The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-22 00:00:00

MANN V. RICKETS.

The LORD CHANCELLOR then gave judgment in this case,
which was heard, shortly before his Lordship's illness, upon
motion to discharge an order made by the Master of the Rolls.
His Lordship was clearly of opinion that the decision of the
Court below was correct, and ordered the appealed to be dis-
missed with costs.
COOMBE V. THE MAYOR AND CORPORATION OF LONDON.

The LORD CHANCELLOR then proceeded to give judgment
in this case, which was argued before him some considerable
time since, upon an appeal from the decision of the Vice-
Chancellor Knight Bruce. His Lordship said the case came
before me after motion to discharge an order of the Vice-
Chancellor Knight Bruce, for the production of documents
mentioned or referred to on the answer of the defend-
ants. It is not necessary to state the facts in detail
as they are fully set forth in the report of the proceedings
before the Vice-Chancellor. The Corporation of London
claim to be entitled by prescription to measure all corn,
grain, &c., brought by the River Thames, and landed at any
point between Staines-bridge and Yanfieet, and to receive
certain ancient fees in respect of the performance of that
duty. The plaintiffs had landed certain quantities of malt
at their wharf in Westminster, and the Corporation filed a
bill against them for an account of the malt so landed, claim-
ing the accustomed fees. The plaintiffs filed a cross bill
for a discovery, denying the right of the Corporation, con-
tending that if the right existed it was to a much more
limited extent than as claimed by them ; that it was compa-
ratively of modern origin ; that the fees had been from time
to time varied, and that there was no round for the
prescription claimed. The defendants having put in their
answer, the plaintiffs moved for the production of the docu-
ments mentioned or referred to in such answer. When the mo-
tion came on for argument the defendants consented to the pro-
duction of such of the documents as had been produced under an
order of the Chief Baron, Lord Abinger. Secondly, to the
metage, accounts kept by the meters, who were the ser-
vants of the Corporation. Thirdly, to certain books and re-
pertories enumerated in the first schedule to the answer. And
lastly, to the charter of the 6th of James 1., and the subse-
quent charter of Charles. With respect to the case and opinions
it is unnecessary for me to express any opinion ; they were
considered by the Vice-Chancellor to be protected, and the
defendants do not of course complain of that part of the judg-
ment. The first question for consideration relates to the
books of account kept by the corn-meters. The plaintiffs in-
sist in their bill, among other things, that the rates of charge
have varied, and that they will appear after inspection of
their books. The statement in the bill is, that the defendants
have in their possession, custody, or power, divers accounts or
books of account, in which entries have been made of all corn
&c., measured by the corn-meters during a long period of years,
together with (among ether things) the fees and wages re-
ceived for such measuring, and that if such books of account
were produced, it would thereby appear that among other
things the rate of fees, and wages, and rewards claimed
and received on account of the metage aforesaid, and
the labour incidental thereto, have from time to time varied.
The bill, therefore, charges the possession of these documents,
and that they relate to the matters in dispute in this suit—
namely, among ether things, the metage, and the fees and
wages paid in respect of it : if they exhibit a variance in the
amount of the rates paid at different periods, it is obvious
that such evidence would be material for the plaintiffs
at the hearing of the cause. The defendants, the
cern-meters, in their answer, admit the possession of
these books of accounts, and say—not positively—
to the best of their information and belief—that
it will not appear from them that the fees and rates of charge
have varied, and they further state that these accounts or
books of account, contain material evidence for the Corpora-
tion, and that they are intended to be used in support of
their claim, but the material question is, whether they do not
also contain, by the alleged variance of charges, evidence for
the plaintifi's. This is denied only according to the
information and belief of the defendants. In Ban-
nestyne v. Leader, 10th Simone, the Vice-Chan- ,
cellor of England considered, and I think properly,
that it was net sufficient in a case of this kind to
swear merely to the defendant's belief. It further appears
from the answer that the examination of the documents of
the defendant, the corn-meters, had been imperfect, for in
another part they set out the names of certain places where
the measurement had taken place out of the city of London,
being, as they state, all that they had met with, but they
add that the accounts are numerous, and that
there may be many others besides those they have
mentioned. The number of the documents is not a sufficient
excuse for an imperfect examination of them, as the Court
would, upon a proper application, allow the necessary time
to prepare a sufficient and satisfactory answer. The same
objections apply to the answer of the Corporation. With
respect to the town-clerk, it does not always very distinctly, '
appear when he is meant to be included under the descrip-
tion of these defendants, but if he denies at all
that the accounts will show that the payments have
varied, he states that only according to information
and belief, and there is sufficient also in his answer to show
that if he has examined the accounts the examination has
been partial and imperfect. lam of opinion, therefore, that
these accounts must be produced. The next question relates
to the books and repertories mentioned in the first schedule,
