The Sun.
London, England, 1827-08-04 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR took his seat, this morn-
ing, at a quarter past nine o'clock, and after dis-
posing of some matters of course, proceeded to give
judgment in Brown v. Gilpin._ His Honour re-
fused the Injunction with cOsts, upon tke principle
that the plaintiff had not set forth in his bill all the
material: facts of which he was cognizant, but had
on the contrary suppressed much that would have
been calculated to enlighten the Court as to the
merits of the case.
CLIFIDOWN COAL MINING COMPANY.
MILD V. SIR WM. KAY AND °TRIERS.

This was an application on the part of Mr. Wm.
Child, formerly a Director of the above Company,
to restrain the defendants, Sir Wm. Kay and Co.,
from proceeding in a certain action at law against
him, on account of money alleged to be due to the
defendants for advances made on account of the
Company. The bill likewise prayed that the plain-
tiff might be declared not to be liable for such mo-
ney—oe as riot otherwise liable than as a Director
of the Company, and in common with the other
Directors. The bill went on to pray, that in
the event of the plaintiff being' declared liable
it might be ordered by the Court, that he should
be indemnified by the Company, and that the trus-
tees, who were also made defendants, should, if
necessary, parthe same out of the property of the
Company ; and further, that if the funds should not
be' sufficient for that purpose- that certain of the
defendants (the trustees of the Company) be com-
pelled to contribute equally with the plaintiff to the
discharge of the claim made by the bankers. The
bill charged, 'that, in 1818, certain coal mines had
been purchased with. the view 'of forming a joint
Stock Company, consisting of
.3,200 shares;
that the management of • the Company was
vested in directors, of whom, as originally con-
stituted, the plaintiff was one. That the Directorsl
in the discharge of their duty, had empowered the
Secretary, a person named Clark, to draw on the
bankers in whose hands the money had been placed
by the Company for its own uses. That the power
of attorney 'authorising Clark so to draw had been
signed by the plaintiff and two others in their cepa-
' city of Directors; that between the formation of the
Company arid . the year 1820, when the plaintiff
ceased to be a Director,' various sums of money had
been advanced by the
.bankers ; that the plaintiff
then informed the bankers, by letter, of his having
ceased to have any connexion whatever with
the Company, there being, at that time, a
sum of one hundred and twenty pounds due to them
on account of advances to the Company through
Clark; but that, this sum had been long since dis-
charged by other payments made to the bankers;
that the bankers, after the retirement of the plaintiff,
went on to pay money in the same. manner to the
other Directors, up to the, time that the firm of
Kay and Co. was charged, when there appeared a
balance of 4,000/. against the Company ; that the
entire of this sum, with the exception of the 1201.
had been contributed subsequently to the plaintiff's
letter, which conveyed the notice to the bankers.
The bill went on to charge, that a further debt of
1,500/. had. been incurred to the new banking
concern, and that the plaintiff was now sued by an
action at law for the entire amount.
Mr. HEALD, in 'support of the application, said,
that the defendants proceeded against his client on
the grounds that'the power of attorney legally autho-
rizing Clark had never been legally discharged. It
was true that the power of attorney was under seal,
anti Was so' far 'Still to be considersti as valid by a
Court of Law, but in equifit,the-tdefendants might
be held 'to have full knowledge of the plaintiff's
cea.sing to have any connection with the Company.
Indeed they admitted having received a notification
to that effect, signed by Clark himself, the very man
to "whom they had advanced the money. The
Learned Gentleman then proceeded, to comment
-upon the other circumstances of the case; when
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, that in. his opinion,
there
might be a good defence at law, in which case
a Court of Equity ought not to interfere.. The ques-
tion might not turn upon the valid revocation of the
letter of attorney, but would rather be considered as
the case of a master giving a servant power to
draw money. for him, and afterwards revoking that
power by declaring that he would no longer con-
sider himself liable for any advances made to the
servant. His Honour, after some discussion, said
that he would refuse the injunction at present, until
he heard' the result of the action at law.
The costs of this application were to await the
result,of•the suit.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.
William Bruorton came-up on his petition to be
discharged, and was opposed by Mr. Cooke, who
applied to the Court to order the insolvent to be
sent back to Gloucester,where all his creditors, with
u single exception, resided.
Mr. MEATH, for the insolvent, urged the unrea-
sonableness of extending his client's imprisonment,
by sending him to Gloucester.

The Court was of opinion, that as all the credi-
tors resided in Gloucester, there were grounds for
the application, and therefore ordered that the in-
solvent should be sent back there.

The Duke of DEVONSHIRE is expected in
t"in in a few days; when his Grace will join a party, and
'Y'e an extensive tour.