The Sun.
London, England, 1821-11-20 00:00:00

y4AW INTEMAC ENCt.

COURT OR CHANCERY, Nov. 10.

THE ATTORNHY-GENERAT. V. THE SUINNERS' COHPAVY.
llr..t'L•OnE( was heard at considerable length, this day, in
support of the appeal; and was followed on the same side by
Mr. 03rEGO. -
The ATTORNEY-GEXERAT., for the respondents (the rela-
ters), commenced his argument for aflizming the judgment of
the Vice-Chancellor.. It will be recollected that the decree of
his Honour• gave to the relaters in this case the object which.
they sought by. their information; namely, the rents and pro-
fits of the' charity -estate-. amounting to the sum of 4,0001.
for the support of the .Tunbiidge
.school. The • Learned
Ointleman referred' to the original.ellirter and several.of the
early documents to. :which the attention of COurt had- been
for the purpose of spewing that -the Company :of Skin-
ners had been created by the charter in:ipiestion for no other
purpose than td-act as the warden; and•masters of this school.;
that their power was limited fo_that ettablislniAnt'; arnl that-
-whatever property-was conveyed to them by the testator, or in
virtue of the testator's appointment, was given lbr the.benefit Of
Tunbridge School. The Learned Gentleman was proceeding
in his argument, when
The LORD CHANCELLOR (atone o'clock) said he was com-
pelled to rise and go to another-place'.

.10E,CHANCELLOR'S COURT, N0v..19.
COOKE V. COLLINGRIDGE.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR asked Mr. Hart what he prayed
fOr by his -
Mr. HART said that it was a decree for a re-sale of the pro-
perty. .
The VICE-CHANCELLOR then remarked, that there had
not been a sale, but that-the executors bad exercised a sound
discretion, and.had given full valuer() the plaintiff for his in-
- terest"in the co•partnership.concem It was true that the trans-
fer-of the property was not formally correct, but it was sub-
stantially the most: beneficiarth the plaintiff:A by4notive bad
influenced the executors in transferring theeencerri to William
Cooke, who married the daughter of one of therin.: 'hit they had
acted discreetly.and -wisely. under flud,influence. • _The- Cohrt
would not, therefore,, decree a re-Sale merely beCaUse the sale
had not been formal, and in order togive a triumph in this cause.
to the plaintiff. ' • a
. Mr. HART said, that.if the object were :to obtain a triumph
for one of the parties, the Court undoubtedly would act rightly
in refusing it; but the fact was that there had been no Sale.
There had been no scheme of sale: no -competition. of opulent
trades had beeii invited: The partnership concern had been
given to Wm. Cooke by the executor's upon their own valua-
tion, and the plaintiff complained that the transference in such
a way was not a fair sale, and that the value ptit upon the pro-
perty was not the highest that might have been obtained.
The'VrCEXHANcELLort said, that if the °value was not the
highest that might have been obtained, and if the sale.was not
the most beneficial to all 'parties, most undoubtedly the sale
j could not be considered good by force of -contract. The ques-
tion was; then, what was the value of the Property in 1317 ; and
then, if a sale ought to have'bebn made in a different forni in-
181•77the question would be, was it for the interestaf all parties
that there . should be a sale now ? -WOW& it not be the fittest
' course to refer the case to the Master, for the purpose of making
those inquiries ?
Mr. HART said he had not the Slightest objection. • •
Mr. HORNE appeared for and :Mri. Gray, .wha.liad an
equal interest in the Property of tier father; as ber brother, the
plaintiff; had Mr..and Mrs. Gray thought it wits riot fOr their
interest that the airangembnt_ by th4roperty was dis,-
posed of•slakild be distnibed..- s - • —.-
Mr. BELL, for the defendati,-.eentendedlhat-itiie.partrier
had not a right. to a sale,
.a11f1..-could- notftirce a ;iiri"iiy
.filinga
bill in. that Mut, Anionirother . Of,4lfis .vi;.lv.- the
Learned Gent., qubted.the sayin:Of 13t. Jiblison'in-,the.,s;le of
Nlr. Thrale's brewe'ry : " It is not"therelyutenslii fki.breWing
that we Sell, but the power Of growing nth." _ •
Mr. HEALD, -for Wm. Cooke, urged that the article -of co-
partnership had never contemplatedu-salf; Inftli4cliatinatly
directed a division of the stock 'hand, and;rforf tin remiies ;
land further,' that the plaintiff had precluded himself freinthe
title to call for a sale, if he had had such a.title,by making no re.
ply to their notice of the Mode of diVision.fidopted. The-contract
expired on the 31st of December, 1817' ; the notice was sent
,to the defendant in March 1318 ; and the bill was notrded till
11.1.a'reb'' 1819.
Mr. RomiLLT,.who was with 111r....Hart, in order to meet:
the last argument read thb two notices; 'ivhich were two letters,'
One ig Mltrch.amtl thq.other in-June, 181'8, and contended that
they Weremoficesatiot of a contemplated and future ..sale, but
of a pdsf ited finished transaction. " - •
.. •
• • Messfs: • SDADWEi;L and go sE "argued on,the -same side
with Mr. Heald.. • . • .1 •
- Mr. HART rose tq reply, when,in auSwer to a question from
his Honour, he- said he admitted that the articles hattatipulated
a division, and hot.a sale, 'hitt that 'the divisied had. nov:heeki,
, made, .
,and that a Court of Equity, would -direettt sale where it-
Wa.i.imPratticable. If the stock in liapd consisted, of
one' coaeliminbitrherses, it could net be contended that each •
pity wag, by adivision, to take a wheel and a horse.' • • •
•• The Y.1.C.F:.-Cl-cArreELLoR said, that should like-to hear
that point' fully argued, for at 'present lie Was not prepared to
agree with Mr. Itart4 it might be the most berieficiaf arrange.-
niant that; could be made. in a partnership. concern to .agrCby
•consract that-there-should be no sale at the
,expiraticT of the
term'ofealiartnership: Could Mr. Hart cite ca.se.iii µ rich a•
Court of Equity oidered a sale in the 'face of sucli a Zonfiabe?'
• Mr. HART raid he could not. . t.,
The th _
V c tiyaßght the poi qt., q34renifiY*);-!
portant,' not merely-in se 'far as it regardedthis'eaS*Obie fol. Ilk
general appliDation of-,lt. :Re-:would .rather that -Mr. Hart
would take a a_ay .to crisitler it.,7 "
• •
Mr. HART agreed that it *as 'a very important paint,: -but
was the flxtid impression of• his; mind that it was' precisely in
j.such a case that a -Court of .E•quity would interfere. and order
I
sale. .
j Thursday fin:loft waY'fiked for arguing the point.
• .

