Star.
London, England, 1813-12-24 00:00:00

~ ... .

VAIYSIO
THIRD

A Lady
entitled t-

Lovidi

Ditch _ siti
which), t ei ;discharge,
ling the. piee from tle parcnase money. . Mr, Lost.
ingtcin never paid the Dutch' mortgage, and a suit
wai:tionitriented against hit ta to account. He some
'time-alter .became bait:duOpt, and his assignees were
made parties. It came out at length that Mr. Lush-
ington bad mortgaged the estates to the house of,
Boldero and Co. bankers. That house likewise
failed, and their assignees were made parties. An en-
quiry waS Ordered by the Chancellor, into the circum. '
stances of rise case, which had now been going on for
nearly three,years, and the report was ready to be
nude.
The assignees of Boldero and Co. in ate mean time,
filed a bill in the Court of- Chancery in. Grenada,
against Mrs. Young and her son, and against a Mr.
Duncan Campbell; who was stated to have purchqed
the-. Dutch indrtgagiriii about 5e13,000, praying that
they plight. be at liberty to redeem the: nyirtgage, at
'the Sum paid for it by Campbell, and for.iforeclosure.
"Sir ARTHUR PIGOTT DOW applied fd 'ln Atinction
to restrain the further proceedings' its the Grenada
suit, and-to have the bill these dismissed, as it related
to the same matters tit-ought before the Court here,
where the parties might have complete- justice.; and.
this was the more desirablelfs,the.parties'all resided;
•
here, though thiestatet wen hi Orehide.
Mr. objected to- this, in *dirt of form,
the motion embraced all the relief prayed for by the
upplemental on.whieh it was founded ; and he
opposed it Also on the merits, stating, that the suit in
Grenada cemprehended some-things' ntit brought be 4
the 'Conti itee. •
Tlie.Losm-Cuasicsta.ox said, that' it was not uni-
versally true, that a motion could not he entertained
becauseitrnbraced the whole of the relief prayed by
the `'bill;' and, on the Wheile, if the suit in Grenada
ted:tothe saint •Matteri that were 'before the
' • litere:(*s to which paiticular- he requested sonie-
further iaformatioa) he thought the proceedings hi'
the Grenada suit ought to be restrained.
-DEC. EQ. V. EVE. •
The Loan CuasrceLlasit again mentioned this case
to-day, atilt asked Mr. Agar if he had any other cases.
Its-refer to, no she subject of a fenant continuing to
holdover after the lease-had been put an end to, ex-
c_e jt.theeaseto which he haialready referred in lst
H. Blackstone's lteports ?
Mr. Aaaa said he had,other two cases to which to
ref&his Lordship. Indeed he Might hive had many
mote cases to cite, sviieredie doctrine for which he
had to contend had been recognise3, but he and his
Learned Friend* MO were with him 'had been pre-
vented from arguing the point as theyjhould other-
Wise have done, it-having been admitted to them, on
the other side, that the principle for which they con-
tended wai the established law. He now referred his
Lordship to the case of Doe on the demise of Collins
v. Wailer, in 7th Durnfordand East, p. 479, which
only went the length of holding that the notice to
quit as at the term of theespiry of the ;lease was
g00d..1 and which case again, referred to a. case in
Nisi Nos to be found iu Ist Term Reports, 164.
Wright v. Derby, in which, mention is made Of anq-
ther case of Murgatroyd o.
The LORD-CHANCELLOR said he should look into
those cases, and give his judgment to-morrow, though,
at present he was not inclined to admit the doctrine
"to the full eitent to which the reasoning which he
bra found would carry it, and that for reasons which
he should mention.
Mr. AGAR said-it was not necessary, for the plaintiff
,in this ease to ask of his Lordship -to carry the doc-
trine to the full extent to which the principle had,
,been carried in the casesleferred to. The Vice Chan;
cellos had admitted the principle of law, for which
the , plaintiff conteuded, to be one which -was recog-
nised in every day's practice, and yet had decided
against that principle.
The Loeb Citoscetzon again said he should Live
his judgment. to-morrow.
OPERA HOUSEO-..-WATERS t 7. ,TAYLOR.
Mr. Hater said he had now taken the liberty, pur-
suant to his Lordship's orders, to prepare minutes of
his Lordship's decree in this case, not, however, sug,
gesting any thing as to the appointment of an interim
Hanarer, understanding that his Lordship would.
himself give some distinct directions on that head.
The LORD CHANCELLOR asked, had the minutes
been shewn to the other party
. Mr. HART said be had shewn them to Mr. Skid.
well, who had no-objections to them, except that he
wislicdAliat the Master would make a separate report.
as to' the niortgage debt. This Mr. Hart and his
Learned Friends who were with him, thought unne-
cessary, as it was by those minutes proposed that the
Master should have liberty to make separate Re-
(ports, and frdm time to time as to any or all of the
-matters referred to him. The minutes should he
handed to his Lordship.
LORD ciiaxcet,ton--.“ Let have them now, and
I will tell you ,what I think when I come into the,
Conn to-morrow."

