefit. The neglect. of the
w:ehualibtl:rthth:
t° account for the moneys' he had received on
itiTtnership,haend his refusal to sign cheques
tht4etisigued four 2;irilseSS to be carried on unless cheques
were acts inconsistent with
!,4tisflltY of a partnero.wnThe'se acts were not disproved or
tt h4cterii,
explained, and being such as if proved at
be 4ppea'ag Would have entitled plaintiff to a dissolution,
lloe-":eLd to his Lordshipave that he was entitled to what
'atelves'ad. The order prayed for must therefore be
CLARKE V. CLARKE.
It',l424ne,•ase, which was reported in The Sun of Tuesday,
the mentioned yesterday afternoon.
al;:l,lsTxtt of the ROLLS said that he had considered
Nal -ter, and was of opinion that the proceedings were
1/1.0 eat.' The application that the bill might be taken
Ilfesso must be granted.

( er,t-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
4—t fore the VICE-CHANCELLOR Of ENGLAND.)
11°RNEY-GENERAL V. THE GREENWICH R
COMPANY.
Ntr
Alien;: (I°D, on the part of the defendants, made an
4io • It to the Court to alter the words of its late de-
'llstralt thisitease, as they appeared in the minutes of
the
4fl
PP red from the statement oMr.Wotehde
WorAhis 011 -Lea.l dcertain order, adding
8, I, 11 Ha. ma e
Zil prefer
nevertheless that the Attorney-
the•kit it an indictment" against the Company,a
hn2oty ."le Attorney-General. to proceed or not i
-"ev —Pemfied, as he might think proper.
.The words,
t"•
llAPPeared in the minutes of the Registrar as
wt,s4kod let the Attorney-General proceed by in diet-
bllt:tted lelt would compel him to proceed. The Registraria
ZisLtt, frostt he had copied the words of the decree,
171 them l'oemor ; and admitted that his Honour had_
ey 4,,words "Yon condition nevertheless," although
11. omitted in the minute.
,1,1) 0i),:n4.11 ELL (who appeared for the Attorney-Gene-
"' th deeted the making any alteration in the minutes
K• is Ite • would establish a very
eonven, gtstrar. Such a course
ent precedent.
NLellte °llle°lql said that he was not inclined to alter the
-11 st there was anything wrong, the defendants
Air'lx,4ve the case re-heard.
4141 " °op said that he feared the matter would cer-
TIYI collie to that.
e application( was then dismissed, but without costs.
Il• ia it''efore Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
aCjttl.n:Q,l'l°Uß was en aged during the whole of the
"me p,11,,,n1 hearing a continuation of the arguments in
[The...Heard case of Cockburn v. Singleton.
-"▪ " arguments had not been brought to a conclusion
—l4O We went to press.]
Meter° Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
tj RAINE V. CAIRNES.
wBa;'°Notra gave judgment in this cause. The plain-
", orth" teMor of thearsh of Meldun, in the county of
'OO 441berland. The parish consisted of between
eilltselitikl,°oo acres, the a
of which had been pur-
I‘ieh -WI the defendant, Mr. Cookson, from the Greeu-
Iva% to-°spital in the year 1832. The object of the suit
ayr, "ye it declared that the plaintiff was entitled to the
itiktetiot of tithes in kind ; answer to which the defendant
aPpear modus of 131. 6s. Bd. from the year 1637. It
Dress ek' as a fact that Mr. Cookson purchased with ex-
the r,,°tice that in 1823 the year after the institution of
twe;;e,ellt rector; an au' eement bad been come to be-
Of tile foraBr giving Raine and the Hospital, that in consideratiTi
up sortie arrears of rent he should in