The Sun.
London, England, 1832-11-07 00:00:00

STULTZ V. STULTZ.

The bill in this case was filed by the plaintiff against
Mr. George Brown Stubs, one of the partners in the firm
of Stul'z and Co., the celebrated tailors of Cliff Td-street,
Bond street, for the purpose of putting an end to ti t
partnership, as far as it respected the rh fenrlent
The plaintiffs and defendant entered into partnership
on the Ist of January, 1828, an by the articles
.if partnership, it was provided, that if any one of the
Partners should withdraw, abstain, or secret himself from
his partnere, without their special leave, or on account of
ckness, or other reasonable cause not arising from actual
default, the other partners should have the pow...r of dis-
missing him from the partnership. It appeared from the
-ratements of Sir Edward Sugdeo, who, with Mr. Tresh ye
and Mr. Spurrier, were Counsel for the plaintiffs. That
Mr. Brown S uhz had greatly misconducted himself,
thtally neglecting his business, from which he was often
absent for 14 days together. In the answer of the de-
fendant, an excuse had been given fur this neglect, in con-
sequence of severe suffering from a disease in his eye, to
effect the cure of which he had been ordered by Mr.
Guthrie and Mr. Ware, the occulites, not to attend
to business. This excuse the Learned Cairns I
would clearly show to be wholly without foundation,
inasmuch as, by the evidence. it would be proved
that the defendant Was in the habit of indulging to excess
in dissipation and intemperance. It would be proved that
in August, 1880, he bad been pursuing habits that wet,
little calculated to relieve him from his disease: he was
constantly in the habit of being brought home by watch-
men in a dreadful state of intoxication ; and one of the
witnesses had stated, that, in consequence of a letter
written by the defendant to him, he had proceeded to No.
85, Mount-street, where he found the defendant in corn
pany with a woman, with whom he was living as his
wife, under the name of Mr. and Mrs. George; that two
other females were in the room ; that the defendant, who
was much in liquor, was dressed in female clothes, over
which he wore a fur cloak, that he was acting the cha-
racter of Richard 111. before a looking-glass, and boast-
ing of his likeness to Mr. Kean in that character. On
the witness remonstrating with the defendent, he expressed
kis sorrow for his conduct, asked what his partners would
do ? and when told they were determined to put an end to
the partnership, he expressed great contrition, and trusted
witness would do all he could for him. Another witness
spoke to the defendant living with a female in Titchborne-
street, under tire name of Lloyd. Oilier witnts•:es spoke
to the neglect of the defendant ; of the numerous work-
men that were left without employment in consequence of
his neglect. The Learned Counsel sulmaitted that the
evidence he should produce, would show clearly that the
defendant had violated all the articles of the deed of part-
nership, and that he was, therefore, entitled to the prayer
of his bill.

(The reading of the evidence was proceeding when our
reporter left. )

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

The Court was this naorning occupied in hearirg mo-
tions for new trials.
THE KING V. THE DUKE Or BEAUFORT AND ANOTHER.

Mr. WIIITCOME, en the part of the defencia;;—;;;;;l:
that this was a case tried at the last Glamorgan Assizes
before Mr. Justice Alderson, and a verdict found for the
Crown. The prosecutor, Mr. Thomas Walters, had ob-
tained a rule for a mandamus, commanding the defend
ants, the Duke of Beaufort, as Lord, and a gentleman
named Thomas, es steward, of the borough of Loughor,
in Glamorganshire, to swear in and admit him, the prose
tutor, as a burgess of that borough. The mandamus recited
that it had been the immemorial custom and usage
in that borough for the Leet Jury to present per-
sons to the Portreeve and Steward to be sworn and ad-
mitted as burgesses, although such persons might not be
sons of burgesses, husbands of burgesses' daughters, or
persons who had served an apprenticeship within the bo
rough to burgesses. The return to the mandamus denied
the right of the Leet Jury to pre-ent persons who, like
the prosecutor, did not come within one of those three
classes. Issue was thereupon joined, and the Jury, in find-
ing for the Crown, affirmed the right of the Leet Jut", ti
pres-nt persons who did not come within those classes.
The Learned Counsel now moved either for a nets
trial, on the ground that there was not sufficient
evidence to establish the immemoriality of the custom
and the right claimed, or for an arrest of judgment
upon the illegality of the custom, if the evidence did esta
blish its existence. Upwards of 316 instances of present-
ments by the Leet Jury were proved, but the e ,rliest in
stance of the presentment of a person who did nut tal
within either of the three classes, was about the yea,
1745, and the Learned Council submitted that that dit
not esta fish an immemorial custom and usage ; besides, of
the 316 who were proved to have been presented, only 46
appeared to have been sworn in and admitted. That fact
alone showed prima fuck that the Portreeve and Stewart,
had power to admit persons or not according to their own
discretion. There was one inst Ince of a person being
presented by the Leet Jury, but whose admission was re.
jetted by the Portreeve, and a few years afterwards on
his being again presented by anotf•er Leet Jury, he was
admitted. It would therefore appear, that the only du y
of the Leet Jury ars,,, not to select, but to suggest to ti,e
Portreeve upon the fitness of persons wishing to become
burgesses.

Mr. Justice TAUNTON said, that because only a few wer
sworn in out of 316 who were presented,, it did not follo,,
that all the others were rejected, for it wasvery common
for many parsons in small boroughs, who, although they
were entitled to their freedom, did not become freemen

lii an election wee about ts take place, *km they could
,ecome trermei. “s•-ives.
Mr. Justice J. PA RKE was of opinion that the question
is to the custom was peculiarly tor the Jury, who had de-
.l,led in the affirmative of its existence.

Mr. WHITCOMB then adverted to the other point, vie.,
that the custom was bad in law. It did not appear
m the record how the Leet Jury was constituted,
whether of corporators, or of other persons, although
in fact it was proved that they were composed of
such persons as the steward thought fit to sum-
.non. That should have been stated on the record.
If the custom be established, it would be illegal, inasmuch
is persons not of the corporation would have all the
rower of the corporation, and }•et be changing every year.
Upon all those grounds, the Learned Counsel submitted
hat he was entitled either to a new trial or to an arrest of
udgment.

Their LORDSHIPS having consulted,
Mr. Justice J. PARKE said, the majority of the Court
.vere of opinion that the rule t.h •old not be granted on the
and of the insufficiency of evidence on the trial, but
upon the single point whether the custom was good in law.
That was a point which deserved further consideration,
and therefore upon it a rule N•si could issue in order to its
qeing fully discussed. Rule Nisi granted.

EXCHEQUER C: )URT.-(THIS DAY.)