The Sun.
London, England, 1832-05-01 00:00:00

EXPENSE OF THE MOTION*.

The Lam, CIIA:,CELLOR said, he observed to his
ur-
prise, that several motion• had been put into the pallet
to-day, although yesterday he had most distinctly desirvd
that that might not be so, as other matters would Le
sure to take the whole of the day.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL did not know how it vi,s
that the motions had found their way into the paper, is
he certainly had heard his Lordship request that no Jim-
tions should be put into it.
The LORD CHANCELLOR hoped it would not be in:-
puted to the Court that the parties had thus been put: to
such unnecessary expense, as he had done all he co to
prevent it, and he trusted that in future, what he said in
this respect would be more attended to by the officers in
this department.

EX PARTE THE LANCASTER. CANAL COMPANY, IN Tll E

MATTER OF DILWORTH.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, on rising to address the
Court in this matter, stated that it came before his Lord-
ship in the shape of a rehearing from a decision come to
by Lord Lyndhurst, which bad overruled the Vice• Cha-
ncellor's judgment.
Sir EDWARD SUDDEN objected to the Court's rehear-
ing this matter. It was by no means the general practice
to rehear bankruptcies, although it certainly was in the
discretion of the Court. Taking it as a point of
discretion, if ever there was a matter that ought not
to be reheard, that was the matter. In the first
place, there had been a decision of the Commissioners
in favour of the parties for whom be (Sir Ed-
ward) appeared, and the opinion of Sir Anthony
Hart, when Vice-Chancellor ; the present Vice-
Chancellor had decided against them. It was argued be-
fore Lord Lyndhurst upon an appeal. After the argu-
ments, and before judgment was pronounced, the other side
presented a petition of re-argument. His Lordship re-
fused to entertain that petition—dismissed it with costs,
and reversed his Honour's judgmen►.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL begged to remind the Court
and his Learned Friends, that in bankruptcy there was no
appeal to the House of Lords.
Sir EDWARD SUGDEN was quite aware of that, which
he thought told rather in his favour than otherwise.
The LORD CHANCELLOR inquired why?

Sir EDWARD SUDDEN •aid, because. his clients, who
were now in possession of Lord Lyndhurst's judgment,
would be deprived of every thing if that judgment were
now to he reversed.

The LORD CHANCELLOR—Perhaps yon would then
present a petition to me for a re-hearing.
Sir EDWARD SUGDEN—Aye, but should we get the
prayer of it granted?
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Why, I don't know ;—if I
thought on that occasion I had not properly decided, or
that any thing had been omitted which ought to have been
attended to, I should grant the re-hearing most gladly.
Sir E. SUGDES-1 have never known a Judge act on
that yet.
The LORD CIIANCELLOR—Oh, yes.

Sir E. SUGDEN—No indeed, I have not. 1 have beard
a great many Judges make such a statement as that, hut
I never knew one in any instance act upon it.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Oh, yes, yes; you will see
in the books that it has been frequently acted on.

Sir E. St:GDEN-1 have never seen it.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Go o❑ Mr. Solicitor-Gene-
nil, I shall hear this petition.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL then proceeded to open his
case at great length.

ROLL'S COURT-(THIS DAY.)

IVILLIMOTT V. OGILVY.

The further arguments in this part-heard case occupied
his Honour, the NlAstea of the Rou,s, the whole morning.
The case appears likely to take up several days ; we there-
fore refrain from entering into the details until his Honour
gives judgment.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

INJU'SCTIONTItt.)II*SON I'. HAYTON.

Mr. SPENCE applied in this case at the sitting of the
Court for an injunction to restrain the defendant f'rom car-
rying away any of the partnership property, from using
the partnership name, or from intermeddling with the part-
nership debts. It appeared from the affidavit of the plain-
tiff that he entered into partnership with the defendant, as
bar iron and wire manufacturers, in January, 1827. The
partnership was to continue for an indefinite period, no
articles being drawn up between the parties. Shortly
after the formation of the partnership the plaintiff and de-
fendant entered into an agreement for the lease of iron
and wire mills, called Giversylt Woiks, situated in the
county of Denbigh ; part of the purchase money was paid
by the plaintiff, and part out of the funds of the partner-
ship. The defendant was to be the acting partner, the
plaintiff having to attend to another business, which he
carried on at Wigan, in Lancashire. During the con-
tinuance of the partnership (which was now dissolved)
the defendant alone carried on the business, and the
plaintiff bad advanced several large sums of money for
the purposes of the partnership, amounting to 8,000/.
and upwards, and had also supplied large quantities of
iron and coal from his own works. At the present
moment upwards of 6,0001. was due from the
partnership to him. The defendant had never advanced a
single shilling, but during the p irtnership had received
several large sums of money, which he had applied to his
own use. lie had also (limn checks on the bankers of
the partnership for the payment of his private debts, and
had purchased on his own account a public-house and
shop, which had been carried on for his own benefit, with
the money of the partnership, although he had stated Li
utter inability to pay the large debt due from the partner_
ship to the plaintiff. The business bad been carried
on by him in a most improvident manner, larg
debts and liabilities having been incurred, which the
plaintiff in his affidavit stated he was ignorant of till /sl,ie
vember last; and many circumstances which were de'
tailed in that affi lavit had not come to It's knowledge til-
the 24th of April.
The VICE CitAtacnr.Loa, observed, that the difficulty
he felt was the delay which had taken place in the filing of
the bill. It appeared clear the plaintiff knew the main
facts on which he now rested for obtaining the injunction,
in November last ; he ought, therefore, to have filed his
bill long before the present period.

