The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT June 21.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
STRATFORD F. FLIGHT.

This case came before the Court upon an application to
dissolve an injunction obtained by the plaintiff; restraining
the defendant from proceeding at law upon two bills of ex-
' change for 1,0001. each. The case having stood over for
judgment until this morning,
His HoNoun (addressing Mr. Bethell) said—l have care-
fully read over the defendant's answer, and the whole of the
proceedings in "Stratford v. Flight," and I am of opinion
that there is no equity in the plaintiff's bill as against the
defendant. The order fur dissolving the injunction obtained
against the defendant must therefore be made absolute.
Mr. BffruELL—lf your Honour pleases.
[We regret having made some observations the other day
which were founded on an erroneous report of the transac-
tions in this case. It will be seen by the above that the Vice-
Chancellor has given his judgment entirely in the defendant's
favour.—ED. Sins.]
- (Before Sir JAMES WIOZIAM.)
• BENSON V. HADFIELD.

In this case, which had stood:over from the 3d of June
his Honour gave judgment this: morning, It was a suit
brought by the acting Directors of the Bahia Steam Naviga-
tion Company against the house of Hadfield and Co., of
Liverpool and Bahia, to have the accounts takzu of the trans-
actions in which the defendants had been engaged, as their
agents in South America.

His Ilo)toun said he had reserved his judgment upon two
points only. The first was, whether the plaintiffs properly
represented the partnership of which they were the mem-
bers; confining himself upon this paint to the objection sup-
posed to arise out of the circumstance that, during the course
of the transactions out of which the suit had arisen; there
had been only four instead of sixx-directors of the company,
six being the number required by the partnership deed, and
there were'only four directors, parties tathe suit at the time
when the bill was filed. There was no suggestion that the
constitution of the company in that respect had been altered
since the filing of the bill. Upon this point he thought the
objection ought not to prevail. Adverting to the circum-
stances under which the affairs of the company were carried
on since the reduction of the number of directors,
he could not, in favour of a stranger to the company, who,
had had dealings with it, hold that the company was not
well represented for the purposes of the present suit. The
second question was, whether Mr. Wood, formerly a partner
in the house of Armando, Hadfield, and Company, was liable
in respect to transactions which occurred prior to his retire-
ment from the firm. This question divided itself into two
parts; trst, whether he had, become discharged altogether,
upon an agreement expressed or implied on the part of the
company, who took the new instead of the old firm as their
creditors ; and, secondly, whether, if Mr. Wood were not so
discharged, he could object to the. bill. The former of these
questions was to be tried strictly upon the rule of plead-
ing with evidence. In deciding this question, it
was most material to look to the form of pleading.
In this case, the defendant had not pleaded any such agree-
ment; he merely set forth his retirement from the company
in March in 1840, and stated that notice of his retirement,
as well as notice of the incoming of two new partners had
been given. His Honour, after referring to the pleadings,
said it Was inipossibie that, upon a full consideration of them,
he could hold that Mr. Wood was entitled to a decree, dis-
charging him 'from his liability. The second question was,
that respecting multifariousness. When the bill was filed,
the defendant put in a demurrer for multifariousness, on the
ground that he had no concern with the transactions of the
firm since his retirement. Lord Langdale, before whom the
demurrer was argued, allowed the demurrer, observing at the
same-time, that there might be such a connection between
the new and the old dealings as to give the plaintiff a right
to bring Mr. Wood before the Court, in order that the entire
case might be taken in one suit.. With regard to the ques-
tion whether he was to discharge Mr. Wood or not,
the case was this. Upon the accounts which had
been produced, and upon the case alleged in
the bill, it might turn cut that Mr. Wood was properly
a defendant on the record. From the accounts which he had
seen, it was quite impossible that he could hold that the bill
was multifarious, as against Mr. Wood, at the present time.
The only doubt he had had, was on the question whether he
ought to direct any accounts, without prejudice to this ques-
tion, at once, or merely to direct the accounts to be taken.
He could not allow the objection, nor could he usefully or
properly reserve that point for future consideration. With
regard to the other point, he thought this account must be
directed as prayed by the bill; but upon that point, as Mr.
Wood was never an active party in the proceedings, and as
neither party had brought this case before him, so as to en-
able him to decide itat the hearing, he was ofopinion that he
should direct the accounts,• without prejudice to the question
whether Mr. Wood was discharged or not.