The Sun.
London, England, 1833-07-24 00:00:00

GLASSINGTON V. TIINVAITES.

The ArroasEv-GENEnaL appeared to open the case on be-
half of the plaintiff, Mr. Glassington. It came before the
Court upon an appeal and a cross cause, but the question to be
disposed of arose upon the appeal. The bill was filed by the
plaintiff in the year 1822, against Mr. Thwaites and other pro-
Prjetors of the Morning Herald newspaper. A cross bill was
filed by the defendants in the original cause against Mr,
Glassington to take the accounts, and to which Mr. Glassing_
ton offered no resistance. The original bill was filed to
set aside the sales of several shares in the paper, which had
been made by some of the co-defendants to Mr. Thwaites. The
plaintiff complained that in those sales all the forms pre-
scribed by the partnership deed were unattended to, and sub-
mitted that, in making them, there was that sort of manage-
ment which, if it did not amount to actual fraud, approached
so near to it as ought to induce the Court to set the sales aside. In
the event of the sales being set aside the plaintiffwould be entitled
to the relief he prayed, and, upon paying the price, become the
owner of the shares which had been, as he alleged, so impro-
perly sold. Upon the hearing of the cause the Master of the
Rolls dismissed the bill with costs, and it was against that de-
cision the appeal was lodged. Previously to the year 1816 the
Morning Herald had been conducted very much under the
auspices of the Reverend Sir Bate Dudley who cut
a considerable figure in his day, and who was the
owner of it to the extent of 3-16th shares. There were several
other owners, among whom was Mr. Glassington, who had
1.13 th share. In July, 1816, Sir Bate Dudley retired from the
concern and parted with his shares. The owners of the paper
had previously taken the House in Catherine-street upon lease
for 51 years, for which they paid a considerable sum. Upon sel-
ling his shares Sir B. Dudley also parted with his beneficial inte-
rest in that house. In making the transfers of his interest a deed
was executed, but which deed did not convey the interest in
the house in the same terms in which it conveyed Sir B. D.'s
interest in the paper. By the deed, Mr. Ratcliffe and Mr.
Thwaites had the house assigned to them as trustees
for all the proprietors of the concern. The plaintiff
was at that time the publisher of the paper for which
he received a remuneration, and which seemed either
to have excited the jealousy, or to have operated
most improperly, on the minds of some of the owners, so as to
have caused them to exclude Mr. G. from the concern alto-
gether. By the deed, treasurers were appointed of the general
concern, of whom the plaintiff was not one, and the original
shares changed hands without Mr. Glassington being at all ac-
quainted with that fact. The deed provided for the mode in
which the transfer of those shares was to be made,
and that if it was not made in that identical way the
transfer was to be void, and no person coming in un-
der it could claim a beneficial interest. It was also pro.
vided that there should be weekly meetings held of the pro-
prietors, for the purpose of regulating the general affairs
of the concern ; likewise that monthly meetings should
be held for adjusting the pecuniary affairs and sales of shares
when it was proposed that any should be sold.
The Loan CUANCELLOR observed, that as he understood the
opening of the pleadings, the monthly meetings were to be held
not only for settling the pecuniary affairs of the concern, but
also for general purposes.
Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that all general purposes were
to be settled at weekly meetings, and that in point of fact
nothing was to be attended to at the monthly meetings (if the
pecuniary matters were settled at the weekly meetings) except
the sale of shares—

Mr. AGAR, as counsel on the other side, stated that the
question of sale was likewise to be taken notice of, and disposed
of at the weekly meetings.
Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL contended that that was an erro-
neous statement that that would no where appear by the deeds
that had been executed to be the fact, but that on the
contrary the sales were only to be attended to at the
monthly meetings. If this were so, then whatever had been
done at the weekly meetings could not affect the plaintiff to
which he had been no party. It would be necessary for the
other side to show that monthly meetings had formally
and properly taken place, or probably that what
had been done even at the weekly meetings had been
confirmed and ratified by Mr. G. at some subsequent period;
The deed provided that no partner should dispose of, or offer for
sale, any share or shares to any one, without first tendering that
share, sr those shares, in writing to the other proprietors, at a
regular monthly meeting ; and that if the majority should not
agree to purchase, that then the party desiring to sell should be
at liberty to seek another market.

