The Sun.
London, England, 1833-12-04 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

WRAY V. HUTCHESON.
Mr. KINDERSLEY appeared for the plaintiff in this
case, who for some time has carried on the business of a
surgeon and apothecary in Salisbury ssquare, Fleet-street,
t
the defendant having formerly served his apprenticesblP
in his service, and now filling the character of partner
in the business, which had become a very lucrative
concern. The partnership was established in the latter
end of the year 1829, and upon paying a certain premi°
the defendant was admitted to a participation in the Pro'
fits to the extent of one-third. The business went arl
increasing to a considerable amount, and a flebond estrd
blishment for the vending of drugs, &c., was set up
Farringdon-street, Blackfriars, where Mr. Hutcheson, the
defendant, resided, and where it was agreed the partner'
ship books and accounts were to be kept and regularly
made up. The partnership deed, among other matters, COn,',
tamed a proviso that if on any occasion controversies should
arise between the parties, the whole should be referred t°
arbitration. The business hail not long proceeded on tbef
terms of the partnership, when unfortunately aulijeote,„
°
dispute arose betatreen the parties which gave birth !II
acrimonious dissensions, until ultimately the present bill
was filed for the purpose of putting an end to the pratner•
ship under the decree of the Court.
Mr. BICKERSTETH interrupted the Learned Counsel for
the plaintiff before his case had been fully stated, an
begged to call the attention of the Court to the followisg
facts. The original bill was filed in February'
1832, and the bill, as amended, in November
that year. Now, of the doff; rent charges brought,
against this (defendant nine out of ten occurred
subsequent to the filing of an answer to the original hit
It was therefore submitted that evidence of these coolu
not be gone into for the purpose of establishing the plain-
tiff's original equity to a dissolution of the partnerships
His HONOUR said the plaintiff could only bring forward
such matter in the shape of a supplemental bill ) an
amended bill was not sufficient for that purpose.
Mr. KINDERSLEY submitted that the defendant, profess'
ing an anxiety to meet the charges which bad been road'
in the bill, ought to have availed himself of the objection
now offered by way of demurrer or plea, arid having failed
to do so, and permitted the plaintiff to proceed with the
pleadings, and bring the cause to a hearing at such
an enormous expense, he should be considered as nowt
debarred from taking the advantage of it.
Mr. BICKERSTETH stated that the defendant had given
due notice that he would avail himself at the hearing of
the objection.
His HONOUR did not consider the objection one merely
of form ; it was absolutely necessary to the preservation
of the purity of the jurisdiction of the Court. 0°
the filing of a bill the plaintiff was to be Con-
sidered as insisting on some particular cause,
which, he believed, entitled him to the decree of the
Court ; he must show that be had that particular
equitable ground for relief when Lis original bill was filed.
Supplemental matter could only be added by a supPle'
mental bill in the regular form ; an amended bill only
spoke at the time of the original filing.
Mr. KINDERSLEY then said, that in consequence °E
that expression of the opinion of the Court, he was in-
structed to allow the hill to be dismissed. He did n'itt
think without the ancillary ficts which had been brought
forward by amendment of the original bill, that it was I°
his power to make nut a substantial case for the plaintiffs
relief. The Learned Counsel, however, expressed a hop*
that the Court would not visit the plaintiff with those
costs which had been incurred in consequence of the
manner in which the defendant had acted in not giving
notice before the expenses had been incurred that such
a course of objection would be taken.

Mr. BICKERSTETH referred to the answer, for the
purpose of showing that such notice had been given. The
bill made gross and unfounded charges against the delea•
dant, and the question was, whether, because he had
merely taken the proper means of refuting those allega'
tinns, he should be saddled with the costs. It would have
been impossible to form a plea to meet the facts, because
they were all mixed up with the old charges, without the
dates attached to them, and there:ore the defendant was
obliged to enter into evidence.

HIS HONOUR considered that charges of a crirninating
nature having been introduced in the bill, it was nee'''.
airy, for the vindication of his character, that the de-
fendant should have adopted the course which he did. H°
was not, therefore, to be deprived of his costs. Hl°
H mour, therefore, dismissed the bill with costs, but re•
commended the parties to settle their disputes by arbitr,tio•