The Sun.
London, England, 1827-11-10 00:00:00

1

A'

LAW INTELLMENCE.-(THIS DAV;)

COURT OF CHANCERY.

•
IN THE MATTER or TIM SUITORS. '-
Sir IN
WETHERELL presented a petition
in the matter of of the suitors, praying the settlement
the arrears of the late Vice Chancellor. ' Sir
Charles considered the prayer quite a matter of
course, and alrtailied from arguing it. '
Prayer granted. •
,ix ' ' rultxivAL 2,. UOCLE.
y estMe_r.dayE, A
tiLpop,
eaagrredeeauhl e to what 'passed in this case
the.3d inst. M
defendant, that an Sngdenip
on a notice of motion. On
should be di moved, on behalf of the
an injunction granted by Lord Eldon
coup scharged, or that' 13,000/. in the Ac-
tant-General's hands might be aid to the. de-
fenda ' •
zstnt' la part payment of the principal and inte-
due ton hem in respect of six bills of exchange.
1 ' Sutgd proposed, after proceeding for sometime
tc,,Opernag the motion, terms of compromise, those
•-...ais were, that the defendants should have the money
‘,l3a'd to them, and that theyshould impound in Court
Co`7 shares they held in the British Rock Salt
111Pany. Mr. Charles Knight,-the plaintiff's So-
i,ta, .was not in Conrt, but-. his .clerk was, Who
44ned his Counsel that he had no authority.to ac-
clede
f to any propbsal.- 'Mr. -Heald, and his junior,
)-1% ICnight, consulted together, and,- upon the facts
t 'eli before them, in the sound exercise of their dis-
rreti
th citi, mine to the conclusion that it would be to
vantageii-eeeanre.;l.o of the plaintiff, for whom they ap-
accept of the proposal; and, as Mr. Sug-
insisted on an immediate acceptance or refusal,
they consented to the Registrar's- taking down an
oder in the terms proposed. It appeared to the
at tliat
plaintiff's f!
been injuriou
.64-1:4'4e1 that to have had the shares sold
sheld by the defendants, would have
, to him, their price • having 'been
e(lnil,„siderabn' down in the market upon subsequent
...e--ilitinication ade to the Counsel, it ap-
pear d ,
they e- Lo them s ,init appeared to them, though --4ey still felt themselves right in. having consented
111)(M the facts originally before them, that- there
be re facts in the case of which they had
:e," totally unacquainted,.• and hence the
"oatake they fell into. • It' was ' -ti mistake
/yell and fully explained, it was no favour to the
saitor to have the opportunity of Setting right that
ierMistake, inasmuch as the very pith, of a Court of,
tY was, to prevent advantage of a mistake being
the: by persLearned on. The- Counsel
, submitatny ed that Mr. -Sugden's motion of the
`idMr Bbaald We renewed.
lc,
of rni,;tact%_HT also contended, that on the ground
^ ' _ --tehetn4Yfeitliaddau ;Is troig
t- order
motion.
rhetnetowcall
theirupon the Court
cage "Jr• RoTen, on the 'same side,in the
rioth.on the 9
0. , -d, and thought therefore notould say
in hehi co
opinion,
within:l' °` what passed then, Yet '
bli'iue•-irarle'destPheeeptilltioliC,llisquestion so importasnt.itol the
if- Counsel could bind suitors byl
thc, f Qnsaat at the bar, when in possession of al
cou-idaet!..,,certainly it never co. uld be held that they
tli, f "'lien labouring under a Misapprehension of
acts.
Mr' &,,
l
aot'e —"RN, contra, in the outset; thought the
c e: of this motion the most improper and in-
see in its terms of any lie had ever
10 This motion was made by Mr. Tay-
in'tilof Furnival's-inn, who had been substituted
and le, place of Mr. Knight, as the plaintiff's solicitor;
40e: kNir. S.) thought it convenient enough that
N1,,,1.4. solicitor should be employed in briaging for-
('oul v'hich Mr. Knight, after what had transpired
At not be seen in bringing into Court.
ed the TAYLOR intimated, that lie had been appoint-
had e Plaintiff's solicitor on the 6th, and that he
Qto,lleevet' seen him* befOre that day, nor heard, of this
'non); Mr. Furnival came to town on Tuesday
'D an hg from Liverpool, and on that same morning,
case" aOtir after, hearing what had beeh 'lone in this
.I.ll.thuglit proper to change his solicitor.
Itl f4;‘-'4l-I(4)EN continued.—If au Attorney, appear-t,
saitc,,.. , Party, abused his trust, the_ rialwave:. s
shouldL'aledy;-arid it was infinitely better that it
l'')se —B% than that the COill't be induced to sup-
'lges it
was'dealing with an avowed arid - Lona fide
