The Sun.
London, England, 1826-11-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY—(Tuts DAY. )
NEW COURT WESTMINSTER.
.The Loan CHANCELLOR sat to-day for the first time since the
memo, in the New Court Westminster Hall. During the vaca-
tion, a little improvement in this Cowl has been made, a partition
separating the Court from a wide passage leading into the Vice-
Chancellor's Court, and running in a parallel line along the two
Courts has been removed, which has thrown this Court more
into the form of the Vice-Chancellor's, and occasioned more
room; the gallery is still permitted to remain, which certainly
is in no respect beneficial to the convenience of the Court ; a
clock has Leen put up for each of the Courts.
IN THR MATTER OE N.LT.ISON A BANKRUPT.
Mr. MONTAGUE was instructed to make an application in this
matter, of the nature and under the circumstances he would
shortly state :—A declaration of the bankrupt's insolvency
appeared in the London Gazette; the regular time at
which a docket could be struck, agreeable to the terms of
the Act of Parliament, made this declaration on Saturday night
last, or rather on Monday morning, for nothing could be done on
the Sunday ; on Monday morning his clients applied at the Bank-
rupt's Office to take out a London Commission ' • they were there
told that they were not entitled to strike a docket because a
country one had been struck on Friday ; they left the Office, re-
turned to it again at 12 o'clock, and found that between that hour
and the one at which they had been there before, the attorney who
had taken out the country commission on Friday, had withdrawn
it and substituted another ; and the application to the Court now
was, that the applicants might be at liberty to strike a docket
and issue a conuniesion upon it; but Mr. Montague thought that
probably the utmost he could at present ask was, that the sealing
of the substituted commission might be stayed, until the party who
took it out had the opportunity of being heard here.
His Loensule saw no objection to this, and made the order ac-
cordingly. He would take this opportunity of observing, that no
man could tell how actively what were called amending Acts of
Parliament were worked to the injury of others.
Mr. Morracu was quite sure that the subtilty of words could
never reach the subtilty of thought.
TILE KING OF SPAIN V. DIANDRZARAL.
When this case was called on, Mr. SHADWELL had not his
brief, nor did he know that the case was to have been in to-day's
Paper, and therefore he thought there must have been some mis-
take respecting it.
AIL Sennett appeared for some of the parties; it was at his
request that the demurrer and exceptions were to come on with
the Pending motion in the cause ; and by the arrangement his
Lordship had made as to hearing motions, Thursday would be the
day fur hearing the whole of the case.
His LORDSHIP decided it, without further discussion at pre-
sent, to come on on Thursday.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. MAYOR OF EXETRR.
Mr. Suanwsla. stated that this was a matter in which, on the
WI of July last, his Lordship had, upon an appeal, confirmed an
order made by his Heinz the Vice-Chancellor, at the instance of
the relators, to take an unlimited account as against the Mayor and
Corporation of Exeter, at least from 1627, of all the rents and
Profits that had been received from the charity estates mentioned
in the pleadings; there were, however, subsidiary questions for
the Court's consideration, because under the supposition that the
decree made below was right, the Master had proceeded to
make his report. If the decree had been upset, then the
Whole of the proceedings before the Master must have fallen
to the ground, but as it had been affirmed, it was the duty
of the defendant's counsel now to draw his Lordship's atten-
tion to the exceptions that had been taken to the Master's report,
and to take his opinion seriatim upon them. The exceptions
indeed, been brought on, on a former occasion, but it was
th"l intimated by the Court, that they had not been framed
pre-
rely well calculated to raise the question the parties wished to
mooted ; they had now been altered, and the first exception
waH, that the Master ought not to have charged the defendants
\vitt, the rents and profits previous to the year 164.7, because no
evidence bad been brought forward that they had received any
thing previous to that time, and particularly because it did not
appear from the first book that had been kept (beginning in 1647)
that at that time any balance was due from the defendants. The
learned Counsel thought it was so clear that there was no evidence
to support any charge previous to 1647, and the hardship of
charging the defendants from the earlier date, would be so great
that the Court would undoubtedly allow the exception.
Mr. HART, contra, was
.sure, that if the defendants had got
themselves into a scrape, the Court would not say charitable put•.
posses were to be defeated by their neglect, but allow justice to
take its course and prevail, leaving those who had improperly ate
and drank of the charity estates, to disgorge or to find• the means
of meeting that course in the best way they could. It was a sin-
gular mode of reasoning, for au accounting party to say, that after
producingbook, stating they had 'entered the receival of the
rents and profits in it, and that from it the account of those rents
and profits were to be taken, but that because, they themselves
had not, at the commencement of that book, entered a claim of
'any balance against themselves, that that book was then to be
L a" negative evidence that any sum was due from them at
date. This was the gist of the argument made on behalf of
the defendants. They would have to depend on what appeared in
iii
e book alluded to and what had been stated by the defendants
in their answer.
Hia 141mmr desired to see the book before he could dispose
°I the question, and as it was in the Master's Office, ordered it
to be produced in Court to-morrow morning. He had read the
a.!l,lwer filed in this matter ; and certainly it would be a strong
thing to saY,',that the defendants could be at liberty to amend their
anawer after a decree made, (and which was one of the questions
)11e, to be decided) though it would be hard to hold them to a mis-
h:n if mistake there was ; but how it happened that a body,who
' no conscience, could be so improvident as to put in the an-
swer they hail done, he did not know.
Ir. Snanwau. could assure his Lordship that the answer was
4„
TY, conscientious one, whatever the Body was, or had.—
however, would take. care to be prepared to give
Lordship further information to-morrow.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.—(Tits DAY.)
ROYAL S'FANNARY AND BRITISH MINING ASSO-
. CIATION.
*LAZNE AND OTHERS V. SIR T. Z. AGAR AND OTHERS.

