Star.
London, England, 1825-03-10 00:00:00

'

•
*
:_‘•
The following is the arrangenseni pf quarter. or the Cairn* id
the Northern Districts for the preseht..year:
The King's Dragoon Guard!, NA NeWeastleZnpid-. Tyneateedi;
and Carlisle, to Canterbury.
The 3tl Light Dragoons, from CiVeniri io.t4weastle indCedislati
The Royal North British Magoon., filial Dloncliestei to slioi;
with and Ipswich.
The Enniskilka Dragoons, from TOilt to Manchester.
The 7th Ilussars, to York front Hounslow.
The 14th Light Dragoons, at Eieter Caitle, ate Ordered to lie:
lend, end *lll be replaced by the 10th Hussani. •
The Ist Dragoons have been ordered to march from Edinburgh.
tbGlaigoiv, Perth, and Hamilton, to relleie the 6ihDragoon Onat
The, 97th Regiment, according to present arrangements, will
eiiihatit on the 2d of April fOr the Kauritius.
The Head•lparters of the 10th Royal Iluslari Is alma 10 Ye
removed from Balltuarobe.
•

LAW REPORT.

COURT OF CHANCERY, BIARCH 9.

VANSANDAU v. 16IdOitt AND MITCHELL, CHAIRMAN Attp
• si.cuEYARY OF Title BRITISH ANNUITY COMFANY.
Mr. KNIGHT to-dal argued in opposition to the de-
murrer, and in support of the bill ; that the demurrer
could not be maintained, on the groUnd of insufficiency
of parties. That this Court would only carry On a
partnership with a view to its dissolution, he admitted;
bin an application to the Court by a partner to restrain
his co-pa. tners from doing au act contrary to the sti-
pulations of the partnership, would not he calling upon
the Court to manage the partnership from time to time.
But was this an ordinary partnership?
LORD CHANCELLOR— By the Act, the Chairman, or
Secretary, may sue a stranger, and vice trersa, but the
Act dims not authorise them to sue each other, and if
the Company take the semblance of a Corporation, this
Court ought to give no relief n hatever. •
Mr. KNIOUT resumed—if it were competent for one patty to
dissolve the partnership, the Act would be at an end.
Lotto CHANCELLOR—The question is whether, if the
plaintiff were to give notice. of his intention to dissolve
the partnership, any Court would support it against
him? It is either a Company of a corporate character,
which would be illegal, or it is a partnership according
to the rules of the common law. Would it not be com-
petent for any person, sued by the Chairman or Secre-
tary, to chew that the Company was not a legal one ?
It is also a question how a decree can be made against
the absent Shareholders? Ought not the plaintiff to
bring before the Court, at least, all who are known to
be Directors and Proprietors?
Mr.ICSItoliT said, there had been a change in them.
He was not aware that the Company had assumed a
corporate character. There was no common seal. if
there were an assumption of that character by other
partners, in matters to which he was not a party, he
was not bound by it.
The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that it was 'very
soon found that if you sued the Secretary, and he could
not pay, you had no remedy, and that gave rise to an
enactment, that the person who recovered against the
Secretary might sue out execution against any indivi-
dual of the Company. It was then discovered that you
could not tell who were the Members, and an enactment
was added, that a -memorial of the names of the
Proprietors should be enrolled. The Court could
only enforce its order by a committal to the Fleet, but
how could that be done with all the Members of a Com-
pany? He believed it was the intention of the Legis-
lature to pass an Act, to make the original shareholders
answerable for all the acts of the partnership. He per-
ceived in all the Bills for Companies before the House
'of Lords, some clause in them to take those Companies
out' of the Bubble Act, 6 George I. but he hoped Par-
liament would not allow such clauses to stand.
• Mr. SUDDEN was then heard in support of the de-
murrer, after which the CHANCELLOR again reviewed
the circumstances of the case, and laid it down that if
these CoMpanies are not Corporations, they must be
dealt with as common partnerships.
His Lewin, finally .hewed the demurrer.
Tffe plaintiff must therefore either amend, or Me a new MIL

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

GUILDHALL.
Tuesday, Mr. Humphreys attended to tender bail in behalf of
Pearson, who was committed for lurking about Mr. Waterhouse's
Inn Yard, in Lad-lane, with intent to rob the mails, and who ap-
pealed against the conviction. Mr. Waterhouse's solicitor objected
that the notice only set forth as the ground of appeal, that the
party felt aggrieved, and not the specific injunction or informality
that was-to be the matter of complaint; and this notice being in
formal, a fresh one was offered ; he should take time to inquire
into the bail. Mr. Humphreys replied, that he had served exactly
such a notice in a similar case, and one of the clerks in the City
Solicitor's office had started the same objection, but the City Soli-
citor himself knew better than to persist in such an opposition, and
no objection had been taken to the notice by M. Rolland, or the
Recorder. He would, however, amend his notice now, by adding
" the evidence being insufficient." With regard to Mr. Water house
having notice of bail, be was not in a situation to require it. His
complaint had been finally adjudicated by the Magistrate; and the
question now lay between only the Magistrate and the prisoner.
Neither had the Magistrate a right to time •for inquiry, for if he
had uncle:red good bail immediately, before the expiration of the
time allowed for appealing, as he had a right to do, the Magistrate
would only have had an opportunity of judging of the suffici►ncy of
bail, by their examination upon oath.—Mr. Alderman Woon did
not agree with this law, but proceeded to examine and reject one
of the baiL
Yesterday new bail were proposed, and the claim to have their
sufficiency decided instanter, renewed, but after some d scuesim-
the business was adjourned.