The defendants, the Corporation, and their town-clerk, say
in their answer that, save as therein mentioned, they deny
that they have in their possession any book or books re-
lating to the matters in the bill mentioned, except that
there are in the custody or power of the defendants certain
written books or repertories, set fortk in the first schedule,
which contain entries of divers matters and things which the
defendants believe form material evidence as to the exclusive
right of metage, and which they intend to use in support of
their right. And, in a subsequent passage, they ex-
pressly admit that the books and repertories, men-
tioned in the first schedule, contain copies and ab-
stracts, or extracts, from documents relating to the
measuring of corn and grain by the meters ; and they admit
the possession of such books and repertories, but they deny
that the plaintiffs have any interest in them ; and further
they deny, to the best of their knowledge, information, and
belief, that if they were produced, it would appear by
them that the right had commenced within the time
of legal memory, or that they contain, or would fur-
nish evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs ; en the con-
trary, they say they are advised and believe that
they contain entries which they are advised and believe
are most material evidence in support of the right of
metage, and which they intend to make use of in support of
their exclusive right against the plaintiffs. There is in
these passages a sufficient admission that the books and re-
pertories set forth in the first schedule relate to
the matter mentioned in the bill. The only question, there-
fore, is, whether any sufficient reason is assigned why they
should not be produced The defendants deny that the plain-
tiffs have any interest in them, and further they deny, to the
best of their belief, knowledge, and information, that, if pro-
duced, they would show that the right had commenced
within time of legal memory, and that they would furnish
evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs do not
claim the right to the production of the documents
on the ground of their having any interest in
them in the :oilmen acceptation of that word, but as con-
taining evidence in their favour in support of the allegations
contained in the bias, and this is denied by the defendant*,
the Corporation, and the town-clerk, only according to
the best of their knowledge, information, and belief, which,
as I have already stated, 1 do not think sufficient. They
farther add that these books and repertories contain, as they
are advised and believe, entries which form most mate-
rial evidence of their exclusive right of metage, and which
they intend to use in support of their right : but this will
not entitle them to withhold the documents, unless they
also deny with sufficient certainty (which they do not), that
they contain evidence in support of the case of the plaintiffs.
It was further objected that the bill only charged that these
books related to the matter in question, and that it was
not alleged that, if produced, they would establish the case
of the plaintiffs, and that it was only admitted by the answer
that the accounts related to the matters in question in the
cause. But this admission alone will, prima facie, entitle
the plaintiff to inspect them. Smith v the Duke of Beau-
fort, Storey v. Lord Lennox, Tyler v. Drayton, and other
cases have decided that point. It is not necessary that more
should be stated in the bill, or that more should be admitted
by the answer. It was also said that the documents were re-
quired merely to negative the case of the Corporation of London,
and that the plaintiff had no right to require the production
for that purpose ; and the case of Bolton v. the Corporation of
Liverpool was cited as establishing that position ;
but the ground upon which the production was there
refused seems to have been, that the documents were re-
quired Merely for the purpose of ascertaining whether they
contained anything tending to disprove the title
of the Corporation, not for the purpose of proving,
as in the present case, the facts alleged in the bill, and
which, if established, would defeat the plaintiffs' claims.
Here the plaintiffs charge affirmatively that the pay-
'bents have varied at different periods, that they
will be shown by the accounts when produced, and the state-
ment is not positively denied, but only according to infor-
mation and belief in the answer. When documents are charged
and admitted to be in the defendant's possession relating
to the matters in question, it must depend upon the suffi-
ciency of the answer whether the Court will order the pro-
duction of them. The remaining question relates to the
charters of the 4th James I. and the charter of Charles 11.
The charter of the 6th of James the First, either the original
or a copy. but as I read the answer, the original, and the
charter of Charles the Second, are admitted by the defendants.
the mayor, aldermen, and commonalty, and the town-clerk, to
be in their possession, and they clearly relate to the matters
mentioned in the bill; that may be material to the plaintiffs'
case, for they tend to show that the right is confined to corn,
&c., imported for the purpose of sale. In one part
of their answer the defendants say the charter of the 6th of
James I. was not necessary to their case; but in a subse-
quent part they state that the charter of Charles 11., in
which the charter of the 6th of James I. was
recited, forms part of the evidence of their title to the ex-
elusive right of metage, but they nowhere, as far as I
can discover, state that they do not afford evi-
dence in support of the plaintiff's case. Beyond the
facts which I have stated there is nothing relied upon as a
reason why the charter should not be produced. There is no
ground therefore for discharging any part of the Vice-Chan-
cellor Knight Bruce's order, and the motion must, therefore,
be refused with costs.

