The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-22 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY,

LANGLEY v. FISHES.
Mr. TURNER (on the part of the defendant) contended that
the arguments on the side of the plaintiff had failed to es-
tablish the fact of a collusion having taken place between
Mr. Prideaux and Mr. George Dyke Fisher, and therefore the
case for the plaintiff could not be sustained. The Learned
Counsel then cited the case of Kennedy v. Green, to show
that the law was clearly laid down in conformity with the
position he assumed, and continued his arguments at great
length.
Mr. COOPER, on the part of the bankers, Messrs. Clutter-
buck, Therwall, and 111‘Kenzie, of Bristol, who claimed a
lit-. cm ..t.nte for 1,6001. which bad been advanced to Mr.
' George Dyke Fisheron his promissory note and other security.
Mr. Lovorr followed on the same side.
Mr. FINNEY replied.
His LORDSHIP gave judgment, and went in extenso into
s'll the features of the case, which have already appeared
fdly in The Sun. He considered that there was
no proof that Prideaux was solicitor to Mr. George
Dyke Fisher, nor was there any direct proof
of what took place between him (Prideaux) and Mr. Robert
Langley. He did not see why a man who considered that a
claim which might prove troablesome, might not levy a tine
without the imputation of being guilty of a fraudulent trans-
action. No ease had been cited to show that Mr. George
Dyke Fisher and Mr. Prideaux stood in a relation ana-
logous to- that of any parties who came before the Court.
He considered that from all these circumstances he must dis-
miss the case with costs.

TICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND.)
GLASSE P. TIIE EAST INDIA COMPANY.
The further arguments in this part-heard case were re-
sumed and concluded to-day. Our readers will recollect
from our report on a former day, that the case came before
the Court upon notice to dissolve an injunction granted
against x Mrs. Marshall, a daughter of the plaintiff, and also
against the East India Company, restraining the former
from parting with certain East India bonds, and the East
India Company from paying them. The amount
of the bands was 3,5001., and the question
in the case arose from a dispute between the plaintiff and his
daughter, with regard to the right to the bonds. It appeared
from the affidavits that before the filing of the bill, five of
the bonds had been out of the possession of the parties, and
that three of them had been presented for payment by the
Bank of England, who had purchased them.
Mr. Stuart, with whom was Mr. E. Wigram and Mr. Lloyd,
appeared for the East India Company ; and Mr. Bethell and
Mr. Speed supported the continuance of the injunction,
IMr. Arcenr having replied,
His Hoxoun gave judgment with respect to the general
right of the Court to interfere in such a case as the present.
He had ne doubt that it had an inherent right to exercise its
jurisliction in cases of fraud, unless the Act of Parliament
was so precise and cogent as to take that right away. Now,
in the present case, there was nothing in the words of the
Act that expressly declared that the East India Company
should be liable to pay the bonds in whosesoever hands
they might be, or by whatever means they had been
obtained. It "as not to be said that if A came to the East
India Company alth bonds in his hand, and he was knocked
down by B, who by that means got possession of them, that
the East India Company were bound to pay the amount to B.
The case of the plaintiff presented a case of fraud, and that case
had not been met by the other side. The whole matter, it
was true, might be explained, bet that explanation remained
to be given, and the Court could act only upon the case before
it. The plaintiff's wife, it appeared, lived, if his Honour
might use the expression, in amicable separation from him;
she died in October, having at that time belonging to her
certain East India bonds. It was represented that the
daughter of the lady, who lived in a separate d7velling from
the mother, came there after her death and took the pro-
perty away. The plaintiff then took out administration and
prima facie, it did not appear that Mrs. Marshall had :my
legal right to those bonds. Then the present application wag
made to the Court that Mrs. Marshall, the daughter.
should be restrained from parting with the bonds, and that
the East India Company should be restrained from paying
them either to Mrs. Marshall or any other person. Now that
application appeared to his Honour prima facie to be one
that ought to be granted. If the injunction to that extent
was afterwards proved to be too large, the party making the
application would have to pay the costs. With respect to the
party having possession of some of the bonds, it might be
right to dissolve the injunction upon a proper case being
made for that purpose, but no such case had at present
been proved before the Court.
Mr. STUART—Does your Honour think that it is possible
to retain the injunction against the East India Company with
respect to all the bonds?
His Hoisovn considered that he had not at present a case
before him, calling upon him to dissolve the injunction with
respect to any of the bonds. As to the statement, that if the
Court interfered it would enable the thief to part with the
bonds with greater facility, his Honour considered that
there was no foundation for such an assertion, for if the
Court exercised that authority, which it undoubtedly pos-
sessed, the thief would be less likely to obtain the bonds.
His Honour would therefore continue the injunction, but
would reserve the question of costs, because it might appear
ur on further discussion of the case what the truth of the facts
really was. —lnjunction continued.
Mr. BETHELL said he had another application to make in
the same case, against the Messrs. Rothschild, in respect of
certain Dutch bonds which they admitted to be in their
possession.
Mr. Titirr, who appeared for the Messrs. Rothschild, had
no objectlon to the application, provided Mrs. Marshall had
been served with notice.
Mr. BETHELL said that she had. He thought the best
course would be, ilistead of moving to restrain the Messrs.
Rothschild from parti:lg with the Dutch bonds, to allow them
to sell them, and bring the money into Court, and then dis-
miss the bill against them, haying their costs.
Mr. TRIPP said that his ei;,Ants' the Messrs. Rothschild,
had had notice from a respectable firm in Lincoln's Inn that
the bonds had been purchased by trltst money.
Mr. BURGE, on behalf of the parties p:incipally interested,
had no objection to the proposition of Mr. Ifts!'heli•
The COURT then ordered that Messrs. Roth:dild should
sell the bonds admitted by their answer to be in noir pos-
session, and bring the amount and the dividend into C.ourt
within two months, and :that therefore the bill should be
dismissed as against them, with costs, to be taxed by the
Master, and paid out of the monies standing to the credit of
the cause.

