The Sun.
London, England, 1834-01-21 00:00:00

KING V. lIAMLET.

The LORD CHANCELLOR gave notice that at the rising of
'e Court he should give judgment in this case.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

ARMSTRONG V. ♦RMSTRONG.

Mr. TINNEY appeared in this case for the plaintiff, and the
bill was filed by the representatives of Mr. Samuel Warner,
for the purpose of having it declared by the decree of the
Court, that under the effect of a deed which bore date 1810,
he was to be considered a partner in a pawnbroker's establish-
ment, carried on by the late' Robert Armstrong, and that the
usual accounts might be taken. The arrangement on which
the question of partnership depended, and which was made
between Armstrong and Warner, provided that the latter
should on advancing 2,000/. receive at the rate of 101. per cent.
on that and all other sums he might contribute to the concern.
It was alleged that he had made various further advances,
amounting altogether to 4,300/. Shortly before his death, Mr.
Armstrong executed a trust deed, by which he settled all his pro-
perty and stock in trade for his own absolute benefit during his
life and after his decease to his widow and children ; the trustees
however, never accepted the trusts, and the widow, after her
husband's death, took out administration with that instru-
ment, as a will annexed. The children filed their bill against
their mother for the purpose of having the accounts taken,
and their legacies paid ; and Mr. Warner, in a cross bill, in-
sisted on his rights as a partner in the concern. At the original
hearing considerable doubts were entertained as to the reality
and validity of the partnership alleged to have subsisted. It
was insisted that the arrangement which had been entered into
was not intended at all to constitute Warner a partner, but
merely to protect him against the consequences of loans on
which he was to receive interest at a usurious rate. The
other ground on which the claim was resisted, was,
that it was contrary to the several Acts which
from time to time had been passed for the regulation of the
business of pawnbrokers, in which it was provided that there
should be no secret partnerships, and as Mr. Warner's name
never appeared over the door, or in the certificates or memo-
randa used in the business which the policy of the law and
the provisions of the different states required of partners in
pawnbroking establishments, such a dormant partnership, if it
had been contracted for by the deed or had ever existed, was
altogether in contravention of the law, and inconsistent with
the protection of the public interests. His Honour, consider-
ing it a matter of nicety and considerable doubt, directed an issue
for the purpose of trying the legality of the alleged partnership,
which was tried before Lord Lyndhurst, and the jury found in
favour of Warner's claim. A bill of exceptions was then ten-
dered, but in the Court of Error the plaintiff was again success-
ful. The cause now came on upon farther directions ; and the
whole history of the case will again be gone into. It is likely to
last during the whole day.

VICE CHANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

INJUNCTION-SANDERS V. ARGENT.

Sir EDWARD SUGDEN applied this morning ex-parte for a
special injunction to restrain the defendant from the calling
in; the sum of 7901., selling the mortgaged premises, pro-
ceeding with an action of ejectment, or instituting any other
proceedings. The plaintiffs were the widow and infant chi!_
dren of a gentleman named Saunders, and the defendant was
one of the trustees of a sum of 7901., which was secured upon
mortgage, and given by the testator to the defendant and ano-
ther gentleman in trust for the use of his widow, with remainder
to his children. The defendant had given notice of his intention to
sell the mortgaged premises on the 24th of the present month,
and it was sworn by one of the parties, that he had pledged
the mortgage deeds for his own private debt; in addition to
which the solicitor to the mortgagee swore, that the money
had been tendered to the defendant if he would produce the
deeds, but he could not do so.
His HONOUR immediately granted the injunction.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)