The Sun.
London, England, 1826-12-21 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICII-CHANCELLOR'S COURT— (Tuts DAY.)
APPLICATION FM( AN 'INJUNCTION.
TOLE LOS WEI.I.MEY V. IMAIA TIINFV

LON 4, DOROTHY TLNEY LONG, AND JULIUS NUTCAINAON.
• Mr. liana. stated, that he had au exparte application to make
in' this Cause. The application, • which was founded on an afti•
davit of the plaintiff, was for ,an' injunction to restrain the de-
fendant", or any of them, from making away with, interpolating,
or-deiqoying all or any o 1 the doeirments, papers, or writing, re-
ferred 'Lo in the bill. The affidavit set forth,' that in the
year 11612 the plaintiff intermarried with his late wife,
who in September 1825,- at her residence at Richmond,
having previously to her death appointed executors, and devised
all her property to the plaintiff; that she subsequently revoked
the appointment of executors; that the plaintiff took out letter
of administration to her effects, and that he is now by virtue of his
marital right as husband, and by virtue of these letters of oulminis
tration, the sole and legal representative of his late wife;
the affidavit went on to state that at the time of her death, his
wife mil in possession of various documents, papers, and writings,
of various articles, jewellery, plate, trinkets, and other family
relics, is well as of several articles of the same description, the
property of the plaintiff. The affidavit states that the plaintiff
was informed, and believer, that after the death of his late
wife, the defendanta.Emma Tilney Long and Dorothy Long, pos-
sessed themselves of these effects, the plaintiff being at the time in
foreign parts ; that in the first instance they caused them to be
locked up in certain drawers or trunks, which they at the RAMP
time caused to be sealed ; that since that period they had handed
over the whole of the documents and papers to their solicitor,
Julius Hutchiuson, who, although frequently applied to, had re-,
fused to give them up to the plaintiff. The affidavit further
stated that the defendants insisted on retaining the papers and
documents in question, and of disposing of them as they
might think fit; and the plaintiff swears that he has been in-
formed, and lie believes that the defendant Hutchinson has three
tenet' to destroy.such as may be in his possession ; the plaintiff
adds, that he is suable to take any proceedings at law for the re-
covery, of the said papers, not having any schedule or list of them;
and that many of the letters are of a confidential nature,, and sit
great importance to the plaintiff, his family, and affairs.
The Vice-Cumicent.oa—Do you think there are grounds fur
your application? lam of opinion that your Affidavit does not
lay before the Court sufficient grounds for supposing that there is
danger of the destruction of the papers.
Mr. HART referred his Honour to that part of the affidavit
which related: to Ilutehineon—the distance of the parties pre--
eluded the plaintiff from more certain information than that set
forth in the affidavit

The Vlcr-CnaNcut.Lon—l think the injunction would cast a
reflection on the defendants.

Mr. HART said the reflection could be removed by a short nth,
lavit of ten lines.

Mr. BEAMS directed his Honour's attention to the threat of

Hutchinson.
The Vrea-CHANcr.u.oit.—l have not beiOre me sufficient
evidence of a threat. An injunction is never granted hut for
the purpose of restraining improper acts, and must necessarily be
a reflection on the parties against whom it is directed. The
Court does not grant it, therefore, unless it has reason to appre-
hend the improper act. I cannot, therefore, without satisfactory
evidence, cast on those parties the reflection which an injunction
—lnjunction refused.