22-4

(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRA3I.)
TESCHEMAKER V. SIIXERENS.
This is a suit on the part of Mrs. Teschemaker, formerly
Mrs. Shierens, against the next of kin to her deceased
daughter Albertina Shierens. Mr. and Mrs. Shierens were
married in Demerara in 1816, and there was issue of two
children; and a settlement made between the parents gave,
in case of the death of one of the parents, one-half the pro-
perty to the surviving parent, one-half to the children. ex-
cept that,,in case the wife being survivor, should marry she
should have but one-fourth of the whole. Albertina, the

XCHEQUER.—(THIS
(Sittings in Banco.) the
LORD Y. SLY3IONS. In This was an action brought to recover compensat de,
the - t
shape of damages for a misrepresentation made bYd fe,043110
fendant in respect of a certain school, to which the,are 1(1
pleaded Not Guilty, and:the case was tried before ,ilurc,-*
Platt on the 11th instant at Nisi Prius, when the)u.'"
for the plaintiff, awarding him 150/. damages. ;to su:le
Mr. W. IL WATSON now moved for a rule nie",,d a Owly
cause why the verdict should not be set aside, 11Lce•
trial had, on the ground that it was against ev,',,,‘atiff Pt--;
would appear, that some short time ago, the tbs.
ceived an advertisement in the public prints, stet coon'
school was to be disposed of in a beautiful part of a
try, which afforded an excellent opening for any you eche°,l;
who was desirous of commencing business as a nieue
master; and directing that enquiries should poi000"
at M. De Parquet's, the French bookseller and 103 being
in Tavistock-street, Covent-garden. The Plaint' '14.1. Pe
tolls to embark in such a profession,
anx
Porquet's, and there learned from a paper signed 11; mar
fondant, that the school was situate at Brill, in 13tIeluilders
applied at ,ho
shire. The school consisted of twenty-fly!, tash
and twenty-five day scholars, and the ea", e--;
carried on in a very excellent house, repleer ned I°r
fixtures and other conveniences. The defendant seeie
bad
the reason of his giving up the establishment, that
ofsoo/4
just succeeded in getting a Post-oflice appointmentupon
and he could not attend to it; and eventually relYinfebaol•
these representations the plaintiff agreed to take thf,i of the
He paid upwards of 401. for the fixtures and goodw.ii 1701,
establishment, and 1304 for furniture, making i_,_("` eattlfr
but on his going to take possession of uto the
lishment, he discovered that he had beeen deceivedo !louse
defendant, there being only two scholars/ and tbtted °f
itself being in a very dilapidated state. He comply redress
this to the defendant, but finding he could get noreeet
from him by remonstrance, he was chiven to the yendeat
action, and the jury awarded him that which the del coo-
denied him. The Learned Counsel, however, for
tend that they had done so erroneousqiintiff
it was Elicited ,on the trial that the Irs,,d in
was cautioned by a former applicant, that he was deedi'tioa of
the impression ;`,,e entertained of the flourishing c°l3,.„t that
the school; and he c'as distinctly told by the defe°7—of the
the school was in a depreslsed state, but the
parish would make good the deficiencies. lie tchleerrgtriethe°elit;
tended there was no misrepresentation, or at all event his
was the plaintiff had allowed himself to be deceived 7' „littY
eyes open, and as it was a well known rule of law that hoped
having the means of knowledge had no remedyif esside.!
himself to be deceived, the verdict ought to be set • OP
101011
Mr. Baron PLATT said he was decidedly of °P • tiff for
there was gross deception practised upon the