Star.
London, England, 1822-12-24 00:00:00

ooURT OF CHANCER DRCAMBSR 43.

LORD GROSVENOit V. MATHER AMAMI.
Mr. JoNES applied to the Lord Chaheelliationss-
!;gn the conditions of certain issues direetilt by his
Lordship in this case. The defendants had alleged
contracts with Mr. A. Moore, Agent of Lord GroS-
‘•,-tior, for the delivery of lead from the works upon
estate of the Noble Lord, with stipulations of
cues for non-delivery, at a rate per ton on each quan-
tlty, to accrue after specified limits of time. There
were five of these contracts, none of which had been
executed, nor were they known to Lord Grosvenor,
until the cessation -of the Agency of Moore. The
purchasers had evidently not fulfilled their duty in
entering into them. The conditions were unequal—
:he profits to be made by Messrs. Mather and Co. at
the price agreed upon, would have been enormous :
rle whole of the circumstances had been so unusual
and irregular, that it behoved them to inquire if the
contracts were wart-Anted by .Lord Grosvenor. They
had neglected to proceed against the breach of the
first four of those contracts, but sued for. the whole of
the furfeitutes on failure of the fifth. "Lord Grosve-
nor resisted the claim of the purchasers on the ground
that the contracts were impracticable, because the
works could not produce the quantities agreed upon;
that the conditions were wholly disadvantageous to
his Lordship, -and altogether so peculiar as to have
required them to make some reference to the princi-
pal. The Lord Chancellor directed two issues to try
hew far Lord Grosvenor should be bound by the con•
tracts of his Agent under the particular circum-
stances., fie (Mr. Jones) now applied to his Lordship
to direct the particular terms and conditions of„the
issues. The purchasers had prepared their declara-
tion so largely as to bring in any contract they should
e able to prove :they had laid out twenty-seven counts,
comprising lofty-three or forty-four' several issues.
lie thought that the plaintiffs should be required to
state which of the numarous contracts specified by
them they meant to claim ; and that the Jury should
be directetto *Worse the postea with the particular
contract found, sand their reasons for finding. The
issues should be :educed and simplified, and other
issues should be submitted, to determine exactly the
thiee following queslions t—lst, Whether or nut the
making of the contract was a bona fide exercise of his
agency by Mr. Moose? . 2dly, IN the conditions were
according to the ordinary course of business? Silly,
As :he works of Messm-Mather•and Co. are in the
same neighbourhood With those of Lead Grosvenor,
and at Are works of Lord Grosvenor bad always been.
unprofitable, whetheror not the purchasers knew that
the works of Lord Grosvenor would not produce the
quantity of lead stated in the contracts? The object
of these new issues was to secure to- the cause :the
proper media. of proof, so that on,thereturn of the re-
cord the conscience of the Court might be perfectly
informed of many circunistandes which were con-
nected with-the original contrail, the consideration
of which would be shut out under the issues prepared
by the plaintiffs in the action at law: He hoped-his
Lordship would give directions_ which would secure
the purposes which he had suggested to the Court.
Mr. LITTLEDALS claimed the benefit of all the
counts in the declaration. The contracts were not
contained in any single paper, but were to he inferred'
and proved from matter spread over a great variety
of thoononents and correspondence. If his Lordship
thought otherwise, he had no objection to any issues
which should specify their contract, and go to deter-
mine the responsibility of Lord Grosvenor. •
The LORD CUANCILLLOR thought that the plaintiff
in the action at law ought to reduce the number of,
issues. They might frame them so as to surround
the largest contract they could claim, together with
the whole contents of the record of this Court. He
would give directions that all the questions necessary
to determine the nature and value of the contracts
should go to the Jury, subject, of course, to the ob-
jections which should arise in the lower Court; and the
Jury should be at liberty to endorse special matter on
thepostra. The issues should find two things: lst.Wbe- •
ther there was any and what contract; 2dly, how far,
under all the circumstances to be laid before the Jury,'
the Eatl of Grosvenor was bound by- the contracts
of his agent.
Mr. LITTLEDALE submitted, in. addition, that as
there was breach of contract, there should be an issue
to determine the quantum damnificatus.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought that the .propo-
•••.ion was not admissible on a disputed contract for
lii,oool. which the defendants claimed • from Lord
it osvenor, upon the failure of agreement. -
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Let the Jury find the
damages also, and they may be dealt' with here on
tie teturn of the record ; and do.you frame the issues-1
ei:d hand them up to me that I may settle. them.

