The Sun.
London, England, 1821-11-28 00:00:00

LAW IYETLIAGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov, fl.
The Court was occupied during the day in hearing the argu-
ments in an appal cause, which did not involve any question
of general interest.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 27.
COOKE V. COLLINGIUDGE.
It will be recollected that this was a question arising-from a
copartnership concern in a coach-manufactory. Wm. Cooke,
father of the plaintiff and of of the defendants, had directed
by his will that the property which be held in the co-partnership
concern should be _equally divided emong.hss '.,co sons 4ml his
daughter, Mrs. Gray. He diedPn 1817, and the contract of co.
partnership terminated in 1817. The defendant, Cooke, had mar-
ried a daughter of one of the defendants, Collingridge; All
the partners in the concern agreed, at the' termination of the
contract, to make a sale, or rather a transference hy private-bar-
gain, of the whole stock and business to Cooke the defendant.
Notices to this effect were served on Cooke the plaintiff in
March and June, 1818 ; and intimation was at the Same time
given, to him of the terms of the transference, and of the sum
which was considered due to him under his father's will. In
March, 1819, the plaintiff tiled his bill to reduce this agree-
ment, and to obtain a public sale. This bill was argued on se-
veral occasions before his Honour, as the reports already given
have stated.

The Vicc-CHANCE Limn this morning gave judgment.—
The decree was for a reference to the 31aster.on three paints.
1. Was the plaintiffentitled to a sale at the termination of the
contract"?

2. Was the plaintiff entitled to be considered interested in the
produce of the concern down to the present tune-?
3. Would a sale now be for the interest of all parties ?
•

COURT OF KiNG'S BENCH, Nov. 27.
THE MARSHA I, OF THE K ING'S BENCH PRISON.

IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM JONES, ESQ.
It will be recollected, that last term a rule watt obtained by
Mr. li. Cooper, calling upon Mr. Jot-Ip, the-Marshal of the
King's Bench-Prison, to answer the matters'of certain affidavits,
imputing to him, at the suggestion. of Col. Bailey, a prisoner
within the walls of: the-said prison, negligence and . improper
conduct in his said office of Marshal. The affidavits contained
five distinct heads of charge. 1. That the Niaishal had permit.
ted two persons named Peckham and Colville, to have separate
rooms in the prison which they did not occupy, for the purpose
of letting them out to prisoners for their own advantage and
emolument. 2. That he had allowed two prisoners for debt,
named .Elworthy and Bannister, to act as turnkeys; and had
permitted them to have each a separate room, without being
subjected to the liability of being chummed. 3. That he had
permitted or connived at the -disorderly. condhet. 'of it coffee-
house keeper in the prison, who kept his house open to, unsea-
sonable hours of the night, to the great uncouragement of riots,
disorders, and debauchery, and to the personal annoyance of
Col. Bailey, Who, as an invalid, had been exposed• fori Months
to the unpleasant consequences of such conduct. 4. That he
had neglected to afford proper redress to Colonel Bailey, who
complained to him of the alleged misconduct of •a person called
Colonel Meade, who, on the night of the 21st of December, as
was sworn, had grossly insulted Colonel Bailey in the said cof-
fee-house, and challenged him to tight a duel. And, 5. That
he was constantly in the habit of absenting himself from the
said prison, and residing at his country villa at Putney, con-
trary to the rule of .Court, which requires his permanent resi-
dence in the said prison.
Messrs. GURNEY and CAMPBELL now shewed cause against
the rule upon the affidavits of Mr. Jones, the Marshal, Mr.
Broochoff, his Clerk or Deputy, Mr. Poole, the Coffee-house
