The Sun.
London, England, 1829-07-25 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
POINT OF PRACTICE.—FRY V. WATSON. t,
Mr. TEMPLE applied to set aside an order, Err°, e,
ing an injunction made by his Honour the v,g.n,
Chancellor upon an interpleading bill. The Poo
tiffs, the solvent partners of Fry and Coo lip
bankers, had admitted by their bill that they 'lto.
their hands 8714 belonging to the defendant Mad
Watson. The executors of her husband
likewise claimed the amount, and brought AB,
action to recover it, triable at the present 4
sizes in Shropshire. A suit in this Court
_ll°
also been instituted by Mrs. Watson in renri,
of it. No affidavit had been made that a couott"°f,
claim had been set up for the money be`r,
the filing of the bill, and yet, merely on the ngsed
tion of the party, the Vice-Chancellor had isslio
the injunction to restrain the trial. In Lan ton
v. Boylstone, in 2d Vesey, it was decided thatlo
practice of the Court required an affidavit, an
r,tl
none had been filed, the Learned Counsel subout*
the injunction ought to be dissolved. on
Mr. LOVAT and another gentleman appeared
the other side. They denied the necessity, actor
j;s.
ing to the practice of the Court, of having an nu' j
vit. The decision in Walbank v. Sparkes supportean
the practice that had now been adopted. 11r "e
affidavit had been deemed necessary, one would igel
been instantly filed.
q to
The LORD CHANCELLOR put several questio..n-,
those around him, for the purpose of ascertain*,
the general impression of what the practice 08,5 i;
and in the result said, " I find that upon this,
Anthony Hart, when Vice-Chancellor, was 'l';
tinctly deceived upon the practice being one vi;
and the present Vice-Chancellor is of opinion tP:,
the other way. The experience of the Regi,l
trar is, that it is not necessary to have an niii%
in order to entitle the party to an injunction. 0
prevailing opinion at the bar is, that it has be.:,
usual to file an affidavit before applying for the
elto
junction. These contending views will cause 010
adopt the usual course of ascertaining with bt
more precision what the practice really is or ongo,
to be, and then to settle it. I shall state on M°
day what the rule is."

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
HANSOM V. EADY.
Mr. IfortNE said he had to move to dissolve. ,e,
injunction which had been granted a few days 51/16:d,
to restrain the defendant from taking any pro ce~~
ings at law, or negociating three bills of exchauge'.,
Mr. BAGSIIAW-I appear to oppose the motioliii;
but only just having received my brief, I hope t
other side will allow it to stand over for a short drub,
Mr. HortNE—Not a single moment. You
and
tamed the injunction on a false statement, anu o
venture to say such a one never was before grautej
by this Court. The Learned Counsel then stratie,
the facts of the case, from which it appeared in °II',
1828, a person of the name of Foster, at that time
carrying on business near Whitechapel, bec°
insolvent, and he applied to the plaintiff, an attorl
to settle his affairs. The plaintiff according
called upon the defendant, ant asked him to signA
letter of licence to Foster, when the latter object!:
unless he had security for the amount of his debt. 0,
The plaintiff said, " Oh, I will become your reel
rity," which, after some objections, was ultioudenf
agreed to, and the defendant received three bilis,
621. Gs. Bd. each, drawn by Foster, and accepteo,";
the plaintiff. The defendant then alleged, in je
answer, that there had been a collusion between t'
plaintiff and Foster. Yet the plaintiff, an attorul
comes to this Court and obtains an injunction to r

strain my client from taking any legal.. remedy. Low
VICE-CFIANCELLOR—infOrM me, Mr. Horne, olio
it was possible, under such circumstances, for '

Court to grant an injunction.
Mr. HoßNE—They made use of very extra°
nary affidavits.
Mr. BAGSHAW contended, in support of ,h,„fig
junction, and cited several cases where injuneWhe
had been granted by Lord Eldon, under what
submitted similar circumstances.
Mr. HORNE—I am confident your Honour had Ve
idea that this injunction did more than stop to,
negotiation of the bills. To restrain my client Preb
secuting his claim in a Court of Justice, under Obi,
circumstances, is in my opinion an authority t4e
Court does not possess. In fact, obtaining the
eaparte injunctions is a practice fraught with I,
injustice, and ought, if not altogether abolishe'
to be materially altered.
00
VICE-CHANCELLOR—IS not your client
attorney, Mr. Bagshaw ?
Mr. BAGsitaw—Yes, your Honour, and he
nies that the defendant's answer is a correct gat"'
meat of facts. die
VICE-CHANCELLOR—I am confident when d
Court granted this injunction, there was noth,ll;
said about restraining the defendant from procee e
ing at law. It was only to stop negotiating
bills. The plaintiff, as an attorney, ought to 1111,1
known it was impossible such an injunction catif
be granted. He has, however, thought proper to dr9
up an injunction which never was ordered, alit
thereby committed a gross contempt of Cootii
Let the injunction be dissolved, and that with
costs.
hsA fHt eornao os rta
tt
ti
emnet Mo
nr.
tBo Rao ti
caseGHAre
pwoirsthe
de d the
l
in
books—
The VICE-CHANCELLOR (with much warnni),e,
I have decided the case, Sir, and will hear no
This being the third Seal, the Court was fate
wards occupied in hearing motions.