The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-14 00:00:00

Lions e
tCo.IiciaANC,'THIS,tI.!
TI-us 4,!
• - h e- 1
Y.

NEWENHAM V. PEISIBERTO',.ded V'
with costs.
anclhe arguments in this case were coneo
the IF
His LORDSHIP eAlIt '
IN THE MATTER OF THE COUNTESS 01 *- .
lt,
LUNATIC. ,:s We, ,
The Court then proceeded to hear this ,eorlD
gave judgment, dismissing
came before the Court upon the pet
biiill
praying that the commission of lunacy *ll 0,1
1.; h lis'c A
granted against her in 1827, under wia-, 1 tbo.
alatainallad(dultnpbtsaietirtjeeei.
ncslhafuaardto(fii:hmeri
cieh, le8(:;:d
tmightiomb o
themsupear
isseddye VtAlibrowb i Li;
the affidavits,
veral affidavits, among which were those 0
.tieeadrn.sde.lfThe petition.k w.ast
interim
must His LORDSHIP, at the conclusion of died g
said he waonudldmseetuethein !r
must stand over.

ROLLS' COURT.(A —I his-.
rrii,eigocujt;l:4ll)
Lord Langdale sat at half-past ten o ,
the purpose of hearing the remaining' petition , ,
COOPER V. DATTERSDY. f
the dete
This was an application, on the part fraodli?..;
,0i .- ~.
to dissolve an injunction to restrain 1. .24,50 b
in the
of ten shares, hold by both parties,
Comany.
A rse
Lord LANGDALE delivered ju4-me- nt Wag-,
fa
the whole facts of the case. He said 11,,,,e01001;
that the injunction should be dissolved• ii"dosl
purchased shares in the Regenta'sppCliftencittfoeutbdejte/
which he was unable to pay, and
to advance him the money. This the vie,. 401
the terms that if any profit •should arise tuiv7 to
to receive one-third of the same, and beto be $.
the other two-thirds. There was als°, take ri
sponding division of the loss should see sell vibes
the defendant was to be at liberty t° sissi begs/
thought fit to do so on the condition t,.... „Ittioi
plaintiff notice of the same. In fact, tficord 07
in precisely the position of one who who 10 N/,
invest himself, but gave another person„,.lol/)
intimation of a desirable speculation. P'in Our
called a trust, and a more equitable one, 0000
had scarcely ever been executed. It w!‘s,,g Pb
common transactions which were tald-godllor
The shares were held by the defendant", kePt,
was entered in the books of the COrnPae);oQ
purpose. There was no doubt that it ariPr-ess:.
parties a profitable speculation. The ei,,,--tlf s; 0
chased at 13/. 15s. per share, and they slt looi
fell to 91. los. a share. Here, the defen abed lisi
great probability of a considerable loss, BPOPr big 0
ally to the plaintiff to take those shares
of IS4of
However, nothing was done till the AK i)sl),„lii
defendant told plaintiff that he (defendan•yent'i.
the shares, and after that notice had bee°ll,.oll..
, days he did sell them to Mr. Fay, his brothel be thily
he was not of opinion that there might 11°0.4
equitable transactions between relations. 00411"
had been made the market was so far /110,14'9
shares, which could not be disposed of at 9`i. n fir/
sold at the price which was originally gl e the
The transfer was not registered en Or/
so that though Mr. Fa • was tb.geliistsbli
the shares the name of) Mr. ',:iisPlj,
still after the shares in the i the i,,iyir
After that transaction whatever raise .1-efeans
shares rose to 38/. per share. The hugesl/01
acted for Mr. Fay, and sold five of the tat be,, f
great profit. The plaintiff, conceiving t'iiirslll it'
titled to a share of the profits, very Irfactistoi
inquiries, which not affording perfect salts;sb
spected the books and finding that ten of , ecoa
still standing in the name of the defends alp
that the defendant was still the holder of t jotbAY
shares, and that he was entitled to a sh,sre,o.
~,',
.i,
that would accrue from the sale of the sott,i-iao;"
evidence adduced before him was containr-Ae (16,
ings of the plaintiff and the answer of w
Gory ,i
There might have been more satisfee polo
brought f. rward, but the evidence on To)
e
defendant so greatly preponderated, that istql• ,
opinion that the injunction should be dos° i).
ri
VICE-CHANCERY.—(Tort sir
His Honour the Vice-Chancellor o' -ti AO
pleas and demurrers to-day. „ ocird
JONES V. MORGAN AND OTHERS—T..— - ,Spck-
This case came before the Court up°llt4ed 111
a lady, named Rathbone, put in to a Bill -n- tba,t''
shareholders of the Orbistou Company' -liore
that such shareholders had contributed rep, I
justly due to them, and to recover theleq6
grounds of the demurrers were want °.. oii
readers will recollect that the case c" -Ae 72
tsuLC
Court during the last term, upon the .001',i
person named Cooper, and upon that pee or
ordered the demurrer to be overruled- rer efeifi
came before the Court upon the denlue-deOV
party, and there are also several other bt, 074:
down for hearing. The facts appeared t°_,ltoge4
the year 1825 a number of persons join'oootyr
the purpose of forming a'socialist or conl°3oo,
under the superintendence of Mr. Robert 0 bo 4/
offessed object of which was to promote the F,
mankind by abating the existingevils to which tiled;
The company was to consist of sharebolders'oo
being fixed at 250/. (though after the ferrite% (I:,
company they were reduced to 2001. eaeb.,),' ;Oh/
further agreed that for the first year ",-„revf
should be allowed to hold more than ten s'"
after the lapse of one year from the fornt 4
society, such stock as should then be 1.1°,7f i°ll,
might be disposed of among the member!, AK
