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

ny ajnt as to a lien, it was impossible that he
ould itled to what he claimed by his petition.
Me', who appeared for Sir Herbert Taylor
Dd ( Stephenson, the executors of the lute
ukerk also opposed the. petition.
1 MrRE appeared in support of it.
MrEaormar appeared for the Princess
ople residuary legatee of the late Duke of
orkiad to ask for her Royal Highness's costs.

Mira of the RorAi—The: costs of all
mrticariog must be paid.
Pedismissed, with costs.

IC,gANCELLOR'S COURT, Auc. 3.

ROBINSON AND CO. V.
,HOLMES.
MarF., for the plaintiffs in this suit, applied
oth for an injunction, under the following
eircinces. The plaintiffs were tailors and
drape Beverley; in Yorkshire, and in 1823 the
Nebihd Gentry resident in and near Beverley
ilepred to them that it would be.extremely ad-
vents to the plaintiffs; and very convenient to
them a tailor who was a skilful cutter-out was
proci'rom London, in order that the clothes they
I)ad might approximate to the shape and
semi). of those wOrli in the capital, without
puttiiemselves to the trouble and inconvenience
of seg up to London every time they stood in
deed coat or a pair of trousers. In compliance
With suggestion, one of the plaintiffs, Mr. Mark
I;tobi, came up to London, where lie made dili-
gent iries'after a person skilled in the metropo-
litan e of cutting, and was introduced to the
defert, John Holmes, as a person likely to suit
him, fit his customers to their satisfaction. After
a var of preliminary negociations, with which he
woulit trouble the Court, the plaintiff engaged
Johnlmes as his foreman andcutter-out (and as
the' Ct would find he had certainly endeavoured
to mood his claim to the, latter title) under
certaonditions which were reduced to writing;
and sid by both parties : the effect of this agree-
ment %, that John Holmes should setve the plain-
tiffs *wir foreman and cutter-out, and that he
shou! risk their customers for one month upon
qial./ at the expiration of this term of probation
slid be found that John Holmes 's talents
ehuid the representation made of them to the
plaiiis, then he was to continue in their service
for therm of six years, commenting with,a salary
of -2;a week, which salary was to increase by Is.
per vk until, the gross amount thereof reached the
sum 130 s. per week.
TWICE-CHANCELLOR observed that they had
scarce given this poor tailor the wages of a poet.
MrIoaNE said that provisions were cheaper in
the N:h than in London. In addition to this salary
of 30ser 'week, the plaintiffs were also, to allow
the deidant pocket-money, and provide, him with
beard d lodging. In return for this the defendant was
td hinoimself not to practice as a tailor within 50
miles I Beverley, for the space of 20 years from the
date o:he agreement; and the plaintiffs coVenauted,
oil the part, not to dismiss the defendant without
refereie to a Justice of.the Peace, and to give him
two gneas to defray his expences to London when-

over tey parted with him. On trial, John Holmes
was And to be a cunning workman and a steady
person. He was accordingly engaged; the agree-
ment us,signed and sealed, and the nobility and
gentryin Beverley and its neighbourhood had
abundat cause to congratulate themselves on the
unpro-vaient in the appearance of their outer man
up to Lecember, 1826, when Holmes became ex-

tremely tegligent, and misfitted the customers of
the plainiffs, in consequence of which many suits of
clothes vtre returned on the plaintiffs' hands. Now,
if liolme: had really been a bad workman there
might hay. been some apology for him, but he was,
known to bee very good one; and finding there was
a very fair otening for a tailor at Beverley, he had
recourse to these measures for the- purpose- of ob-
taining his dismissal. This object he effected. _The'
plaintiffs were obliged to dismiss him in the month
of January in the present year.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR asked what equity Mr.
Horne's client had ?
the
aerlTeji-1n="7..-ii;t*attitject ; he had taken the two
guineas to defray his expellees to London, which he
had not devoted to . that purpose, but had set up
business for hiinself at Beverley, in direct violation
of the agreement, and was now employing five or
six workmen and apprentices. Under,these circum-
stances, he trusted that the Court would interfere,
and extend its pfotection to the, plaintiffs.
The .VICE-CHANCELLOR'Said, that if he granted
this injunction, he Should expect to be applied to
next for an injunction to restrain the Irish giant
from exhibiting himself contrary to the contract with ,
'his keeper. He Would not grant injunctions in
cases where the parties had a better remedy open to
them by an action at law.
Mr. HORNE said, the object of this bill was to
preVent the multiplication of suits.—(A laugh.) .
Mr. SUDDEN (who was on the other side) said,:
there could be no doubt that it was intended by
this application to prevent the multiplication of the
snits of hiS client, in order to multiply, those of the
plaintiffs. ,
•
The VICE:CRANCELLOR—T never saw a case in
which there was less foundation for an injunction.
Pray move something else, Mr. Horne.
Motion dismissed.