The LORD CHANCELLOR did not, from what he had collected, I
think that anything could be done infringing on the right of
the partners at any of their meetings, unless agreed to by a
majority of the partners in value.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that if his construction of the
deed were right the only question would be whether his unfor.
tunate client had not a right to avail himself of what Lad taken
place, and whether any person coming in under the original
partnership deed without strictly conforming to the pro-
visions could entitle himself as against the plaintiff
to a share in the concern ? There had been what was called a
minute book kept, but it would be found that although the
weekly meetings were recorded in that book, no record of any
monthly meeting whatever was to be found upon its pages;
and the plaintiff's case was, that Mr. Thwaites and others not
daring to keep a record of monthly meetings, resorted to
what upon the pleadings was represented as a fraudulent
mode of making it appear that the provisions of the deed, in
respect of the holdings of the meetings, had been complied
with ; and in that way, by an abuse of the powers of the deed,
had done at weekly meetings that which, the plaintiff contended,
could only have been done at monthly meetings. And upon
that case, he submitted with great confidence to a Court of
Equity, that he was entitled to be relieved from the effect of
those irregular proceedings.
The case was going on when we left the Court.

TIIE MARKETS.-(THIS DAY.)

CORN EXCHANGE.

Since Monday the arrivals of Wheat and Oats to this market
have been large; of other Grain and Flour moderate. The
Wheat trade is dull this morning, and somewhat cheaper. For
Barley, Beans, and Pease, a steady demand. Oats being plenti.
ful are not sought after eagerly.

Wheat.
English
Irish
Foreign

A RRIVA Ls.
Barley. Oats.
950 qrs. I 4,350 qrs.
8,670

550

HAMBURG MARKETS.

Flour.
2,B3osacks

HAMBURG, Jutv 18.—BORSEN HALLE, HALF-PAST Two.
—A decline at Amsterdam has depressed the market here.
Discount 134 per Cent. End of July.
Anglo-Danish Loan, three per cent 72
Anglo-Russian
Russian Inscription, 5 per cent., 1820 9:;14.
Ditto, ditto, 1831 9214
Ditto, ditto, 1830
Polish Bonds ll9
Prussian Bonds, 1832
Austrian Bank Shares ",40
Ditto Metalliques 11514
Spanish 3 per Cents.
__.
'

Ditto 4 per Cent
Dutch *si per Cents.
Ditto 5 per Cents
—Hamburg Papers. July 19.

COURT CIRCULAR.

Their Majestiea entertained a party at dinner on Monday
evening, at the Palace at Windsor.
Accounts have been received at the Palace at Kensington,
of the death of his Royal Highness the Duke Alexander of
Wirtemberg, at Gotha, the brother in-law of her_Royal High-
ness the Duchess of Kent.

M. Dedel, the Dutch Minister, transacted business yesterday
at the Foreign.office.
Viscount Althorp and the Right Hon. Charles Grant, had
an interview yesterday with Lord Auckland, at the office of
the Board of Trade.

The Commander of the Forces visited Mr. Secretary Stanley
yesterday at the Colonial office.

The Duke of Richmond, the Marquis of Lansdowne, the Earl
of Ripon, Viscount Melbourne, Lord Plunket, Lord J. Russell
and Mr. Byng, M.P., had interviews with Earl Grey on Mon.
day, at the Treasury.

A gentleman of the neighbourhood of Ar-
broath, named WILLIAMSON, who lately emigrated to the
United States of America, writes, I am about '750 miles
up the country, and you cannot mistake my house, -for
there is not another house within thirteen miles of me l"
Solitary enough.— Scotsman.
At the Chelmsford Races, yesterday, his
MAJESTY'S Plate of 100 guineas was won by Mr. BAT.
s:trr's Revelry, heating Mr. HUNTER'S Vol,ge ; and a
Sweepstakes of 5 soya. each, and 25 added, was won by
Mr WOOD'S Ambrosio, beating The Ghost and Ryder.
Captain ALEXANDER'S " Transatlantic
Sketches" are not only extremely valuable, as narrating
the most recent visit of an Englishman to North and
South America, and the West Indies, but as involving a
greater variety of
.incident and adventure than has, per-
haps, ever fallen to the lot of any one traveller in so short
a space of time as that occupied by the ' Captain in his
enterprise. Among other remarkable and interesting places
described, the reader's attention is arrested by an account
of the scene of the shipwreck and hermitage of the cele-
brated Robinson Crusoe, and by a picture of New Orleans,
or " The Wet Grave," during the sickly season. . The
author had the honour of several interviews with the Pi e-
sidentl of the United States General JACKSON, at the
time of the opening of Congress, anti by his letters of in-
troduction, obtained much information from other cele-
brated characters.