In 'a very thin house. an actress was speaking very
low in her communications with her lover, when the
actor, v,ith a face of woeful humour, exclaimed—
" My dear, you may speak out, you see there is no
cue to hear us I"
MiDSIIIPMAN'S PAY.—An Officer or the Nav y being
a,ked what Mr. By RKE meant by the "Cheap defence
of nations?" replied, that many persons in his line
understood him to mean a Midshipman's half-pay—
" Nvihing a day, and to find himself!"
A foolish fellow, when addressed by a man of rank,
used to answer, "Thank GOD and your Lordship."
—" How many children have you, honest man?"
•,:ticl a Grandee to him ; " Four, thank Gun and your
Lordship !)
A lady having asked M. de I.llAncnAways why
persons oilier sex might not be electors? he replied,
MAditM, you might 1* electors, but you could not!
e deputies." " Why not?" said the lady ?—" Be-
vltuse no woman would like to-acknowledge that she
40 years of age."

Vie Fist question put to the King of FRANCE the
other day by the Duke of WELIANGTorr, was—" How
17:avl men can your Majesty command?"—" Perhaps
.one hundred thousand."--" hive hundred thousand
would not dolhe business," was the reply.

Ou the 17th inst. at half-past one in the morning
a hte broke out in the chateau 4 the Prince of
'ORANGE, at Terveuten : the cause oithis is unknown.,
happily it was discovered in time, and immediate
a.sistance being given, the fire was exting►ished by
two o'clock, without having done any other mischief
tll.►n destrOying some part of tbe small staircase near
du: dtessiug•rooru.
•