• LANGRIDCE v. KELL.
Mr. LEACH moved, that a Receiver should be ap-1
pointed in this case, to uplift the debts due to. the.
plaintiff and defendant, who had for sixteen years
catried on business as co-partners in the profession of,
Attornies at Lewes. The plaintiff, in consequence
of some misunderstaning between the parties, gave
notice to the defendant of a dissolution of the part-.
nership between them, to take place as on the 24111
of June last; and with a view to this dissolution, the
papers relative to their business had been divided be.
tween them. The plaintiff had offered to the defen-
dant to -refer to any respectable person the adjustment
of the accounts between them, but this the defendant
refused to agree to; and, in the mean time, the plain-
tiff being satisfied hat the defendant was considerably
indebted to him, with the View of preventing him
from adding to and increasing that debt, by dfawing
out of the hands of their bankers the joint fends, on
his separate account, had given nnt:ce to the bankers
not to pay any money out of that joint account, unless
upon drafts or 'orders having the signatures of both

. .
....se to
- - ,-
Lordship. .
Mr. EIMMIDS followed nit 4.*l6l.side. * .
Sir •Si!thillitl. RO,IIII.I.YANI DAr kloser resisted the
~
1 applicatiqn. An unfortpiaateilisjittte,hevieg AO
between that two dentteifien,.wito Were both In y
respectable, and who had intrit;beentoniseited'a i.-;
iiin
siness.together ; the plaintiff had given to. the-defen.'
dolt notice of a dissolution of partnership, whirkthe
defeeclant denied he had a-right to d
.o. That,wehji
sitiestipit still to* be settled ; but., befpre it tottld.ht64
Settled, the Caine into that Court, and Oiled
,opon his Lordship tceappoint a receiver of the fundsl
.10-oris effects belonging to ahejoiitt conies:Tv in Which_
thepresent plaintiff and, ctefendapt were equally iril,
terested. This was an.tpplication which the Learned,
Counsel were satisfied his. Lordship Mould refe.se, um:
less, indeed, the law Of the Court Was. that Wherever,'
in any case, a partnership was at an end, IV feceiver
must be appointed. -There was not, they eubmitted,i
the least pretence for this /notion, as, there wes not.
efen'in allegation or misconduct, but what the de-
fendant had done was matter of absolute necessity,
isrid-vilhichhe was compelled to. dcebY the act of the
.plaintiff,hiroself, who had rendeiedit impossible that
he OlGe4ll4ootinue to pay the joint money into an ac-
seam, out of which he could not again draw it, for
thie inwpOiei cf the joint concern. Having, however,
prevailed on the bankers to pay him, at the end of
.Me quarter, money suCcient to answer the office-re-'
ditirre, and alsb 8100. for his own private use, •ht;
. • had the delicacy to transfer a similar sum to the
. _
private account of the plaintiff. The account, too,
ithich he had opened, and into which he bad paid the
ottnt• l'eollected by him belonging to the joint fund,
was not an account from which he drew any sums for
his own private use, but solely on the joint account.
Mr. Leacit having replied,
The Loan CHANCEL..I.OR said, if he were certain as
to the facts of the cpe,.. the principles by which the
Cchtrt would be •go-Vetned, in disposing of such an'
application, were' clear and undisputed. The fact of,
the ,dissolntion of a partnership. was, of -itself, no
ground for a receiver. All that_thodiseolution meant
was, that no new botiness shoehl be entered into, but,
with that exception, tlaa parties were to act together,
-and to be governed, in re rd to their conduct toJ
'wards each other, by the-e*E:prineiples as hitherto,
tiU such time as their affairs'. wen/completely wound
,„up. No cenicact between
_Ow pasties themselves!
(,particularly wheretbey were: of the profession to
