The Sun.
London, England, 1804-08-10 00:00:00

LAW REPORT.

COURT OF CHANCERY, AUGUST St
!X rARTE SZVAN;

Sir Herbert Mackworth entered into partnership
in a banking.house, in 1784, which was same.
quently conduaed under the firm of Dorset, John.
stone, and Wilkinaons. In the ytar 1795, Mr.
Wm. Berners, the son of Charles Berners, E.q. was
received into the partnership for 14 yearsi during
which term he was to have one.sixth, or one.eighth
of the profits, but if these did not amount to t &tool.
per annwm, he was to have a lien on the profits of
his partners to that extent. As a compensation
for this interest, his father gave the sum of
70001. to the former House, not as a part of
the general capital, but as a bonus to the partners,
and he agreed to be answerable to the extent of
ro,oool. tor any loss to which his son might be.
come liable, in consequence of his concern in the
House. Io 1796, when Wm. Berners had come of
age, James Tilson was received into the firm with.
out the consent of Charles Berners. The balance
of accounts on the sth of May, 1803, between
Charles Berners and the House was- in his favour
15,6491. and on that day a Commission of Bank.
ruptcy issued against all the partners. The.. Com.
missioners had permitted the full amount to. be
proved, and the °Ned of the present Peiititin was,
that the io,oool. for which Charles Berners had
rendered himself responsible, should be dedulled
from the amount so proved, and that.he should day
be permitted to receive dividends on the 5,64.91.
The Assignees were the Petitioners. The material
question was, whether Charles Berners, under the
agreement he had made for his son, was either- a
surety, or a partner ? and whether either or both these
charaders were not withdrawn in consequence- of
the reception into the parnership of James Tilson,
without his content ?

Messrs. ROMILLY anti COLtEN commented on
the fa.as of the case. They said the loss of the
partnership would be to a much greater extent than
10,0001. and that the introdufflop of Tilson could
not destroy the responsibility Charles Petners had
undertaken. _ _ _

The ATTORNtY.GIINERAL .and Mr. RICUARD.
sobr, on the contrary, argued, that Mr. Charles
Bailers could not be considered at any time in
the light of a partner; he was merely in the situa.
tion of a surety, and the Law in respect to sure.
tics had been long .established by the cases of
" Lord Arlington and Merrick," 4g• Wright and
Russel," " Barclay and Lucas," and
.the recent
case of " Walwyn and Lee," before Lord ELLEN-
BOROUGH. If any alteration took place 'in the
parties to whoM the surety was given, the surety
was discharged. In the present instance, the in.
troduftion of Tilson had made such a change in the
parties, and in consettliece Charles Beiners was
not liable to the to,otiti but was entitled to prove
the whole of his debt.

The Loan CHANCELLOR delivered his opinion
on the relative situation of the' paities at great
length, and pointed out the distin&ion in the obli.
gation of Charles Berners to the partnership, and
to the general body of the Creditors ; and ha ad.
ded, upon a close examination of the contents of
the instruments produced, as illustrating the intern,tion of the parties, and as conneeted with the law
of the case, the situation of Charles lie rners was
altered by the introduaion of Tilson ; from that
moment he was a mere Creditor, and he is entitled
to his dividends to the full extent of the sum proved.