NOW ARD AND GIBBS'S BANKRUPTCY.
. ,
COURT O &moldy 01.11 AS, DECItMIIO
•
' • ORNINTIEttD V. ratewalp AND DIM.
Mr. Serkant• Lena-stand ttii case, tnther
was an issue directed by his Uonqur the
cellar to try whether the plaintiff. was or was not a
good and brninfide creditor of the defendants.' estate?
The plaintiff had.beeome, throngh the agency of the
aefendants, a purchaser of annuities to the amount 9f '
above 45,0001. and had besides advanced to Ho9iita'
and Gibbs another. sum exceeding 30,0001. for the-
same purpose, which Mr. Gibbs had appropriated to
his own use, or the immediate necessities of the firm.
James Gibbs had been a partner it: the house of
Howard and Gibbs, of Cork-street, Burlington-gar.
dens. The fill( annuity purchased by the plaintiff
was one from Lord James Murray, the principal part
of which was paid in September, 1816, at seven
years purchase; the interest was 141. ss. frons which
insurance was to be deducted. Another annuity was
soon afterwards purchased by the plaintiff from Lord
SeftOn, of 3001. in consideration of 3,0001. that an-
nuity continued till 1818; when Howard and Gibbs
received the annuities they paid them over to the
plaintiff after deducting their commission. ne next
was an annuity of a Mr. Sydenham, of 200/. per an-
num, in consideration of 1,2001. that was still in
existence. The plaintiff continued to be paid, until
the bankruptcy in 1821; the next was an annuity of
a Mr. Benson, but that did not appear on witn,ess'a
books, as the plaintiff attended to it himself; the
consideration was 4,9001. the annuity 700/. it was
purchased for seven years, but paid off before the
bankruptcy; the next was an annuity of Mr. Long
‘Vellesley's,:it was first granted to another person,
and afterwards assigned to the plaintiff, in Sept. jBl9,
the consideration was 2,027/. Hs. 9d. for seven years
purchase, it was now in existence, but did not continue
to be paid ; the next -was an annuity of Lord Walls.'
court's, which was also granted to another perstan but
subsequently assigned to the plaintiff, the considers-.:
tion was 2,7471. for seven years purchase; the next was.
granted by Mr. Beckford, in. Nay,, 1819, the consi-
deratien was 1,0881. the annuity 136/. The next was
an annuity of Mr. Udney, the consideration 3,2001.
the annuity 4001. it was purchased in June, 1819.
The next was an annuity of. the Rev. Mr. Struth, of
1501. the consideration.l,osol.. There, was a second
of Lord J. Murray's, of 3001. the cOnsideration
2,1001. and a third of 1500. for 11000 guineas. • The
neat was an annuity, of Mr. J. Payne, of -350/. the
consideration 2,4501. that was still in existence: there
was another of the same party, of 350/. the consider-.
ation .2,4504 ,The next was an annuity of Count Lin-
singen of 1101. the consideration 1,100/. The next
was an annuity of the late Duke of Kent of. 6141.
the consideration 4,2001. The next was an annuity
of Sir B. D'Urban's of 4001. the consideration was
2,8001. and another annuity of 260/. The next was
an annuity of Lord C. Fitzroy's of 3301. the consider-
ation 2.6401. The gross amount
pf all these was
44,1251. ss. 2d. and all these were real transactions.
Witness never applied to the plaintiff for money ex-
cept to invest in the purchase of annuities. 4tt dif-
ferent times the4Laintiff. had lent money to witness,
to the atnoutig.4l *hove 80.0004 all of which, he be-
lieved, was invested in annuities. Witness always
-told him.it was. The house had ample property, but
money not coming in so fast as it was required, wit-
ness had appropriated the plaintiff's money to the
immediate necessities of the firm, which was, from.
the year 1817, under engagements for the annual
payment of 120,0001. and on the 9th of October,
1819, the plaintiffs pass book was made up, and the
balance really in favour of the plaintiff amounted to
14,3191. 2s. 4d. To reduce that balance, witness
made fictitious entries of annui:ies and names of an-
nuitants, so as to make it but 419/. 2r. 4d. Another
settlement of the account took place in May, 1820,
when witness again made fictitious entries for the
same purpose. In November, 1820, the, balance
really in. favour of the nlaintitl,s9,s 36,8771. 10r.

14.

Mr. Rimonde went into the employment of How-
ard' and Gibbs in September, 1819 ; he deposed to
making up the accounts alluded •to by Mr. Gibbs,
and that the erasures were not there when he made
•them.up.
Tile SoLICITOR-GINERAL,'IM the defendant, said
there .was a conspiracy to defeat the claims of bona
fide creditors, whose only support had been wasted
and destroyed by the gross mismanagement of Gibbs,
for Mr.-Howard, at the time of the failure, actually
believed, himself possessed. of very extensive property.
Gibbs had repieSented himself in his evidence to have
acted fraudulently towards Grinstead. His case
rested on fraud and deceit ; but it had. been well ob-
served, and he (the Solicitor-General) should use the
argument here, that if a Irian represented himself
to have acted infamously,the question would be whe-
ther he had so acted, or was so acting at the time
making the statement of his infamy for a particular
and fraudulent purpose?
Several letters from Porter, a conveyancer, to
Gibbs, dated March, 1821, were read, in which he
desired Gibbs to arrange, so as to postpone the meet-
ing for the choice of Assignees, until the plaintiff
could arrive from France.
A letter from Gibbs to the plaintiff, dated Oc-
tober 9, 1819, was read, in which the balance was
stated to be 4191.25. 4d.
A letter of Rimonde was also read, in which he
stated his willingness to do anything to assist Gibbs,
and promised 'to attend the Office as Clef k to the
Commission.
The pass-book was produced, and Mr. Richard
Ailarn, the accountant, proved that he had ascer-
tained the amount of the annuities received up to
May, 1819 ; by that account 2,3501.65. Bd. was the
balance up to that time, when a bill to that amount
was given to the plaintiff, and subsequently paid. .
Mr. Ambrose Humphries deposed that a Mr. Wil-
son, a client of his, had purchased an estate of Mr.
Howard, and Mr. Gibb, and the plaintiff had been
present at some of the interviews for the purchase,
and requested that part of the purchase-money should
be paid to Grimstead, in liquidation of his, debt.
Mr. Serjeant Letts replied, and contended that the
books which had been produced supported Gi.kb.'s
evidence, and, being documents created at the time
when nothing of this kind was expected, clearly and•
indubitably proved the truth of his ktatement.
Lord Chief Justice DALLA.B charged the Jury,who
retired at half-past seven o'clock, and returned in half
an hour with a verdict•for the defendants.