'which these parties-belonged) 'could put an end to
the business. in Which- they *ere engaged, but such
business must go on • to a final ' conciiiiion ; and,
though it was common, and might be convenient, as-
jletween the parties themselves, when a eartnership
such as the present was dissolved, 'that the papers
-should be divided between the two partners, and that
'they should each go on in haute, each managing
the business connected with the parts which he had
separately kept to himself; still, as. to their clients,
they could not do sa—they had rstao.4 the services of
both, and if they insisted an having them, were enti- i
tled to i.rail themselves of those joint services, till
their business. was concluded. He did not say that
there might be such peevishness on both sides, as, if
made out satisfactorily, might call on the Court to
interfere in such a case; but the Court was not, with-
out satisfactory prOof, to suppose that parties were of
'"such tempers that they could not meet together with-
out coming ro extremities. If there, had been an
'agreement between co-partners, that one should draw
money out of the jointaccount, in the joint name, for
I-
thepurposes of the joint concern, that understandiug ,
:"or agreement could not, by notice trtim one of the
:parties, be altered ; nor was the Court, withoin dis-
tieet proof of the necessity of such a measure, on the,
application of one partner, to subject the other to the
expellee and hardship of having a receiver imposed
on the joint effects. If, on the other band, it was
shewn that one partner . had improperly interfered,
and had employed the partnership funds to any other
purposes—if, for instance, being aware of the impro-
priety of which he was guilty, it could be ;hewn that
he had emplOyed those funds in catrying•on any new
business, on
.iiis own account, er so as to procure ta:
your for himself—in such a c.iie as that the Court
would interfere, Those plieciples he should apply
to the present case, And shoull accordiegly, after
reading, the affidavits on both sides, refuse, or grant,
the present application. _
COURt' OF COMMON PLEAS, DECEMBER 23.
SANDILANDS li. TUE LION. eAsr-ixut a COMPANY.° 1
This was an action directed by the'Court of Clian-,
eery, to try a number of issues respecting the freight,
demurrage, and other c xp.:•iisn in.zurred by the Corn-
pany's ship Walpole, in a voy'ge from Bengal_ to
Margate, near which place she was lost, some years
ago. . s
It appeared from the evidence, that die ship made
tier voyage to Bengal in safety. On her I.iomcward-
bound-voy-ige the Purser lent her alravell at Ports-
mouth. In censequ=ce of ad: ices from Capt. Sandi-
lands, the Commander tithe Walpole, he (tl.e Pur-
ser)ovent down to Margate ; and about a mile below
that place, he found tile ship bad been cast ashore in
a heavy gale. The Second Mate of the ship proved
that Captain Bolderson, the Master-Intendant of the
Company at Margate, took the command of the
ship ; that, by 'his orders, the cargo was.got on shore
and sent to Lentign, in craft provided by the Com-
pany. When the vessel was lightened, it was.attemp-
ted to get her afloat by additional pumps which were
put into her; that, however, was found impractica-
ble, and she was then scuttled under the rnizen.chains,
on the laiboard side, by Capt. Bolderson's orders. It
was, however, the opinion of some of the witnesses,
that she might have been got off, and so far repaired
as to have taken in her cargo again, and carried it to
' London. Besldes the freight and demurrage; there
• were the expenses of the ship's.company on shore, as
t•daring the gale they could not live on board the ship,
I tr anal° the expense of carrying the iron kentledge up
, to London, which had been defrayed by the owners.
lO= this evidence, it was argued,
„that although.'

