Star.
London, England, 1823-01-27 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CFIA NCF.RY, JANUARY 25.

SIUTTER V. CHAUVELL, IN THE CASE OF THE LITTLE
STA NMORE RECTORY.
This bill was filed six years ago, and it was but
recently -discovered by the plaintiff, that whereas
he had in all the instruments described the benefice
a; a donative, it was in fact a curacy. Leave was
accordingly prayed to amend the bill, and thereby
to take the benefit of an alternative issue for the
plaiutiff,who vas entitled whether donative or Curacy.
It had been argued on the other side, that the only
issue tendered respected a donative, and that the de-
fendant must not lose the benefit of his plea which he
had established hitherto against all the proceedings.
A part of this plea was the statute of plenarty,which
Would have no application if the bill were amended
according to the motion.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought that the plaintiff
could get nothing by the amendment if it were allowed,
as the defendant would maintain his plea on the do-
native as it now stood ; and if the instruments were
to be altered throughout, calling the benefice by its
proper title of curacy, the plea of the defendant
would not apply, so that time would be an entirely
new case. They had better try the effect of the plea
as it stood. If they disliked that, they must begin
again.with another bill ; or, if they chose, they might
have a case, and he would obtain the opinionof some
of the common law Judges, whether or not they
could be allowed to clams the curacy under the,
pending issue. •
Mr. f!ART, for the defendant, accepted the offer
of the Court, and the motion of amendment was dis-
missed with costs.

ICE-CLUNCELLOWS COURT, JANUARY 25.
THE COURIER NEWSPAPER-STEWART V. STUART.
This ca e, it will be recollected, was argued at con-
side: able length betoie the recess, and the leading
facts of the case 'stated.
Mr. lit:Lt. and Mr. SIDEBOTTOM for the plaintiff;
and Mr. AGAR and Mr. SUGDEN for Mr. I). Stuart,
had been heard previous to the recess.
Mr. WA =tut now argued on the part of the de-
fendant, Mr. Stuart, that the plaintiff could claim
nothit:g under the assignment, being precluded by
the deed of 1808.

Mr.llisur and Mr. PemnErt-roN appeared fur Mr.
S:reet, and had nothing to offer in addition to what
had been stated by the Counsel for Mr. Stuart.
Mr. MARTIN (in the absence of his lea. er, Mr.
[loans) stated that he was Counsel for Mr. Mudford.
That gentleman, by his answer, did not contend for
any new construction of the Aced of 1808, but ad-
vised the. Court that, in case of a decision favourable
to the plaintiff on that deed, he had a lecoud objec-
tion which would defeat the plaintiff's claim. • Mr.
lilirdford con:ended that, as a purchaser of three
shares of the Paper prior to the plaintiff's purchase,
lie had a right of preemption before the plaintiff,
and was entitled td all the • notices set .forth in the'
deed n t 1803.

• Mr. I,lsit. wished for the productipn of any evi-
deuce of the existence of -rich an agreement with
Mr. Mulford. That gentleman never. thought of
!wearing in this suit until the suggestion of Mr.
amid Stuart.
The V;cs-CtiANctu.oit called on Mi. Martin to
state hi, case.

Mr. MARTIN proceeded to read from Mr. Mud-
fgrd's answer those carts which related to the pur-
chase td three shares of the Conlick Newspaper by
him, and three other shares at the•same time by Mr.
Walter Henry Watts. It appeared that, ahout the
year 1817, Mr. &mart and Mr. Street entered into
an agreement to sell these shares to these 'gentletrien.
It was a joint alreement, and both weie to take the
shares upon the same terms. This was antecedent to
the transaction with the plaintiff.
Mr. HoaNE now entered the Court, and being re-
quested to state his case by the Court, the Learned
Counsel called on the Counsellor Mr. Street first to
proceed with their case.
Mr. HART declined either making any statement
or speech. _ _ _

• Mr. lioaxs=-Then T will adopt the same course
cannot follow the example of a more experi-
enced man.

Mr. BELL then replied. He observed,. that the
question between the parties was a very simple otte,
and turned upon the construction oft two deeils The
argument on the other side had, it was true, been
very ingenious, but he conceived it had been. more
ingenious than solid. Before enteting into the merits
of the case, he alluded to a very inaccurate statement
which had appeared in the Courier Newspaper, at
the time when this question was first agitated. It was
a statement in opposition to his (Mr. Bell's) ...speech,
and, upon the principles laid down by Lor4 'lard-
wicke, he maintained that no man had a right to
snake such "a statement. At least, this Court could
exercise its controul over such statements, and he
now protested against them.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR.—Ynn may protest against
them, but the Court cannot interfere, as Um matter
is not judicially before it.
Mr. IlEy. then proceeded with the case, and argued
that this was not a bill for a specific performance of
an agreement (as Mr. Agar had put it), but to assert
a claim, and to compel a payment of money which
had been withheld, because the plaintiff would not
coilsent to a particular construction put upon a deed.

The VicE-Cmtscrt.Lott said, he had entertained
con•iderab'e doubts as to the power of interfvience
in tlik case, by a Court of Equity. Ile had consulteLi
the common lawyers, and he had learnt from them,
that on account of the peculiar foim of these proceed-
ings, the question could not be sustained in a com-
mon Law Court. If, then, a Court of Equity was
a fit tribunal, the question was, what the plaintiff had
purchased, and what was the intention of the parties?
fhis intention must be collected from the instruments.

Mr. BELL continued.--With respect to the right of
pre-emption, it was comparatively of link value,'and
could only be exercised as a controtiling power to pre-
vent the introduction of objectionable persons into
the concern.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, that if he rightly un-
derstood the construction of the deed with respect to
tte pre-emption, it Wit. this :—Mr. D. Stuart and
111`r. Street were both senior proprietors as to all ques-
tions against assignees. Mr. Daniel Stuart, as he