The Sun.
London, England, 1835-02-02 00:00:00

BAILEY V. GROTE.

Mr. BICREESTETH moved in this case that the defend-
ants, Martin, Grote, and Rigley, might be permitted to
inspect the particular processes carried on at the crape ma-
nufactory at Ponder's End, near Enfield, and that the
plaintiff's workmen might be ordered to facilitate such in-
spection, and that the plaintiff might be restrained from
availing himself of the advice and assistance of Mr. Kinder-
sley as his Counsel. In support of the motion the Learned
Gentleman proceeded to state the facts of the case, which
were briefly as follows. The plaintiff and the defendants
were partners in a great crape manufactory, in which a sum
exceeding 200,0001. was embarked. The partnership con-
cern was carried on under articles dated the 4th of July,
1830. In 1833 disputes arising the plaintiff filed his bill
to have the partnership affairs wound up under the
direction of this Court. Shortly after the filing of the
bill an application was made for the appointment of a ma-
nager or receiver, and an order, referring the matter to the
Master, was made, who by his report found that the
plaintiff ought to be appointed manager of the manufac-
tory at Ponder's End, and the defendant Martin the
manager of the manufactory at Norwich. Other parties
were appointed managers of branch manufactories at Yar-
mouth, Bungay, and Bocking. Different processes in the
manufacture of crape were carried on at these separate
manufactories, and the defendant Martin, wishing to be-
come acquainted with that carried on at Ponder's End, ap-
plied to the Vice-Chancellor for leave to inspect that manu-
factory. By an arrangement between the Learned-Counsel
for the different parties, it was acrreed that the defendant
should be permitted to attend at Ponder's End for a certain
limited period of three days at three separate times. The
defendant had availed himself of this arrangement ; but,
not being satisfied with the result of his inspection, he now
sought by the present motion to have a further opportunity
allowed him.
Mr. PEMBERTON appeared in support of the motion for
parties having a like interest.
Motion refused, but without costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

THE KING V. BRYANT AND ANOTHBR.

In this case the defendants were indicted at the Middle-
sex 'Sessions for a conspiracy alleged to have been entered
into by them so long as the sth of Geo. IV., to defraud
divers persons of their goods and chattels ; and, among
others, two persons of the name of Davis and Grimsburgh.
A rule for a certiorari was obtained in the early part of the
term by Sir John Campbell to remove the case from the
Sessions into this Court. A rule bad since been granted to
discharge the rule for the certiorari, and issue a procedendo.
Sir JOHN CAMPBELL now showed cause against the lat-
ter rule, and Mr. Platt was heard in support of it.
The COURT thought that the rule for the procedendo
oughtOto be discharged ; and their Lordships added that
the charge against the defendants was of the flimsiest nature.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

EXECUTORS OF CLARKE V. CROLY AND SHARMAN.

The. plaintiff in this case was the executor of a person
named Clark, a barge, cart, and waggon owner. The de-
fendants were merchants in the city, who bad employed the
testator in the way of his business, by jobbing his waggons
and carts. It appeared at the trial that there was an un-
settled account between the parties, that the plaintiff claimed
918/. as due to the estate of Clark, whilst thaefendants
only admitted 5001. or odd to be owing, which sum they
paid into Court. The principal sum in dispute was one