FOSTER V. SMITH.
The LORD CHANCELLOR also gave judgment in this case,
dismissing the bill without costs ; but; in consequence of some
question being raised with respect to the costs, his Lordship
said he would hear the arguments upon that point on Mon-
day morning.

OLDFIELD V. COBBETT.
The LORD CITAIICELLOR Ms* gave judgment in this case,
re
fusin 0 the motion without costs.
0

HEIGHTON v. (MA/4T.
His LORDSHIP also gave judgment in this case, which came
before him upon an appeal from the judgment of the Master
of the Rolls. His Lordship affirmed the judgment of the
Court below.
BOOTII V. LIGHTFOOT.
In this case his LORDSHIP gave judgment, also affirming
the decree, and dismissing the appeal with costs.
HILL V. NASH.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment likewise in this
case. It came before his Lordship upon appeal from the
judgment of the Master of the Rolls, deciding against an ob-

jection that had been made to the suit for want of parties.
It appeared that the plaintiffs were corn faetors, and
that, in the year 1840, they entered into a specu-
lation with the defendant hash, and two other
persons, named Carpenter and Shepherd, to purchase
wheat by that speculation. Eighteen thousand pounds were
lost. by the plaintiffs, and they instituted a suit for the pur-
pose of recovering from the representatives of Nash that
sum. The defendants, the representatives of Nash, asserted
that the suit was defective, inasmuch as Carpenter and Shep-
herd were not made parties, but the Master of the Rolls de-
cided against that objection, and from that thcision the de.
fendants appealed. His Lordship was clearly of opinion that
the objection ought to have been allowed, and ordered the
decree to be discharged and the suit to be amended.

JONIS V. HOWELL.

His LORDGIIIP also gave judgment in this case, affirming
the judgment below with costs.

BLUNDELL V. GLADSTONE.

His Loxs►SHIP also gave judgment in this case, which came
before him upon an appeal from the decision of the Vice•
Chancellor of England, dismissing the petition of Lord
Camoys and a lady named Temple, praying to be
admitted into the possession of certain property belonging
to the testator in the cause called Melyneaux and Horton.
His Lordship was of opinion that the Vice-
Chancellor had acted wrong in dismissing the
petition, and ordered it to be referred to the Master to inquire
whether the estates of Melyneaux and Horton were be-
queathed by the testator, subject to any and what trust, the
Master to state special circumstances.