Star.
London, England, 1805-11-01 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, OCTOBER 31.
COALS.

SEDIANGTON V. THR DORI OF NORTHUMBERLAND.

This was a bill filed for the purpofe of having the
alledged meaning of an agreement between•the par-
ties carried into effeit. The Noble Duke's ancellor,
the late Duke of Northumberland, was the leffor ;
and the Plaintiff in this fuit, the leffee of certain ex-
tenfive Collieries in the North of England, 'which
Collieries were to be worked by the Plaintiff, he pay-

ing a certain rate for them ; and it was agreed be-
tween the parties, that the plaintiff fhould forbear
working them to their full extent, whenever it fhould
be the Noble Duke's pleafure, to be fignified by his
Agent ; and a certain rate of allowance was to be
made to the plaintiff proportionate to that which
fhould be fhort of the extent of the works, as allow-
ed by the leak, &c.
Lord Beverley was alto made a Defendant to this
Bill, as one of the Executors of the late Duke of
Northumberland, to which his Lordfhip had not yet
appeared, nor was there any power of compelling
him, he not being within the junfdiflion of the Court:
and if he confidered himfelf as a &anger to the
whole tranfaelion, it was oblerved as iprobable that
he would not appear.
To this bill the Noble Duke had appeared, and had
demurred, on the ground that it was multifarious,
by charging him in two dillin& capacities; the one
as the executor of his Noble Ancenor, the late Duke,
and the other in his own right, as heir at law ; and
this, it was contended, was contrary to law, as had
been adjudged in a cafe precifely of the fame nature,
in the Court of Exchequer, in June, 1794, when an-
other fuch bill had been filed, had been demutred to,
and the demurrer allowed.

Mr. BELL argued this demurrer with his ufual
learning and ability ; and contended, that the cafe
above quoted, was decifive of the prefent queftion.
Mr. RONILLY and Mr. FROWARD, on the other
fide argued very ably againa the demurrer ; which,
they fubmitted to his Lordfhip, ought to he over-rul-
ed. They admitted, that if the cafe al.r.ve quoted
was law, this demurrer muff be allowed, for the pre-
fent was not be difiinguillied from that cafe ;—but
they maintained that cafe to be wrongly decided ;
inafmtich as it was contrary to the weight of argu-
ment in to cafe itfelf ; and there was no authority
whatever in the boas to fupport it. They conten-
ded, that multifatioulnefs of pleading, which was the
balls of the demurrer, would be increafed inftead of
being avoided, if this delimiter was allowed, for then
another bill mull be filed, and he') pleadings enter-
ed into, &c. for which, as well as various other Tea-
Cons, they fruited this demurrer would be over-ruled.
Mr. BELL made a very able reply.
The LORD CHANCELLOR made many profound ob-
fervations on the cafe preparatory to judgment ; the
efteem he had for the authority of the Court of Ex-
chequer, made him fore he ought to look into all the
circumftances of the cafe it had decided, to compare
the judgment with the argument ; which had been
contended to he at variance with each other : and
alto to look into the pleadings of this cafe minutely,
before he delivered his opinion on it. As to the na-
' tore of the agreement of the prop! kora of coals in the
North of England, his Lordfhip threw out a preg
nant hint worthy of their perufal :--" Certain Coal
Owners, Paid he, in the North of England, for their
own benefit—(how much for the benefit of the pub-
lie, you Gentlemen of the Bar may judge)—enter
into an engagement with each other ; that they will
not fell more than a given quantity of coals, and
Bills of this kind are filed, to early into effett agree.
ments of that nature, which once an Attorney-
General threatened to profecute as a confpiracy."
—His Lordfhip thought this an important cora
deration for the public, on account of the effedt,
which fuch agreements might have upon the pub-
lic market, by an artificial enhancement of the
price of that valuable article of fuel, and declared his
veneration for the Attorney General—(now no
more)—who had given the opinion he had alluded
to; but he obferved, that what had appeared in the
pleadings in this cafe, was not facient to bring it
within the defcription of that which loch Learned
Perfon had threatened to profecute as a confpiracy.
His Lordfhip, after many learned ohfervations on
the cafe, deferred his judgment, in order to have an
opportunity of looLing further into it.