The Sun.
London, England, 1827-03-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
LOUSAI(NA V. TEMPLAR.

Mr. SUDDEN wished to know whether the Court was prepared
to give judgment in this case, in which he had moved for an in-
junction to stay a trial at law, and for a commission to examine
witnesses in Peru. The object of having the Commission was to
shew that the debt had been paid.
His LORDSHIP said, the question was, whether upon the bill
the plaintiff had filed, drawn as it had been, and looking at
all the circumstances of the case, he had the absolute
right he claimed ? and the Court had found great dif-
ficulty in coming to the conclusion, that he had. His Lord-
ship felt rather inclined to say, the admissions in the answer had
destroyed the affidavit the plaintiff had made. The power of at-
torney stated in the bill, made Mr. Win. Templar, the joint agent
of both the plaintiff and defendant, and therefore all considerations
of justice, law, and equity, at least require that the plaintiff in
equity should have an opportunity, before he parted with the mo-
ney absolutely, of shewing how much of the money that had been
received by the agent, ought to be applied to the debt, and ought
to be recovered, and which might be given by granting an Injunc-
tion to stay execution upon the verdict.
Mr. HoRNE hoped that the Court, if it interfered at all, would
not fail to secure the fund. If the other side paid to his
client the money, he would give any security the Master might
require for the return of it, should it turn out that he ought to
return it.
His LORDSHIP desired the trial, which stood for Monday, to
be put off till Tuesday, and that on Monday he should decide it.
IN THE MATTER OF THOMAS PARR, A BANKRUPT.
HABEAS CORPUS. _ _

Upon this matter having been further argued to-day,
His LORDSHIP decided that he could not discharge thebankrupt ;
but he thought the Commissioners at Preston ought to call the
bankrupt up before them again, read over to him the affidavits of
Whitehead and Davenport, and then that they should ask him
what further be had to say. A more unsatisfactory examination,
the Court had never seen•

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, GUILDHALL.
COVEN V. STALLS.

Mr. Pottocx stated, that this was an action brought to re-
cover from the defendant, the sum of 261. which (being the pro-
perty of the plaintiff) the defendant converted to his own use.
The plaintiff was a foreigner residing in Portsea, and being unable
to write himself, be procured a person, named Solomon, to write
a letter for him, to the defendant, who resided in London, con-
taining 261. with directions to convert that sum to certain pur-
poses. On the arrival of the letter at the defendant's house, his
son got it attached by an order from the Lord Mayor's Court, for
a debt of 251., which Solomon, the writer of the letter, owed him.
Mr. PoLLocx observed, that there were only two Courts in
England, empowered to issue such attachments, namely one at
Bristol, and the one in question ; whether they ought to be made
general, or entirely annihilated, he would not pretend to say ; but
he contended that the defendant had no right to attach the pro-
perty of the plaintiff, for a debt due of a third person. The facts,
as here stated, having been proved by evidence,
Mr. GURNEY addressed the Jury for the defendant, and called
several witnesses to shew that the money enclosed in the letter be-
longed to Solomon ; but the Jury were of a different opinion, and
returned a verdict for the plaintiff.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
mess v. HORT AND FINLAY.
Mr. SERGEANT WILDE stated that the plaintiff in this case
was a tallow-chandler, in Chelsea, and that the defendants were
partners in a company called the London United Mine Company.
This action was brought for the recovery of 1731. being the
price of candles furnished by the plaintiff to the Company, in
March, 1826, for a coal mine which they worked in Cornwall.—
The Learned Sergeant understood the defence to be set up was,
that the defendants had derived no profits from the concern, and
therefore would not pay, but with this his client had nothing to do.
Richard Hase, Secretary to the Company, was then called, and
proved that the defendants had 20 shares each in the Company,
and attended several meetings of the proprietors. Witness had
also ordered the candles in question.
Mr. Davis, clerk to the Company's bankers, proved that the
defendants had paid the premium on their shares.
Nicholas Burton, foreman to the plaintiff, proved that the
goods had been packed up, and sent in terms of the order to Cot-
ton's Wharf, in Southwark, and the wharfinger's clerk proved
that they had been received there, and shipped for Cornwall.
Mr. Sergeant TAnDY addressed the Jury in behalf of the de-
fendant Finlay, and said that his client was a poor tailor, who
had been induced to purchase shares in the Company under the be-
lief that he would realise great profits from it; but it now unfor-
tunately turned out, that instead of receiving profit he was called
upon to pay the Company's debts. The Learned Sergeant, under-
standing that his Learned Brother (Cross) had a good defence for
the defendant Hort, thought it unnecessary to say more, as both
defendants must stand or fall together.
The deed of co-partnership was then put in, and Finlay's name
was subscribed to it, but Hort's was not.
Mr. Sergeant CROS9, for the defendant Hort, contended, that
as his client's name was not to the deed, he was not a partner in the
Company, it being provided by a clause in the deed, that no part-
ner was entitled to the profits unless he subscribed the deed ; and
if he was not entitled to the profits, the Learned Sergeant main-
tained that he could not be subjected to payment of the debts.
The Cntrr JUSTICE in summing up said, that the plaintiff
bad nothing to do with the private arrangements between the
shareholders ; both of the defendants held themselves out as part-
ners, and were therefore liable.
His LORDSHIP hoped that this case would furnish another sa-
lutary lesson to every body, not to enter into these ruinous specu-
lations.—The Jury found for the plaintiff.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

BOW-STREET.

Simon Harris, a Jew clothesman, was charged with stealing
four silver cups, four silver spoons, and a plated tea-pot, from the
butler's pantry of Samuel Bowyer, Esq., No. 7, Russell-place,
Fitzroy-square. A silver tea-pot, however, which had been
standing with it, was left.
Sir RICHARD RlR:fa considered that no Jew would havetaken
a plated and left a silver tea-pot.—Discharged.