* HOUSE OF LORDS, JULY 23.
The Houce went into Committee urn the Burglary

Bill.—Amendment made, Bill ordered to be printed, and

report ordered to be received on Monday next.
On the motion of the LORD CHANCELOR, the
Insolvent Delitors' Court Bill was ttad a second time.
.

Mr. SPRING RICE brought up the Jewish Emanci-
pation Bill, the Small Debts (Scotland) Bill, and other

The Earl of R ADNOR presented a petition from the
Po!itical Union of Glasgow, praying their Lordships to
repeal the Act of Charles the Second, which allowed the
Bishops to take their seats in the House of Lords. The
petitioners groun,!ed their prayer on the votes the Right

Rev. Prelates had given en many occasions.
The Bishop of CHICHESTER expressed a doubt
whether a petition, animadverting on the opinion of the
bench of Bishop on any question, could, consis±ently with
the rules of the House, be received.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that however ah.

surd the prayer of a petition might be, it firmed no
ground for riot receiving the petition, provided it were
couched in respectful language. It was no ground fot
rejecting a petition that it reflected upon the conduct
of any individual, even in his legislative capacity,
provided it was done in decorous language. No Member

of that House, or of the other House of Parliament, was

shielded from having his conduct as a legislator canvassed
and discussed.—(Hear, hear.) Every one of the King's
subjects had a right to canvass the conduct of any Member
of the Parliament in his legislatorial.' ap &City, provided it
were done in a respectful manner.—(Hear.) But the

ground on which he objected to th,. reception of the peti•
tion, wag, that it had stated reasons which could not have
come to their knowledge without a breach of the privileges
of both Houses of Parliament, viz., the manner in which

a certain part of the House had voted on a particu-
lar question. No person not in Parliament could
have any regular means of arriving at the knowledge of
how any person in the Legislature voted. If, however,
the conduct of a person in his parliamentary capacity, as
in presenting a Bill, should be taken notice of in the
votes, that would lie no ground for rejecting a petition.
The Earl of ABERDEEN said he agreed with part
of what had been said by the Noble and Learned Lord, but
he must demur to the proposition that any petition might
be received by that House, provided it were respectfully
worded. A petition might be presented for the abolition
of the House altogether, and boa-ever respectfully it might
be worded, he conceived their Lordships could not receive•
it. It was not enough merely not to comply with the
prayer of the petition, but the petition ought to be rejected
altogether.
After a few words from the Earl of RODEN, the
petition was withdrawn.
The Earl of HADDINGTON said he could not agree
with the dictum of the Noble and Learned Lord, that
every petition which was worded with decency should be
received. Te.e one now before the House said it was im-
proper and unfit that the Bishops should sit and vote
in that House ; the next step would be to abolish the
House altogether.
On the motion of the Bishop of LONDON, a Bill was
read a second time (or legalizing all marriages contracted
at Hamburg before the English Chaplain, or any clergy-
man officiating in his stead.
The REV. PRELATE then presented a petition from Lyme
Regis, against the Beer Bill.
Lord ROLLE supported the prayer of the petition.
The Bisf.op of LONDON said, that •all the inqui-
ries put by the Poor Laws Commissioners, showed
that great evil resulted from the new beer shops. He was
most grievously disappointed at the report lately presented
by the Committee of the House of Commons that sat upon
the subject.
The Bishop of BATH and WELLS hoped the subject
would soon receive the attention of the Government.
The Duke of RICHMOND said that Government bad
given notice of a Bill to remedy some of the evils re-
sulting from the Bill, which would be carried into effect.