pany. The capital was not to exceed
ofs" re,
company eventually purchased 280 acres d OY,
General Hamilton, at Orbiston, in Scotht°,,„:f cr,,IP
of the proposed establishment, for which t"';'3,l U.
to pay 19,995/. This money was borrlefler
several sums of 12,000/. from the Unicalii- SSiv
ranee Company, 3,0001. from a Mr. Ainttee's no
mainder from another quarter. The arttebe '..0,
for the ,
meat were then drawn up, providing
regulations of the society. The right °f 1 hli
be vested in the shareholders proportionV
amount of their respective shares. The nec,4
ings were to be erected, and the neee"„4o
supplied, and the company were to be ecit,
borrow money upon the security of the °1;01 ,#:
under certain specified restrictions. ?Ito It(
were named, the first being a Mr. Con:lo'4o,d
estate was accordingly conveyed. The„Vlo,/,
some of the general articles agreed on:— .1,0
assertion of Robert Owen, who has had ret4 Oto'
in the education of children, that peinciP,loo,',
as the science of mathematics may be nr, tc,,
forming any general character, and that .w•ljtoro'i
ence of other circumstances not a few in 9
but the population of the whole world, I°4, Prall
years be rendered a very far superior race;,o3,:o
any now on the face of the earth, or who ;:ieff,o
ist.d, an assertion which implies. that..7o fb.:ior
tenths of the crime and misery which eXIP rcor t
have been the necessary cor.se uence of e"; tki
present system of instruction, cland not of 'cato'll.
implanted in our nature by the Creator, ,1;11,, iI6FA
quite practicable to form the minds of rill -liver"'
are born so that at the age of twelve ,11,00
habits and ideas shall be far superior to "" Oil!
individuals termed learned men. • .041,04
And that under a proper direction of 0-„ ben ro frd
Great Britain and its dependencies OVA
00tie9 ciri
support an incalculable increase of P°Plll-00')
articles then prescribed rules for the inanablieett Or
affairs of the Company. The 21st article t'.'i it 4
to provide for a dissolution of the Society, 10 14
:—" That if, unhaPPielft'he loil'o
that et
the to
th
coh
o fe
commended
ishould found,niroepndrdei
enemdet
ooc
rnebsss)s,ttarhar
newthe
ssatsitsfactinontrco'al,olstoeyi;jd
kin.l_mtwheledaggeg!reagsainte,ucahs
R. Owen has aemtenidene.Y 046
much ignorance 111., o'4;
poverty in the midst oev;4
317
h wealth, as much illiberality and ht,g vtl.o.o'
verity,
overbearing and cruelty, and faigni'-`lOl3 r.,
as much ignorant conceit, as„,l'oe,',ll9l
pation and debauchery, as much 01,--lell'A
brutality, as much avarice' and unfeelit%esli "O/
as much fraud and dishonesty, as 139- be etos ik7
and violence, as have invariably attended „I 10 y
system in all ages, then shall the propertY ye to
_ viduals acting under the old system, orns:s the ,/
the expenses of the institution." In I'--„, re I,(ijoi I
entered upon the estate, and the lands 'besre,"4
among the tenants. Among the original sr 9-14 t
was the present demurring defendant, C°°lltae 110°0
one share, for which he paid 201. as an in thee 0
he had borrowed from Mr. Hamilton, (31:1 V -f,
standing that unless the loan were rePtoloog tottoot
within two years, the property should .--tii) el1)0,t
Hamilton. At the several meetings that sa pti oil)
took place Cooper did not attend, but as Pe„f"ri)
trustee, Mr. Combo, to act for him, as be 11821 ,:ef, t
to do by the original agreement. 112 t aesh.t I'?
ascertained that the speculation did De;„ deb ji
the Company was proved to be involved
.n'essiellfe
considerable amount, so as to make it 1/o`-stabPl.,o
the property should be sold and tbe, --olvik/
broken up. Accordingly, in 1828, the sale„,,ey. sp•-.4
was effected, and 15,0001, the purchase
A c"
to certain deductions, transferredP to the ''''-il 'dr'
ance Company as a repayment of their Iris". bc)l.4,
siderable balance of debts to other Par,t'eljeill 61
still remained due, for which the sharePg°,,otch 141
liable. Several suits were prepared in the,f-o. Iteti
during which the estates of the shareheJurpaoo,
Glared liable, and several accordingly ht'...-he-$111.14:011
beyond what was due proportionately on '- zott'vo,
their shares. Of the original shareholders Coo
now dead, many out of the jurisdiction of the
many in hopelessly insolvent circumstanees'arer4
Air. Rolt appeared in support of the clenli-00',,f1/
In consequence of the absence of Mr. ')4l CO'
who was engaged in the Lord Chancellor's
further arguments were ordered to stand O'er'
BAIL COURT._(THIS DAII
(Sittings at Nisi Prins.) .i losfr
(Before Mr. Justice CoLERID"' Pe
The cases disposed of in this Court to-614
no feature of public interest.

I)
Ts PA ,t,'
COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS vi
LEWIS V. LORD KENSINGTON.; 100 ,Prr:#
Their Lordships this morning gave it'hge- it
.til
,81
cause, which arose on the question, whet"--r li. 9
apnrodp2ervlyieetxoerciau the sot
tii.
of attorney, executed by Lord Lensing
Victoria, chap.withli t, i°l Or t
that the attorney named should be preset'. the
fay
at the execution of the document, or else r I,t
fullY 5 j 11:,eit).5'
would be illegal. The case had been
Ino,thseel meaning °f
„...Atbet
drgot
jitli
urgc. . W V.
fanner s'tt.
i 1; g, and two objections . ettoPi y
legality of the warrant. The first ohr„ cl, "
that there b 010-13 *O-
- no proper su J ~,, p
name of the attesting, wanes* tm