Keeper, &c. The purport of these affidavits went to shew in ge-
neral that Mr. Jones had, since his appointment by Lord Ken-
yon, conducted himself in his office for a long series of years
without reproach or complaint ; that until of late years he had
constantly resided within theavalls of the prison, but in conse-
quence of the increase of his family, lie was obliged to take a
house at Putney, only six miles from the prison,wliere his family
resided ; but that he constantly paid the assessed taxes tor his
house in the prisOn, where n part of his family now resided.—
That during the time of Lord Kenyon and Lord Ellenborough,
he had been in the habit of attending those Noble and Learned
Judges as MarSlial, when they went the circuit, whilst holding
the said office; that he regularly attended in his office at the
`prison from ten o'clock in the morning until three in the after-
noon to hear complaints, and discharge the necessary duties of
his situation, with the exception of about a fortnight in the
Spring, and about five weeks in the king vacation,. when he went
out of town, but to no greater a distance than to enable him to
pay immediate attention to his duties in the prison if necessary ;
that lie regularly once every month visited every room in the
prison, 111 pursuance of the rule of this Court, anti as much
oftener as necessary ; that when Col. Bailey-complained to him
of certain alleged misconduct ()tthe part of a Gentleman Mimed.
Meade, and also of the manner in which the Coffee-house was
alleged to have been conducted, -he paid immediate attention, to
his complaint ; and as to the first ground, requested him to re-;
duce to writing the particulars of his -grievances, promising to
make due inquiries into the same; and afford him such redress
as it was in his power a • and as to the second, after having made
inquiries into it, he had dismissed the said Coffee-house Keeper
from his situation ; that he did not know of any 'ground of corn-.
plaint against the Coffee-house Keeper or any other person in
the prison, until it was made by Colonel Bailey, and that he
then paid as early attention to it as it was possible under the
circumstances ; that deponent verily believed this late applica-
tion to this Court arose .from vindictive motives on the part of
the Colonel, whci, as he was informed, and verily believed, was
influenced by motives Of hostility, because deponent had refused
to give bins the Rules of the prison, without satisfactory security.
The affidavits of Mr. Bropchoff and Poole corroborated that of
the Marshal, and expressed the belief of the respective depo-
nents, that the Colonel was influenced by motives of revenge
against the Marshal, because the latter had refused him the
Rules without adequate security, in consequence of the Colonel
having once broken the Rules, to which, 'one former occasion,
he had been admitted, and was in consequence thereof placed
within the walls. The deponent Poole declared, that he had
heard the Colonel repeatedly express himself in a threatening
manner against the Marshal on this account. The Learned
Counsel for the Marshal, in arguing the case, commented upon
the staleness of this application, which was not made until Tri-
nity Term, the supposed cause of complaint having arisen in
the preceding December ; and on behalf of their client, they ex-
pressed his perfect willingness to comply with the slightest sug-
gestion of the Court, should they be of opinion that .he ought
constantly to reside within the walls of the prison.
Mr. COOPER (with whom was Mr. Chitty), in an able and
powerful argument, addressed the Court in support of the rule.
As to the supposed staleness of the application, he recalled Vie
attention of the Court to Colonel Bailey's original affidavit,
which stated, that as early as February, he had given the neces-
sary instructions to an attorney, for the purpose of instituting