JUDGMENT.
thrln this case a bill had been filed by five persons,
lut'ivee is others, original subscribers to the above Company,
i
aa for
''‘e4tl at present holders if 1;100 blares. The prayer of the bll
that the Managing Directors be compelled to repay to the
stleteribers the sums which they had respectively advanced on theirrt
(4;••• The equity named in the bill was, misconduct on tit! pa
birectore. It was alleged that some of the Directors originally
t,lnZt in the Prospectus had refused to act, and were replaced
e others without the concurrence of the subscribers. It was
peittlier charged in the bill, that the Directors kept back 3,800
hiT, although application had been made to them for double the
"Kier proposed to be issued, namely, (10,000), and it waso44teted that they Were influenced in so doing by a regard for their
y Private "`""taKe, intending to reserve those shares.
) themselves in ease thesucceeded, but to dis-
pose of them Should the
tit% were of opinion that be 't
profit ufavourable. The plain-
commenced work until the
it the directors ought not to have
from the body of subscribers!' euld received
sold • acid they particularly power and authority
eorg'it;Linot before all the shares were
d
by diem was not alone expended that the money advance
the Purchase of mines, but
part ut tlit. 3and
!via actually employed in buying
in paying an individual, who was called proprietor of the
Pen:teeny. For these reasons the plaintiffs claimed to be discharg-
ed from the company, aid to be repaid the money advanced by
them ou their shares.
To this bill the defendants put in a geiaeral demurrer, on the
grounds of ,c want of equity." Anther objection was advanced
by them, namely that the bill wanted parties, inasmuch as all the
'Perkins in the case were not in Court. It will be recollected that
the plaintiffs were trustees for several other subscribere, Who had
*ested,their shares in them on condition that they should prose-
tute the claims of all against the directors, and that they should
hold what they recovered in trust for the general benefit of the
other parties to the deed.
ifir 'lowans, in giving judgment this morning, said, that.
fen II of opinion that the defendants were guilty of misconduct, lie,
t hinfeelf hound to overrule the demurrer. With respect to the',
other objection started by the defendants' Counsel, namely, that.
'l4e bill wanted parties, his Havana said, that the general prin-‘
wet'lP4: Was, that all the parties should be named in the bill. He
'"" aware that in some special cases the Court admitted one to
sus °II behalf of many ; but it never was held that, in all cases
!flee the partite happened to be numerous, or which came
with-
ele to mischief, a similar indulgence was to be granted. Feeling,
tierefore, that he was bound to administer the law as he found
1,,,'„tL0 not to establish new rules, it became his duty to allow the
r oltieetion, and refuse the peayer of the bill. His Hoxouu
!either (*weed, that although the 6 Geo. I. (the nubble Act);
at.ltiot been alluded to in the course of argument, he thought
in some measure applicable to such cases as the present.
INeesee
; f•RIAL DISTILLERY COMPANY.—JUDGMENT.
His
telt Romust next proceeded to give judgment in a case arising
the (1:1 the above Company. A Shareholder filed a bill against
anagi"ll Directors for the recovery of 1001, advanced by

him on 20 shares which he purchased on the faith off' the state-
Inents put forth in the original prospectus of the Company. Ac-
cording to this prospectus, the capital of the Company was to be
goo,oooz. to be raised by 12,000 shares of 501. each. Officers it
was said were to be appointed for every department—a deed of settle-
ment to be executzd, and an Act of Parliament applied for to en-
able the. Company to sue and be sued by its officers. The
plaintiff charged in the bill that two of the persons named in the
original prospectus had refused to act, and were replaced by others;
a second prospectus was subsequently issued, differing materially
from the first. A few of the shares only had been disposed of,
and the first call of 5/. on each had been paid on still fewer, yet
notwithstanding this the Directors made a second call of 5/., and
proceeded to purchase extensive distillery premises, and expend
large sums for other purposes. For these reasons, and because
the Directors had in these matters acted for their own private
emolument, and sold at a high premium several shares which they
had in the first instance retained, whit% had the effect of defraud-
ing the petitioner and the other shareholders ; the petitioner now
prayed that the 100/. advanced by him on account of his shares be
repaid to him. To this prayer one of the Directors had put in a ge-
neral demurrer, alleging want of equity on the part of the petitioner.
Ifis Honour was clearly of opinion that the demurrer ought to he
overruled. 'lhe plaintiff, he thought, was entitled to recover the
100/., and the only difficulty the case presented was whether he
he could recover at law or in a Court of Equity. He wished it to
be understood that he did not lay much stress on the difference
between the first and second prospectus ; indeed, the precise dif-
ference was not stated in the bill ; and even if there did exist a dif-
ference, it would be a more fit subject of inquiry for a Court of
Law ; being convinced (added his Honour) that this proposed
Company was a mere snare to induce persons to subscribe to what
the Directors intended to convert to their own profit. I think
the case comes within the rule laid down in Holt v. Wollaston.•

Mr. WAKEFIELD applied for time, that the defendants might
have an opportunity of pleading de novo; to which his Honour LS-
seated, after stating that the allegations in the bill went to charge
the defendants with gross fraud.
4' This *as the celebrated ease, arising out of a Company esta-
blished for the purpose of extracting oil from radishes !

HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY—(Tnts DAs•).
The First Session of the Admiralty Court commenced this day,
before the Right Hon. Lord STOW ILL.
Doctors Chapman, Nicoll, and Curtis, who were admitted Ad-
vocates of the Court of Arches on the last Court-day, were in-
troduced by Sir Christopher Robinson, and, after taking the oaths,
were admitted Advocates of the High Court of Admiralty. Mr.
Moore was, at the same time, admitted a Proctor of the Court.