The Sun.
London, England, 1833-07-31 00:00:00

HARMER V. WESTMACOTT.

The bill in this case, which we briefly noticed on Monday
last, was filed by the assignees of a person of the name of
Richard Downing Richards, who had formerly been the pro-
prietor of the Age newspaper, upon behalf of themselves and
others, the creditors of the said Mr. Richards, praying that the
sale of the property in that paper to Mr. Westmacott might be
set aside, upon the ground that an inadequate consideration
had been given by the defendant for a moiety of that paper,
and that the other moiety had never been purchased by him.
Up to June, 1527, Mr. Richards continued to be the sole pro-
prietor of the Age, but in consequence of some pecuniary diffi-
culties in which he was involved, the paper was not published
on Sunday, th,.. 3d of June in that year, although its issue
was continued on the Monday following, but the paper
from that circumstance sustained a considerable loss, its sale
being on that occasion reduced from twelve hundred to eight
hundred. In consequence of the penalties and costs
which Mr. Richards had incurred in various actions
which had been brought against him, he was obliged
to take up his abode in the King's Bench prison. Whilst there,
being much pressed for money, he sold one moiety of the paper
to the defendant for 400/.—which, it was now alleged, was a
totally inadequate price, considering its real value. Up to the
9th of June Richards's name remained on the file of the Stamp-
office as the registered sole proprietor of the Age—but on that
day the name of a Mr. Bowden was substituted for Richards's
name, and in the month of August following the name of a
Miss Durham was entered on the file instead of Bowden's
name, the subsequent sale of the other moiety being purchased
in her name by Mr. Westmacott. The questions for the con-
sideration of the Court, arising out of these sales, were these
—whether the paper published for and in the name of Bowden
was the same that was published by Richards ? Whether the
purchase of the first moiety had been made for an adequate
consideration, looking at its real value at the time 2—and,
lastly, whether the other moiety had been subsequently sold to
the defendant ? A subsequent purchase of the property from
Bowden would, he had no doubt, be set up upon this occasion,
but that could not affect the rights of Mr. Richards. The purchase
money, it would be proved, had been paid in part to Mr.
Richards, viz., for services, to the Stamp-office for arrears, and
the remainder to the printer for expenses incurred by him.
Bowden, who, it was alleged, had bought the paper from
Richards, had been only a compositor on the paper,
under its former management, and had only a salary
of 2/ a week, and he continued in the employ of the
defendant, and had really never purchased the paper.
A second transaction was alleged to have taken place
in 1819, between the defendant and Bowden, and it was
stated that Bowden assigned the other moiety of the paper to
the defendant for 146/. Of this money Bowden never re-
ceived a farthing. To show that 146/. could not be its real
value, a subsequent offer of 3,0004 was made for the paper, but
that negotiation never was concluded. From these facts Sir
Edward Sugden, who opened the plaintiff's case, contended
that the transactions between Bowden and the defendant were
mere forms and perfectly invalid, and that their acts compro_
mised no right to which Mr. Richards had a claim as a pro-
prietor of that newspaper; he therefore hoped the Court would
set aside the sale of one moiety, from the inadequacy of the con-
sideration given, and the other as never having been pur-
chased by the defendant.
Mr. KNIGIIT and Mr. ELDERTON followed on the same side.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, for the defendant, said that the
proprietorship of the Age newspaper belonged to: Mr. Ri-
chards from 159.3 down to June, 152'.7 ; but the printing
materials did not belong to him, but to Messrs. Salmon and
Cunningham, as was proved upon the occasion of Mr.
Hughes Ball seizing them for the penalties incurred by
Richards for a libel. The property was alleged by the
plaintiff's counsel to have been very profitable, but the truth
of that was to be seen in the facts that the proprietor of the
paper was in prison, and that the circulation of the paper
had consideratly decreased. Up to June, 1827, the defendant
knew nothing of Richards, with the exception that he (the
defendant) had to bring an action against him for libel. The
Learned Counsel then entered into all the details of the case
relative to the purchase of the two moieties by the defendant ;
and, from the acts and letters of Richards, contended that there
could be no doubt but that every thing which had been done
had been done with the concurrence and sanction of Richards.
In consequence of the ability and exertions of the defendant he
had raised this paper to be a very valuable concern, and this ac-
counted for the present claim by the plaintiff. With regard
to the charge of nominal proprietorship, if Richards, who had
sworn to his right in the property on entering his name on
the file of the Stamp-office, had withdrawn his name and had
induced Bowden to substitute his own, without being really a
part owner of the property, in such case Richards had been
guilty of subornation of perjury, and thereby would render
himself incapable from taking any proceedings in this Court.
From Richards's own showing he considered himself still a pro-
prietor, although he had withdrawn his name from the Stamp_
office. Under all these circumstances, he was confident that
the Court would find itself compelled to dismiss this bill with
costs.

