Star.
London, England, 1825-08-16 00:00:00

IN THE MATTER OF DODS, A BANKRUPT.

Mr. RosE, in this case, applied to supersede the com-
mission, on the ground that, throughout a great part of
the proceedings the name had been incorrectly spelled.
The Los', CHANCELLOR acceded to the abject of the application,
directing that the Attnrney, thinugh whose culpal,le negligence the
error had been committed, should be held reiponilide for the costs.
EX-PARTE GRIMSTEAD, IN THE MATTER C.P HOWARD
AND GIBBS'S BANKRUPTCY.

Mr. HART said, that he had a short case to submit
to the consideration of the Court. The question sim-
ply was, whether the estate of a bankrupt, to the massi-
fest injury of his creditors, were to be wasted on Les
to Counsel?
The Loan Cnaticnr.coa thought that no one at the bar would be
found to object to fees to CounseL
Mr. HART resumed.—His Lordship, he snid, had
been pleased to send to trial the question of the bank-
ruptcy of the bankrupts ; in that cause his (Mr. Hart's)
client failed. He then applied for a new trial, and in
that he failed also. • The question which he had then
to submit to the Court had been before the M ester,
when he was engaged in taxing the costs, in which
taxation he (the Master) had the assistance of a
mon law offices., the Prothonotary. Even then the
taxes were reduced from 7801. to 521/. hut it still was
for the Court to determine whether Vie Master, aided
by the Prothonotary, had exercised a sound discretion
in allowing four Counsel their brief and f•-.; s, am( ant-
ing to 4001? There were the Atterney-General, Mr.
Serjeant Wilde, and two others. He conceived that
the expense incurred by briefs and the teeing of Coun-
sel, should have some limit. The question which these
Counsel had to argue was one which lay in a nutshell;
for it merely was, whether or not a certain book s,hould
be produced in evidence? and yet, in bringing such a
question before a Court, the expense of 4001. was in-
curred exclusively upon briefs and Counsel. He con-
ceived that it would be perfectly lair to allow parties to
employ as many Counsel as they pleased, or as the
nature of their case might seem to their own minds to
require; but the sum which adverse patter were to he
compelled to pay for the Counsel opposed to them
ought not to be regulated by the feelings of the oppo-
site parties, but should be regulated by some established
and uniform practice. The effect of this bankruptcy
had been the ruin of the petitioner, Mr. Grimstead.
Mr. Monraoux followed con the same side, contendfng that
the question was not whether there should be ve or six Counsel,
but whether costs at Nisi Pr!us should be inflated to the extent
that these hid been ?

Mr. HORNS appeared to oppose the application made
on behalf of Mr. Grimstead, observing that his Learned
Friend, Mr. Hart, seemed to mistake tFn ground on
which that taxation of costs had been made. Mr. trim,
stead had been beaten in cite Vice•Chance;lor's Court;
he had been beaten at common law. In all he was
unsuccessful. Mr. Hart was wrong in saying that
there had been an order for the taxation► of the costs. It

HUBBERSTEY V. HUSEERETLY.
The LonD CHANcet.Lon in this ca,e said, a petition
had be•n presented, upon which the Court felt bound
to make an, order, as prayed, but at the same time the
Court was most anxious to have it publicly understood,
that such an order was not usually to be expected.' The
I prayer was, that a solicitor's bills of costs, for the
length of a dozen years back, should be referred to the
Master to be taxed. And this prayer was foundedupon
this circumstance, that the solicitor, ss hose bills of costs
were now complailied of, had been from that time the
sole solicitor, in the lesi-.acy of Middleton, for the estate,
the committee, the next of kin, and all parties; and
that he had taken from the committee a bond securing
to him all costs that he might riot be allowed before the
Matter ; which was just as march as io secure to him
every fitthing, to he paid out of the lunatic's estate,
that he thought proper to cli-a-ge. This the Court
certainly considered a sufficient Found for making the
-order prayed. At the same Lim,. it wss incum!:ent upoit
the Court to recollect, that witile its s wed a duty to suitors,
in guarding them against improper charges made by
solicitors, yet it was necessai y t:ort the Cour t ought not
to entertain unfounded complaints; but in ihis _case,
his Lordship could not t :ink the complaint at. 41 uti-
foundcd, or that the prayer ought not to be granted.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, AUGUST Is.
POWER V. PAINE AND fIopICINE,,
Mr. Svatewnr moved for an irjonctiou to restrain the
ddendants, mu,ic-sellers in Cornbill,from selling three
sacred songs, the words written by Thomas Mocre,
Esq. and the music composed by Sir John. Stevenscn,
which were the property of plaintiff, a music-seller in
the Strand. Thy defendants hid published the sor,.s
in number eiglit and nine of a work called the "I d.ri-
burgle Sacred IL:many." motion was supported.
by an affidavit filed by, the pl iiatiff, in which he sw, re
that in 1818, Mr. Moore ex,..c,ited a deed, by which he
hound himself to give to the plaintiff the copyright of
.01 songs wroten or composed by him during seven
years from that date. The plaintiff also swore, that
the songs in question were his property. •
The motion was unopposed, and hisHonour granted the injunction.