Mr. SPENCE observed, that he was not aware of the
fact of the defendant's having taken away large quantities
of bar iron for his own use till the 24th of April.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR did not feel himself justified
in granting the injunction to the extent prayed, without
notice being given to the other side. He would, however,
grant the injunction, as far as it extended to the restrain•
ing of the defendant from intermeddling with the partner-
ship debts.
Mr. SPENCE expressed his willingness to take the in-
junction in that form, and notice was ordered to he given
to the defendant of the intention of the plaintiff to move
for a more extended injunction.
The COURT then proceeded with pleas and demurrers,
none of which were of t le slightest interest to the public.

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

LIBEL.-THE DUEE OF CUMBERLAND v. ?Haulm

AS soon as their Lordships had taken their seats,
Sir C. WETHERELL said he attended to make a rule ab-
solute in the case of the King v. Phillips, for a lit,el on
the Duke of Cumberland. He did not know whether it
was intended to show cause against it.
Mr. WAKEFIELD, jun. said that he was instructed to
show cause.
Lord TINTERDEN s iid the Court could not take the case
at present.

Mr. POLLOCK, (who was with Sir C. Wetherell,)
asked if their Lordships would take it at the close of the
day ?
Lord TENTERDEN—I9 Dot tomorrow motion day?
Mr. POLLOCK—No, my Lord, it is new trial day ; there
were no motions made until late yesterday.
Lord TENTERDEN then said, that, under those circum-
stances, it was probable the Court would take it about tour
o'clock this day.
Sir C. WETHERELL said he would not have mentioned
the case, but an idea existed that to-day would nut be
inconvenient.

It was at length agreed that the case should come on
about three or four o'clock to-day.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

THE SATIRIST NEWSPAPER.-DIGBY V. THOMPSON..

In this case proceedings had been commenced against the
defendant, who is the registered proprietor of the Saar st,
for an alleged libel, and various ineffectual attempts having
been made to serve him with the process of the Court,
application was made, and a rule obtained, to show cause
why a service of the process at the entered office of pub-
lication, and at the residence of the defendant, should not
be deemed a good service.

Mr. For.tirr showed cause against this rule. nee
was nothing, he observed, shown in the affidavits bes nd
the fact that a difficulty was found to get hold of the de-
fend,int to serve the notice on him, and this was insufficient
to justify the present appliratiun, The defendant wqq still

tarrying oil buliaeas iu the .sty uS Lessios, sal if they
had been unsuccessful in Liherto finding bits, they must
pursue their efforts till they were more fortunate. The
Learned Counsel cited a variety of cases to show that tho
C .urt had never dispensed with p-rsonal service on any
grounds co light as those now urged.
Mr. WHITEMAN, per contra, urged, that the very up•
pearance of his Learned Friend, to show cause, was
virtual proof that the process had reached the defendant,
who, it was evident, was endeavouring all he could to ob.
struct the legal proceedings commenced against Lim.
Mr. Justice TAUNTON said he was afv aid he must dis-
charge the rule, for if a contrary course were adopted, it
would have the effect of throwing open s, door through.
which all might pass, and in a short time personal process
would cease altogether. It was dear the defendant was
endeavouring to evade the service of the process; and is
discharging the rule, he should therefore do so without
costs.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER...-(THIS DAY.)

DUNES V. MART.

A rule nisi for a new trial was obtained in this case s
few days ago, on the application of the defsndan•e in per-
son, on which occasion we reported the case pretty ful y.
The plaintiff is an attorney, and had brought his actin a
for the balance of a hill of costs, on which occasion it was
allowed to go to trial as an undefended cause, in conse-
quence of some neglect upon the part of the defendant's
attorney, and a verdict found for the plaintiff, damages
871. 2% 6d.

This morning Mr. THISSIGER showed cause agaiLsr
the rule.

The COURT suggested that it was a Lt case for gainE
before the Master.

To this Mr. Trritssioxa was willing to agree, but Nit-,
HART objected, on the ground that no one could kn,
where the shoe pinched but those who felt it, and he was
anxious that a Jury should decide on the question.
Mr. HART was then about to go into the merits of the
case but was stopped by the Court, who were of opinions.
that he (the defendant) should Lace an opportunity of,
going before another Jury.—Rule absolute.

ADMIRALTY COURT,-(THIS DAY.)

THE ♦3ITHYTEITE.

This was a question relative t;;iieinanti for seam
wages, under rather peculiar circumstances.
Dr. ADDAMS stated, that James Forsyth bad entered a ra
board the abo►e ship to proceed to Rio Janeiro and back,
as a seaman ; that, about the 26th of September, 1897,
Forsyth, with other seamen, declared that they refused to
act, on the ground that the I read was not fit to eat, being
full of maggots ; that Forsyth, on the 26th, left this
chant ship and proceeded on board hie Majesty's ship
Beagle, and entered the King's service. lie contended.
therefore, that the seaman was entitled to his wages.
The Ktaro's ADVOCATE, for the master of the vessel,
contended that an act of desertion had been committed by
Forsyth ; that he had been guilty of insubordination,
in refusing to perform his duty, and that the Act o
amens clearly laid down the law, that the leaving of a
merchant vessel was a desertion, unless the seaman do so
expressly for the purpose of entering the King's service.
It appeared that there was some mistake in the King's
books, as in them, the seaman was declared to have entered
on the 19th of September.
Dr. ADDAMS said the entry in the King's book show e 4
that the seama❑ bad been placed on them a week earlier
th in he entered, in order that be might secure a week's,
wages by way of bounty.
Sir C. ROBINSON said this was an important case, as it
involved two principles the protection of the pia--
perry of the shipowners, and the principle of protecting
mariners on their entering into the King's service. After
going over the facts of the case the Learned Judge decided
that the seaman was not entitled to any protection, as it
did not appear that the man had left his service bona fide
to enter a K ng's sh'p,, though he did enter within twenty
four hours after I e left his vessel.

SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY.)