Mr. BEM's and Mr. BACON were today heard on the same
side, and they showed from the evidence that the defendant
gave an adequate price for the paper.
Sir E. SCGDEN having replied,

His HONOUR said that this came before him under circum-
stances which led him strongly to think that the Court had
not all the circumstances which related to this case fully be-
fore it ; for, after what was stated in the pleadings relative
to the agreement and the assignment, he could not but
presume that such agreement or assignment existed. True
it was that those documents were not proved in evidence, but
the cause of that was that they were both objected to—the
one upon the ground that it was not on stamped paper, and
the other that the handwriting of a subscribing witness was
attempted to be proved by secondary evidence, there being
no evidence of the death of the subscribing witness. The
subject of the dispute in question was the property in this
newspaper. His notion of newspaper property was this. A
person had a right to set up a paper for sale like any other
commodity in trade for a legal consideration, and if that per.
son from day to day publishes that paper, to which he con.
tributes articles of his own or those of others, he esta.
blishes a copyright in himself to that paper, and no one
had a right to set up a similar paper to his in his name.
His Honour here referred to the 38th of Geo. 111. cap.
78, which, from motives of public policy, requires that
the real names of the proprietors of each Newspaper shall be
registered in the Stamp-office, and his Honour observed that
a further clause of that Act made it perjury, in case a party
should wilfully and knowingly put his name on the file of the
Stamp-office as a real proprietor, when, in point of fact, he was
not. Those were not, his Honour said, mere fiscal regula-
tions, but were intended as a means of protecting the public, in
case injury should accrue to any body, that then the party
should know who the party was from whom to seek redress. Now
in this case, prior to the period at which Mr. Westmacott pur.
chased the property, there were only two persons interested in
the property—viz., Mr. Richards and Mr. Bowden. In that
case both their names should have appeared at the Stamp.office.
That Mr. Richards was privy to Mr. Bowden's acts was clear
beyond all doubt, for, on the 9th of June, 1827, Bowden's name
is introduced at the Stamp office as the sole proprietor of the
paper, and his name so continued until the 4th of August
following, at which period Miss Durham's name was sub-
stituted. It therefore appeared to his Honour that both
Richards and Bowden had conspired to do that which the
law had most expressly forbidden, and it therefore ap-
peared to him that no Court could entertain the claims of
those who asked for relief in a matter with respect to which
they had themselves acted in so improper, illegal, and wicked
a manner. Upon that ground alone, if there were no other,
lie considered that this bill ought to be forthwith dismissed.
Whether it should be dismissed with costs would depend upon
the conduct of the defendant in the transaction. If it had
been shown that the defendant had been guilty of any fraud in
the purchase of this property, of which he was bound to say
there was not a tittle of evidence; or if it was shown that,
taking advantage of the distressed situation of the party at the
tine he had obtained this property for an inadequate value,
then the assignees might have come into this Court with some
grounds to establish their case; but in this case they had no
grounds to rest on. Considering the absence of any facts of
that nature, and also the substantial evidence which had been
given on the part of the defendant, to show that there was no
inadequacy of value, he was pf opinion that the bill should be
dismissed with costs.

COURT OFVEXCUEQUER, JULY 30.
(EQUITY SIDE.)

HODGSON AND OTHERS v, HARRISON AND OTHERS.
Lord LYNDHURST gave judgment in this case this morning.
He said that the suit was instituted by the Dean and Chapter
of the Cathedral of Carlisle, as Rectors of the Parish of St.
Cuthbert, in Cumberland, against the defendants, for tithes
of certain articles arising out of land in their occupation. The
defendants set up a modus. After recapitulating the evidence
of the case, his Lordship said that he had come to the conclu-
sion that the safest and best way would be to direct issues to
try them, in order that a Jury might sift the witnesses by viva
voce examination. His judgment, therefore, was, that ac-
count should be taken with respect to all the tithes that were
the subject of this suit, except tithes of milk, calves, foals,
honey, and wax, on which issues would be directed, with a
declaration of the invalidity of the general modus.

It was Admiral BLAKE and not HOWE that
C. J. K. TYNTE, Eq., M. P. spoke of (at the meeting
on Saturday in honour of Captain NAPIER'S victory over
the Miguelite squadron) as having been a Somersetsbire
man as well as Hoop.
There is now living at Traclestown, Glasgow,
an old man, named ALEXANDER BLYTHE, who has
attained the patriarchal age of 101 years, and possesses
;ill his faculties perfect. He had cut three new teeth in
November last, one double and two single ones, and en-
joys such a state of health as enables him to walk six or
tight miles between dinner and tea time !

mad,!

3 Oa