The Sun.
London, England, 1818-05-26 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, I%lAv 15 .
OPERA fIoUSF.—WATERS V. TAYLOR.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL this morning made
application to the Court, that the Receiver, ap-
pointed to receive the rents and profis of the
Opera House, upon the sale of it to Mr. Waters,
might have his recognizance vacated, and be dis-
charged ft nu that situation, on the ground that
the purchase was completed, and Mr. Waters was
in possession of the property. He also prayed
the Court that the Receiver might have his costs
paid.
Sir S. ROMILLY suggested, on the part of Me.
Taylor, that the costs ought not to be paid out of
the estate, but by Mr. Waters himself, because
the appointment of the Receiver was in conse-
quence of Mr. Waters not having been prepared
with the purchase-money at the time of the sale.
Mr. HART, OD behalf of Mr. Waters, observed,
that it was by the agreement of both parties that
the Receiver was appointed.
The VICE-CHANcEft.Loa ultimately directed that
the Receiver be discharged according to the
prayer of his petition, and that the costs be paid
by Mr. Waters himself, with liberty for hint to
apply' afterwards, for the purpose of showing to
the Court that he ought not to bear the charge
himself. The case was, therefore, ordered to
stand for further hearing on the next petition day.

COURT OF YANG'S' B ENCII, MAY 95.

BANK OF ENGLAND.

GUNDY V. THE OOVERNoPS AND COMPANY OF TH4

BANK Or RNGLAND.

(Further Particulars.)
This was a Ride obtained last Term by Mr.
BROUGHAM, calling ►►pon the defendants to spew
cause why a Writ of Mandamus should not issue,
commanding them to proceed to divide 14(1101Ig nil
the Membtrs of the Corporation, for the time
rAteahly in portions, the part, shares, and
interest in the common capital stock, of such
profits as had arisen out of the management of the
said Coiporation, and had not been so divided
before ►he 19th of March last, excepting the
charge of maintaining the business of the said
'Cmporation.
Sir A !ITU tjit PIGGOTT now appeared to sl►ent
cause against this rule, and contended, that this
Court had no right, still less any power, to in-
terpose its•anthority to controul the management
of any commercial company in its pecuniary con-
cerns ; for, in 'tact, the interposition of such
.power would be an assumption of legislative au-
thority. But supposing the Court could attract to
itself a power so novel and unprecedented, in this
case it would appear, from the law as it stood,
that the Governors of the Bank of England had
no power to divide the stock, or any part of it,
or obey the mandate of the Court in the terms
now required.
Lord ELLENBoRouGH interposed, and asked
whether the Corporator, who had applied for the
interposition of the Court, should not have used
all such means, competent for him to use, to at-
tain the object he bad in view, before he made
this requisition—did it appear that this gentle-
man had done all that he could have done to-
wards obtaining the end in view ? Had be'at-
' tended the meetings held for the purpose of de-
claring dividends, and made any resistance to the
proceedings of those meetings, or taken any step
before the constituted authority of the Corpora-
tion to effect the purpose of the present appli-

Cation
Sir ARTHUR PIGGOTT said, that Air. Gundy,
the applicant, had certainly not taken those steps,
and this was one of several other flat answers to
the application.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—If there is that objec-
tion applying to the proceeding, I dOn't see how
this motion can be entertained.
Sir A.• PIGGOTT.—The dividend was made on
the 19th of March, and it was declared by the
General Court'; and no motion was made by Mr.
Gundy for any larger'or any other dividend that]
5 per cent.
Lord ELLENBOROUGII.—Nor made .any objec,
lion or opposition
Sir A. Ptooovr..--There was no motion made
by him for any Othei'diiidend, nor did he make
opposition to the dividend then declared.
Lord ELT.atisottotif a party does not
ds-
sent, he gAtittt:' •

Mr. BROUGHAM being called upon for himself
swer to this objection, said, he felt h,
obliged to admit, that it was faralin point of
form to the present application. He had no doubl
of being able to satisfy the Court that there WO
an overplus of profits divisible in the hands of the
Bank of England, independent of all contingeng,
demands upon them, and the banking capital Pe'
cessary to carry on their business.
awiraari
Lord ELLENBOROUGH Said, that this
could not attain the object of his motion Per sfii;
tens; his motion should first be made to tha COW/
competent to give information as to tfie state' °•
the tunds of the Corporation; and if they did D°,
`ti
.produce the required information, then theri
might be an application for a mandamus to com Pei;
them. But he Was now assuming what the-11'51"r
of the funds was, without adopting the Pr" Pe
lIICAII9 of inquiring into the subject.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, he could strew by the
Geo. 111. that two years since, the Bar.k..hodi.d„lis
vided 25 per cent. profit upon their capital
as he could not get over the preliniinary objeclig
,in point of form, he must withdraw the inotiall°
and come better prepared another time.
Ift
s' g
Sir A. PIGGoTT said, that if the case had
on, he should have referred to several clauses "-
the act mentioned, which would have afforded °I
answer to the application, in addition to seYer6
others with which he was prepared. iE
Mr. SCARLETT, on the same side,
the application succeeded, no further dividVl,
could be declared kir years to come.—Rule
charged. said, that