test darter-party steed that the ship sh9uld deli&
lair oat the prier of LotidtChltillure of which
4he world feifeit all adrantigics drilling from freight,
i'demntrage, .6e. yet as the argerAtad teen sent to
6ickadon in gift belonging to the Company, and FT
the COmpany's.orders, there was a new cot eqpant ea.
tireljt j besides; that it had been plnved diet-the ship
ithaid hire hien weighed op, have litkin kiln Vargo
loin, and hase'proosede4 with it tit tdid6n, her
only fort 0 dtachutgesuccordiug to the terms;of the
charter-party.. The Comprity ought therefore to he
liable for the freight and demurrage trojn Bengal, as
well as for the 6theirexpintell, as,, hitt for the orders
of their oficert the ship would have been able to hive
completed her voyage.
On the part of thedefendants, it Was maintained,
teeraecvtsidterftcleoncats head had
iehiitw,sttnuo been
itthat
boric out
a jo
Bolderson had ordered the cargo to be carried txi
•ndon by craft employed brthe Company. 'But
as to the order fbr scuttling the ship, he could home
no authority to. giye it. as shurtntnpany had no ,for-
ther interest in the ship the% eatelated to the cargo.
' But;allowing. Mai he, did pre' the order to scuttle
her, if ivatai so 'easy. to get her off. tcr reship't*
cargo on board of her, and to being her nnlit 44ii
to London, her only port of diseharr, why, did; tat
Captain SA.ncii/a.u&st.on thipayt.. o inynselt and 14
Ownersobject to itit Order?..-Why did not he at
his ofEcert, with t 1 ditistante of the s'ip's coil.
puny, getilie vessel off and bring her to. London ?-z-
That this was impassible was shown by the event, it p
sho was scuttled, anti sold to,ayeraon who:broke her
up. The charter-patty too was expre% for by it, if
the vessel bad foundered immediately ttityr her break.-
ing.ground front Griveseid,. on her outward-bound;
Voyage, the owners would have received the seamen's.
,wages and war-freight, amounting to twelve or thir-t
teen thousand pounds. By the charter.party too, it
was equally expressed that the ship should 'deliver
H Caigo'at the port'of London; failing this, she
erould7torfeit all advantages from homeward-butiod
freight, demurrage, &c.
After at very. long trial; the Jury returned their Tar.
act. on the several issurs—finding for the plaintitf on
thteaftensts of the vessel from India to Marg...te,
to Wilms, subject to deduction for extra ex-
es : sOf the Courpany—for the' expensei .of the
tledge and demurrage—and -for the seamen's
renea
wages and outward-bound war•fl eight, fur the-plain-
tiff-also ; but for the homeward-butmd height, SIC.
for the defendants.

S4ttrday evening last, as the Rev. EVAN JOlntle
Who resides near Portman-gate, on the Harrow-road,
was returning home, -soon niter seven o'clock; in a
.angle-borsocbaive; he was stopped between the se.
cond and third mile-scene online road, by a footpad,
who seized the horse's reins, presented .a pistal at
Mr. JO Nits; and, with horrid threats, demanded bit
money and robhed him of his pocket-book, containics
several Bank of England notes, and a bill of exchatigp
for £5O, with which he made his =Ape.
Saturday evening, between seen and-eight o'clock
at Mr. 8i5.44. wlto resides at a brill near Edfnoti•
ton, was travelling in a single horse chaise betwous
that place and Southgate, he was stopped by tno
footpads, one of whom seized his horse, and the other
presented a pistol, and with violent threats ikmaniked
h:s money. He debvcted to them the contents of Ibts
pockets, emoutfsing to.abian al? in bask note=, Ard
in silver to near
.4S, The roVe..s appeared to te
bistouring men, asitfrorn their talk are supposed w Ire
Irishmen, :•'• • •
Saturday last a Coronet's Inquest was held In
Broad-street, Oarnaby Mar Kett upon the body of Alt%
Hugh Lewis, who was found deatUty l» s.bedsi
apparently having fallen in a fit, while dressing hi it-
self, to to the 'lwo-penny Post Office, Gerrand-
street, were, and at Coventry-street, in the time of
the P.nny Post, he had attended to take in lent;
for nearly SO fears - The verdict was—" Died ly
the Visitation of Gori."
Tuesday night, soon after A. At.nora, Esq, of
Down-street, Piccadilly, had retired to bed, be was
seized with a fit of conghing, and broke a blood ves-
sel, A professional Gtutleinan was instantly sent
for, but before he • Could arrive, the spark of life was
extinct.
-Tuesday, as a sailor and his wife were returning
Along the Strand, from the Navy Pay Oflite, Somer-
set House, where he had. been to receive his pay, he
dropped down, near 4urrepatrect, aid iuotainly u.
pireci, -
It is iu the 'months of Decembei avid Jaemary that
Surgeon flsnett. particularly recommends the use et
the Pieparte.l Srttamowitim and OxYMEL in Ws valua-
ble Treatise on thE CaUsel, Cure, rte. of Asthma.
Cqnsumpti,in, and Winter Cough.. Tho 4! invalids
Lugo are subject to attacks of the chest dui ng winter
and spring, tJ:is experienced Author observes, will
remain rerfectly- free from any symptoms, if they hart
srcourse to do use of the Prepared-Strams niuna aod
Qzymel at Cie commencement of the wia?er sewn..
In order th it the public m iy be regularly
with these itemed4cs, BUTLER, No. 4, Chelr-
, side, corner of Si. Paul's, is app anted the W/;olebi;e
and Retail Vender; whose name on the stamp 'Au
enable the pull*. to, distinguish the trbe from the
spurious kind. They zesty also be obtained of Mr.
atants, corner of Ludgate-hill ; Mr. I) scoN, 15 ),
Oxford-street ; and most Medicine Venders in the
cowry, price 4s. Lid. and Ss. e id..