COURT• OF KING'S BENCH, WEST IitINST
An appl4.tion was madefor
_leave to hle.'a Crinuual infoi-
mation against, two Gentlemen, one of whom-is a Magistrate,
for abuse •of authority. • The allied Counsel, viho made the
motion, did not consider it. discreet on the occasion
the names:—The Court, having judgments to deliver,- ordered
the motion to stand over to another. day. .. • . •i• . •

THE xiNG.v. JAMES BURTON. •
.This was an indictment against James iitirionjoi„azass-aitit
upon Lundy Dickinson,. in the. execution' of The
offence in. question,- which was committed at. Folkesfthie,
arose .out of the too litefal execution of orders given .0 .the:de-
.fendant. . . . . _ .

. , .
:Mr: Lundy Dickinson, who is an'AdMiralty midshipman on
the Kentish preventive service, escorted certain persOns to Folk.e_
stone who were to bear witness agf..tinst.certain othcr,persons
upon a charge of struggling.. Matter's of this deseriytion are
commonly arranged in the 'Town Hall of Folkestone ; and Mr.
Dickinson, having safely delivered his.
_witnesses at that place,
retired towards his quarters: Accusers of:Omit-Jeri are .gene-
rally iri bad 'odour upon thU-Kentish coast ;and so great a riot
arose during the investigation of thi case in question, that 11:
Butcher; },Sq..(Mayor and presiding tria7gistratc),.fOinid it ne.;
cessary to close the doors of the hall; and..to command that
no one, upon any_ retence, should. 'be admitted. . ()lit .of this
unlucky order, the enforcement of Which fell (in virtue of his
'office as constable) to Burton the 'defendant, inC4Pecie4l.nois;
I.chief arose.. 111 r. Dickinson, cveri• More unpopular .than the
witnesses ho lead escorted, 'Was beset," "and in the street coi),"
all the and bobtail of Folkestone. Finding "it impojitlq-
, to reach his quarters, lie; drew his sword, and. tetreatpd'Wpcli
yelled and
.beaten) again ilpontlie:Townlf all ; but ttike4 It; ob.t
staele unlooked.:for presented to safety: for,th ede fen
ant, 14h. on the Tovii-Hall steps, opposed view-
ed,altentranee'';:_
in the execution Of his order, rightitrdit(ing cider latft as
°Lie ; arid; flOuriShing with oaths his st`aff',Ofptfice,
Dickinson back -ainongst his .assailazit.!, front'Whose mud and-
.tither• missiles he. was With. "difficulty preserved. The, cluirge
against Plirton .was, that he .IjO-d- mit acted bdna fide in tillit,eig-;
cution or the prders*.givenO.li tirri; but that from a fellow-feel-.
ing wtfth the•sinugglers, he had.availedliimsclf of those
•ordets
to deliver Mr.'DickinSon .into their power. The indictment
.was tricd.before Mr. Baron Ncood at ,Maidstone, and the jury
'found a 'Verdidt. of " guilty."
The SOLICITOR.-GENERAL 007 moved' the .judgment- of
the COurt.
The -defendant put in an of davit, swearing -that- he had in-
tended.to:act only in Obedience to the orders
.given to hini._
He also stated, that hi bad served-ten years m a light dragoon
regiment, that he had held, the rank of sergeant, and 'that he
hid been wounded battle.
I 'Ehe SOt.ICITOR-GEN,ERAL, in aggravation, said, that the
defendant hail given Mr. Dickinson several ldowS with leis
staff', andhad Used-much abusive language towards him. The
Court would understand the effect of his conduct at such a time
.fn't.oiea-
-and in suclta place as FOIL-I:stone.
`Mr. (iutiNEY followed on the same side.
The defendant adinittpci having oi:ix
Gnat the time in: question; but denied haying-been hrflaenced
by any improper .
The ConRT siTnteliced• him to two month"'-imprisonment in
the gaol of Sc-Augustin's, and to find security for his
'.l4'Odd behaviour dining five years.- • •
• .•- .
First Sittings in Term at Nisi. Prius, Wore' Mr. Justice Hot.-
I . .

' 4 KNIGIIT V. kNT. • ' '
. . . •
This was an action of assault; Mr. GURNEY led for the
'plaintiff; Mr. SCARLETT for the defendant.
The plaintiff, who is a Paddington stage-coachinan, said,