Star.
London, England, 1808-05-31 00:00:00

LAIV LVIELLIGEI CZ.

corwr OF CHANCFRY, MAY 30.
otsF.!::t-ROUNE CONCERNS.
YcAtercirty a Motion was made before the Lord eb.oho-llori to
testrain Air. Waters from pi oceetitng upon rt.-.l:aiu securities in his
vossession, upot Mr..laoor. payir,g intocourt the sum of A'6C)OO.
The 1%1460D was granted, provided the inanity was paid into
Court within a week, othenvisr the in3unction not to go.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAY 30.

THE KING v. WWI).

Lord Etre NBOROUGII-4` The introduction of tleis subject to
the notice of the Court, has, at least, had the coed effect of pro-
ducing an enlarged discusei..n of the question bet Ore the Court,and
of giving note.-tety to the existence of :he Statute of the oth Geo.
I. so that no person hereafter may be enabled to say, tlzat the Act
is obsolete, and on that account not to be enforced. After the
lapse of eighty-eight years, since any prosecution has bceu foun-
ded upon this proceeding of the Legislature, and since other
meal's are open to the parties, the Court, according to it; views of
the fit and sound exercise of its jurisdic, ion, will decline to utter-
pose in the way sought, for the unusual and extraordinary exer-
cise of its authority. The Court, however, will not pronounce,
that the Defendant does not come the penalty of the laws,
but it causes to express itself with the more reserve, recollecting
that the °fleece may here he re-considered, if a bill of indictment
shea.ld Le presented, and the accused should he convicted. Incle-
penLent of the general tendency of schemes of the nature of the
project now beture us, to occasion prejudice to the public, there
arc p,trtioular cncuinstairces, obvious on the prospectus in this
case, to silent the pernicious tendency. It is stated that the pat-
ties ...ad :tot be further liabLi than to the extent of their respective
shares, :Aid the. whole are to be included in a deed of trust or en-
rolitient ; under to that .amount only, they are to be re.
.is between themselves, under such a deed, they may
nut be farther liable ; but as to all the rest of the world, and for
every deb: coctrarted in the concern, they may be held responsi-
ble to the tull ezteet of the engagement. I forbear to comment
up.i. the principle ; Let the small sum in the first instance to be
suL.,:ritieu, has the appearance of holding out a lure ta unwary
per VALi.
" the Court has not only considered that this is a proceeding
under a statute which has been disregarded for eighty-eight years,
but it has also attended to the circumstance, that it is a prosecu-
tion instituted by a party nut injured and defrauded, the ims
mediate object of the statute being the protection of the unwary ;
and this is another reason wily tie statute should not be ponally
e iforced under this form of application. .Nothing, therefore,
which now falls from the Ccurt, is to be considered as tending to
impede any itiformation which may be preferred by the compe-
tent officer (the Attorney General), to whom the public interest
in such cases is committed.
" The Court is of opinion, that under the peculiar circum-
stances the rule should be discharged without costs • and they
think it will be a matter of prudence, if the party should forbear'
to carry into effect this project, and IVlewise another of a similar
nature (a paper manufactory), of which an intimation has been
given hi the argument of the Leavned Counsel."
The ATTORNEY GENE.R.AL-.-" My Lord, it appears upon the
Lice of the affidavits."
Lord ELLENHOROUGII—•" Then the, Court may, with the
greater propriety, advert, to it ; and if any thing of that kind
should Le afterwards attAdupted, the Court will not, by its present
decision, consider precluded from granting an information.—
It is Loped, that air. intimation now given will be understood by
others who are ex.Olged in pursuits of the like description."—lkule
refused.