'lotiet:Land afterwards -be told that What lialtbeen
t 14,1 ',iould go for nothing. It had been a Conti-
that %tree of eomplai,,t of late by Lord Eldon,
ih,•rs'Aicitors did not attend at the hearing of
i: cause themselves, but sent clerks who
lnils:*„ bathing of the natters under discussion.—
kii 101 l v Smith," reported in " Jacob
41,47.. .
befor. aiiker," a question similar to the present. arose'
%itri t"e late Chancellor, and there his Lordship
Pons 'lc felt it necessary to consider-that-if Counsel
thasee4,,ted far parties, they had the power to - bind
'hat 4,ettles, and that the Court was bound; to bid
could n"'ent operative. If this were not so, Mr. S.
be c(a),t :see, how business in Courts ofJustice was
Ntor, --,1.4,e4 on ; and he hoped, for the sake of
ti tors
4,,'" ',,arge--for the prevention of the abuse of
tese'r,aill",a3r the benefit of the Court and. Bar in
'tlis -,,.' 014 his Lordship would not sanction what
e,. asked
asked, but declare, .that the defendants
4 entitled to •retain /lie order they had obtained.
hkii '' tiv.ar.r, had more and more, as this discussion
portgone on, looked upon this case as most nn-
kdhs,tit to the bar and the public. He felt bound to
tills t, that he had. never, known 111 arrangement of 1
hi'dl:,ind entered into- at the bar,'that had not been
inortla by ; still when Counsel, on the spur of the
`rent '"t, gave their consent for a party to an arrange-
'e 'if it subsequently turned out that such con-
let fioN - • • •
le ved from a misapprehension of circumstances,
1,141 d b no possibility bring himself 'to believe
act at the suitor was to be inflexibly bound by that,
lf„ !his Counsel. ,
thereH-ORDSITIP desired to know whether or not
%la f_l'eally was any difference of the circumstances
ot'isaogi:nn what appeared to the Counsel on the 3d
embq.
r
leave. ii }-,:aLn believed there was, but he chose to
krtie statement of the difference to Ntr. Knight.
It 1 ' Il'ilater had.seen the plaintiff in consultation.
tead then communicated' to him (Mr. K.) that
ile itl,li the_ plaintiff having an objection to the
anxious that they
Ilotild 17 ;000 shares, he was
I‘l " sold.
•• -1.-
kabl ~u"otzt said it would be . almost . .
j; at s° many
thin sell shares at present in this
-,,tr. ball events, except at a great loss. ,
!.eireurflf.'llT said the plaintiff had inforrned him
!'t r t;„-"StanCes which would make a most material
,iikeeha'n in the case, from the turn it must have
r:,4" On the :3d, from the then instructions of
i(iialvs!l; tnose ' aire„,,stances were not yet on
called; on by
if it ;he (Mr. ir
:ill on, he felt much
yll.
Ili% L t1;-- K•)' however,
more
tto do so
dispose
wo;uld stale them,
but unless- so
d not to state
ti- LORDSHIP held the presence of M. Knight's,
t°
,t7iobe the same as that of Mr. K. himself, and
Avssught, according to the strict rule of regularity,
Na, fot'ecessary to dismiss this application with.
case f these reasons ; Mr. Sugden was opening
t, ti tiicOnversation took place between him and
.shel about terms ' • Heald
i,. of compromise, Mr.
At 1,,. e case to stand over, that further
stiume
It sai(r affordea to consider the terms'; Mr. g-
'i
the p„1`), You must assent now, or I must go on
it hetwmy case.
i'e -"(1 of A consultation then took
P. k,„. ,een Mr. Heald, his junior-Connsel
-`le. d b .g"t,' and the attorney's clerk ; ' what
it
pf.,
410 c, ""teen the Attorney's clerk and the Conn-
Itili - hi°art didnot know, but the clerk made! no
eraii, etion ;
1,
0-je . and the result was, that Mr. Heald
the t., to Mr. Sugden's proposal, and the Officer
Ns •„,„,-°lirt was directed to take down the order.
)44 eassea
h early on Saturday morning; the clerk
1,,14e
) Ilk" communicated tile arrangement to Mr.
1; isaightthe attorney, ill the course of that
%see'e whole of Saturday,sSunday, and Monday.
1R ern
Ilt having kern 1-lwaY without any objection.
caw ~s_ ing been communicatedto that al-
by the
the -Solicitor
Mr. K.; but on Tuesday
iati74lged, and . the defendants heard, that the
st ' objected to the -order. No new facts had
1,1et,-a-k eq to the Court. It was left therefore,
N . '"e necessity of concluding that te attorney
q trolsel .too, ,were fully instructedh on the 3d,
4t the only difference was in the view of the

4.2..:5;;',7,7Z"1 4'