MARRIED..
At Greenock, on the 1 4th inst. the Rev. John Barr,
' of the Rel.ef Church, Dorval I, Glasgowrto El;sa, eitl.;st
ter of Air. Rubcrt Houton, Greenock
The 9th instant, the Rev. John Bower, minister. of Mar F-
. to S.r.tit Chnatin.a, only daughter of the late Rel.. &"
ander Wilson, minister of Carnpvere

&DIED.
On the loth inst. at 'Trafford House, Lieutenant lArneei
Trafford, of tile lst, 'or Royal Dragoons, after a tedious •,111. ft.
vere Hints', brought on by fatigues undergone in the Reain-ols.
In him his family have to lament a relrive of the most amnh.e
disposition, and his frieuds to regret the loss of a roost pngu
young Officer.
At his brother's, Dartmoutb-street Wromfoster, Captda
George J. Pepper, of the Hon. East India Company's Srrvizer
aged 31 years.
Friday, at Great &Rag, M;ddleses. Fogad, John Ste:' ,y
dint son of Rear-Admirsl Stephens, avid 16 years andO

HIGH WATER A 3 LONDON BRIDGE TO•MORRJW.
Mop Ng
Aft.ll/3" • ...... • •-•••• m n 1111*A4 after 3
LONDON t • Printed by 1.1t1P31. lCtltr,Pletet race 40l
lllWisbal then, *ad at tis-EtarOdice, Temps itv.

. .
. . ,
•
•.•' • . , •
• ' A dir 1247.24 L 10047 CL ' - the plaintitand defendant. • ..,i, .. *_.:. . ,";
-'7 &,6:Lic i 4 , .*. ), . •
. • °Ft!" li- I)l9tEhtlieltitt. ' applied *it et 'it§ an. -• • '.. ' 11:. -
It . .
WO ,AINOTHIIiti :1).. - is-r 4 /14RDYATT. AND AN a$ of money belon td '-iO, -iO,. •,,i-
link. ---
.11
ran, ..e. etAlkOf psi itainti as 111010DiDO AND CO. had collected since the O, of the pattnehbilk
I, I,ady of itie!narof -OCYO;:tg. and her app. were to his own.private purposiemart.conlxiw4ttt be had
tied to'. eo'atile estites in Gileriada,'lnd ton', opened a lOW-account in Vs own nvEemilqi.xrbicis
:ted to*lttlteui toldr. .f..ushingtcm, a merchant in lie had*padiftOnlEA belongl4iO the jonit cottairn:.m6
Scion, 'for £52,000. The estates were subject to a In these circurristintes, 'theipreient aptilication for A
tell mortgage- for £28;000, and to other debts, Receiver aott for a0.11011,r/ticio against theAyfewcant.
ch -:NfiaMnsktitesia agreed to discharge, deduc- restraining him froth iuterftii_ pg. frith, ths joint funds,
the price from tie purchase money. .lAri Lush. till an account should .he•-fia—tir!liii.toide tolis