Star.
London, England, 1822-11-22 00:00:00

~a

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER ti.

- - -
Mr. Wm-immix, at the sitting of the Court, ap-
plied to his Lordship to fix Tuesday next for hearing
two injunctions to restrain from selling or otherwise
disposing of certain salt-works.
The LORD CHANCELLOR desired his compliments
to be-liven to the Vice-Chancellor, with a request to
hear them. This Court was so overwhelmed with
questions of injunctions, that it could not dispose of
appeal cases, of which some.were seven Testis old.—
The Public had a right to complain of this delay.
Mr. SHADWELL said, that if next Tuesday could
not be fixed, any other day would do. .
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he could not • fix a
day. Lord Portsmouth's case must- be decided as
earlyas possible ; and the case of" Beer and Ward,"
involving a question that might much affect lunatics,
would not be delayed beyond the shortest period in
which the Court could dispose of it. -
Mr. HEALD said the Bar were fully sensible of the
iaconveniencies which his Lordship. complained of.
•. TIIIRGAR B. MORLEY.
This was a motion for a new trial.
The LORD CHANCELLOR read the Lord Chief
Justice's report of the case as tried before him upon
issue from
.the Court of Chancery. The issue was,
hether the plaintiff was entitled to ot.e.eighth of the
ship Morley? The Jury found him entitled, and the
Lord Chief Justice communicated to the Lord Chan-
cellor that the verdict was satisfactory to him.
Mr. LIORNE appeared for the defendant to move
his Lordship to grant a new trial. Mr. Morley, who
mas confessedly a man of money, engaged in the
building of a new ship. The plaintiff's nephew, Mr.
Moran, was to be Captain, and he and his uncle,
the 1 laintiff, were to have 3-Bths; the defendant hold-
ing the other 5-Bths. That was, Mr. Thirgar was to
have 3-16ths ; Mr. Morgan 3-I6ths ; and Mr. Mor-
ley 5-Bths. But Mr. Morgan having the command
of a vessel, and not choosing to wait for the building
of the Moi ley, declined any share in her. His name
was never entered in the register. It was not pre.
tended that he had resigned in favour of Mr. Thir-
gar ; tkerefoie, as 3.-Sths were only mentioned for
3-16tlis were all the plaintiff could claim, and that
they had Immerly offered, and now repeated the offer.
Messrs. CAMPBELL (from the King's Bench) and
ItosE folloued on the same side.

Mr. PARK (from the King's Bench) opposed the
!notion. Thee had never been any division of the
3-Bths into two 3-16ths, but a letter from the defend-
ant distilled y a.ked whether both names, or what one
name, t!:,,uld be registered for 3 Bths ?

Tie L tuft Cli ANC ELLOR.—I confess I cannot see
suflicre .1 reason for granting a new trial. There are
ditlicril.ies in the case; but if the verdict were the
other way, it would not be mote satisfactory to me.
I lament .that the Act of Parliament does not require
the several shares as well as the names of share- '
bolters to he ret;isteic.l. The defeedant. llerlev, was
abcut to build a to he called the Morley. The
Thirgar, :.'.as to ln!ve some interest in her,
and his eel w, Alorgan, was to be the Captain.—
The phrintill and his nephew were to have 3-Bths.
The budder went on two instalments were paid.
It a• 1 e.u•s that the had made sonic advances.l
A letter was then wi'itten ir:.• the nephew, stating that
he would have nothing to do with the ship, as he
could not wait till she shoeld be. fini-led. This is'
clear evidence it::::inst M•riley, that ;he uncle was the
person with wieun a:1 the air-augments were made.
A letter n as t::.rt wriAen by Palmer and Tomlinson
for :qorlev, iniuiring whether both names ".ere to be
registered, or only ore flit. the 3-Bths ? One name
could not stand for the other in the re.,.i:.ter ; but the
y whose na:; - was to be registered for the.
3-Bths, clearly shew ed the view of the defendant then'
of the amount to be slated. then says that
he will have nothing t. do with her. It might have:
been a question upon this, whether he did repudiate,
or could repudiate. It does not ar.,ear that this was
urge,l. on the trial. Thirgar was in fact registered,
and aletter is written to him, stating that what be-
longed to him would be assigned to him by bill of
sale or otherwise, regard being had to the expenses
of building the ship. What interest had he at this
period? Morgan claimed none. The Juty have been
of opinion that it was 3-Bths, and I see no reason to
disturb their verdict. The letter of Thirgar,-contain-
•ing what is said to have t:ien a new proposition, re--
oeived no answer ; therelore, if Thirgar had any inte-
rest at all; it was 3 Bths. I .cannot say that he had
no interest, and that is a point that was not so much
pressed as it might. •
Mr. PARK applied, for costs. • • . .

The LORD CDANCELLOR.—This is not a case for

costs. If parties will make their contracts with so
much ambiguity, they must suffer the consequences.
FIELD AND OTIIERS V. STIRRUP.

Mr. Homo.- stated, that this was a motion to pay
moliey into Cow t, and also to have a receiver ap-
.pointed. The plaintiffs were assignees on the estate
of Mr. Hewitt-, a bankrupt.- The defendant had kept
house for the bankrupt for many years.. He did not'
shun' to c.l,t any insinuation against-hen, on that,
ground. Rut his dwelling-house (Fairmill-house, at
• Ilenley-upon-Thanies), some cottages, and several
acres of land, had been conveyed to her by the bank-
_
• fulit.This conveyance, the assignees contended, was
'fraudulent. The defendant had also received money,
by checks and otherwise, belonging to the bankrupt,
of which she gaye no account. The prayer of his
motion therefore was, that she should be directed to
pay into Court the money. which she had received
belonging to the bankrupt, and. that a receiver should
be appointed for the rents and profits of the estate.
The Lora) CtrANcELLoit inquired the value.
Mr. HoasE.-1:2000 or £3OOO.
• Mr..linntaa followed,. and contended that the
conveyance was Voluntary.
The LORD CHANCELLOR.—Why, then, apply for a
receiver ?. Why not bring an ejectment ? I think you
might :ltink it fortunate if this were not opposed.
Mr. HART opposed the motion. The first point
was the receiver.

LORD CFMOCELLOR.—That is out of the question.
Mr. BART.—Then the secoid question was, whe-
ther any. balance was due, and whether it ought to last
Now for this, he submitted, that
would lie as well as a bill in equity.
flowed.—lt had been said that this

tiler anynaiance w
paid into,Court ?
an action at law w
Mi. Roots folic
•