proceedings in this Court against the Marshal, hilt that attorney
declined interfering in the busin eta, lest-he..should make hinsseifee
_Olezioii.ous to the Atershal, who had it in his power to, deny
certain indulgences and accommodations, which the attorney or
his Clients might stand in need of. Frodathe tenour of the idle
davits on the other side, it should seem that Colonel Bailey, and
net the Marshal, was now.ealled upon to answer for. hiecondhee„....
tOr insteitl-of meeting the various charges brought against Mr: e •
Jones, they were filled4ith a tissue of ecriihinatory. rnattidif;' r •
tending to throw file- most base-and unworthy - reflections upon ,` •
the Colonel's character and ,conduct. He, however, would .not ,
atop to discuss matters so much beneath the Colonel's' notice,
ands-little relevant to the present application, the object' of - •
which was to bring Mr. Jones as a delinquent before the Court. ,
Much pains had been taken to represent Mr. Jones as a gentle. •
man whose conduct, character , arid conneetiOni were above ail
reproach, accompanied with an invidious contrast With Colonel
Bailey, in these particulars. The Colonel hatleno iliepositien to
enter into, a comparison on:.thestpoints with at Gentleman who
filled the office of Marshal of a public prison `'but it waa'neceri
sary the Court should be informed who Colonel Bailey Wasese:'•
he was a gentleman who had been employed ;as the private sea
cretary of one of our Ambassadors to a Poreign Court--ehe was
the Colonel of the-West Middlesex Alilitia? and -4e Waa-nearly' •
related to one of the most illustrious families in this kleegdom,
mutely the Uxbridge fathily. The Learned Counsel then pro.
ceeded to point out to the attention of the,•,Court those cintume. 4
stances of charge and, crimination which the Marshal's effiday.its • ,
wholly neglected to answer The fact of the. pt..dbris—• • "
named Peckhanieind Colville being permitted to have roeine '
the prison which they did not occupy; tothe great inconvenience!, ; ,
-of other.prisonere. That two debtors, named illworthy and
Bannister, were employed as turnkey and were permitted to
haVe rooinsin the prison exempt &One chUmming. il. That the ••
co6e-house had been 'conducted in a- most indecent and scar..
.dalotis manner, and,had been kept open for the purpose of
rouser and debauchery until unseasonable hours of the tight.. =.
4. That-Col. Bailey had been grossly insulted and challenged;
without the interposition ofthe-Marshal, in the exercise of that.
authority which the rule of Court vested in him and 5. Thai
'the Alarihal was non-resident; in direct violation of the rule Of
Court and of his appointment, which required his residence-in
the prison. Upon all these points he commented moat forci-
bly, and urged them as imperiously calling upon the Court- for
its vigorous interposition forthe7due regulation of its men prison.
Ile dwelt with great ability upon the topic of non-residence,
and contended that. the 'residence of the ,Marshal was essentially
requisite in compliance With the very terms of his appointment.
The Marshal ivas in the-Yea:list of 3,5001. a year, on condition
that he resided in, and faithfully discharged the duties of the pit..
son; instead of which he had deputed a principel part of his au.
thority to his clerk, who himself was not resident in the prison,
but dwelt in Nelson-square, whilst the Marshal enjoyed ease,
retirement and luxury in his splendid villa at Putney, leaving
the prison to itself, and visiting it only:once a month in obedi-
ence to the peremptory rule •of this Court, and on such other
occasions as suited the suggestions of - his. own mind. The ex-
cute of the Marshal t'or his non-residence was to be sure quite
ridiculous.. The increase of his -family required him to take
another house Be it so; but what occasion was there for him
to take an elegant villa seven miles from London? Was there
no house to be found outside the walls of the prison nearer than
seven miles? But then the Marshal paid the assessed taxes of
his house in theprieon ! If this was sufficient, there was no say-
ing to what extent the doctrine of constructive residence miget
not be carried. Really Mr. Jones was without the shadow of an
excuse, and the frivolotis pretences to which he was driven, proved •
only the confidence with which he attempted to get out of the
direct charge of misconduct which was brought home to his
door. Instead of manfully avowing that he did not reside, and'
contending that residence was not essential to the duties of his
Office, lie involved himself in general and sweeping assertiens, .
which were. always but the artifices of guilt. This conduct was
the more surprising and the less excusable, as Mr. Jones could
net plead ignorance of his duty. He must have well remerrie
bered the case of Mr. Bryant, who was dismissed front hit
office Of• Marshal for non-residence; and who was the relator cn
that occasion ? Why this Mr. Jones himself, who, upon' Air.
Bryant's.distnissal, was invested with the office. % hen the find
complaint was made against Air. Bryant, the Court took 'com-
passion oil his embarrassments, which prevented his personal'
residence in the prison, and gave him a day, but warned hiir
that he must reside. (in a second complaint at the relation of
Mr. Jones that he did not reside, .he was absolutely dismissed,.
and Mr. Jones was appointed to his place. Mr. Jones how'
stood before the -Court; guilty of a positiVe and direct breach of
his duty. Ile had not the excuse that poor Mr. Bryant had;
that person was embarrassed in his circumstances. Mr. Jones
was in the receipt of 3,b001. a year ; he was in the enjoyment of
wealth and luxury at his country villa, and if lie was forthwith
dismissed, as the public serviceimperiously demanded he should,
it would make no great difference in his personal comfort.
Jones had not even the excuse of ill health to plead ; if he had, '
there was no doubt it would have been stated on the affidavits,
and would at leale have been backed by • the- certificate of 'his
flintily physician or surgeon. The Learned Counsel celled the
attention of the. Court to the emphatical observations of tite
Committee of the Bowie of Commons, appointed to inquire
into the sta4 of the prisons in the metropolis, who, alluding to
Mr: Jones's large perquisites and non-residence, said it mani-
fested a state of things which ought not to be. He concluded•
by urging the necessity of doing ample public justice in -tine
case, and called upon. time Court to dismiss Mr.-Jonesfrout his
situation, as the Only means of attaining that object.
•The Cite J-u ST ICE said, the Court would consider the case
until to-morrow, when sonic order would be propounded upon
the subject.