• 4

+.1.7,rj0v. •

SPORTING INTSLLIGENCE.
• ,
• IntirrifltO ferriptit/4,0111t. im-
• . . ~7.1-v,i,
..u.:,;.,
.
•
, .
h.,
...
.. „ vi,-• ‘,l74l"ivilvi
~ .
.y:ok.l
7 te'CrtalATOK(bilia4 111 to 1 apt ;lamina (taken)
8 to;1. ' •Yolly ... _ ~ IS to 1 apt Mo. to Carhonaro
.11 to I art Web 'A) ':- ' i 0 MI apt Sk W. Alilner's 0.. r
WI tol*4 Tailistniutfloy ...,
~,.
t
7to 1 aPt Zaidis . "IE9 to l'pt sister to Sultan
9to t apt oistil tO Bad! • I - s tot apt (Mom
CLAIM?.
ato gaga Moses . ' I oto 2.agst Posthuma (taken)
7 to 2 apt Swap G to I apt Wanton
DONCASITRAT Liosll . 6
10 to I agst
Sherwood (taken) 20 to I apt Mt. Armattong s
II to 1 agst Miss Fanny (do.) I
e. (taken)
' 18 1° 1 agst Wistlane (do.)
HUNTING.
. .
The King's Stag-hounds meet oil Friday, at Bedfont.
The Duke of Grafton's Hounds meet ea Thursday, at Brad-
den ; Satorday, at Nash Common.
The Qakiey Hounds meet on Thursday, at Marston Thrift;
Saturday, at Clapham Park.
The Quorndon Hounds meet on Thursday, at Bardon Hill;
Friday, at Iloby; Saturday, at Bonny Park.
The'East Sussex Fox-hounds meet on Thursday, at Pidding.
hoe; Saturday, at ikinny.
Kati Fitzwilliam's Fox-hounds meet on Thursday, at Ashton
Welsk. .
Mr. Hay's Hounds meet on Thursday, at Slych ; Saturday,
at Woore.

The Chester pounds meet on Friday, at Bookford. -
Lord Middleton's Hounds meet Thursday, at East Bridgford.
Mr. Chawortb's Fox-hounda meet on Thursday, at Cllpstorte
Mill; Friday, at Winwick Warren.
The Boroughbrldge Harriers meet on Friday, at Grafton.
Lord Anson's Hounds meet on Thursday, at Sbuckborough ;
Friday, as Setghford ; Monday, at Shutdown Bridge.
The Op4erstead Harriers meet to-morrow and Saturday, at
ktnnel.

ThunitYaithe Mid Lothian fox hounds threw off at Dreghorn
tate. • Anfox was nlmost instantly found In the veighbourbood,
sOich tp4 to the west, and entered the. policy new Dreghorn
Castle:*.turtting eastward, he entered his 014 cover, and was itn-
iiieariteirkilk4.. A few minutes afterwards another fox was
starsect, which, after a short run, was also killed, The dogs then
went towards Woodhouselee, but not finding, the sports of the
day 'terminated. The company was numerous and respectable,
but the weather was far from being favourable, In consequence
of the thickness of the atmosphere. As most of the company bad
gone towards the top of the hill, in expectation that the fox
would go in that direction, as is generally the case, few or none
were in at the death.

An Ayr Paper of Thursday speaks in raptures of the excel-
lent order in which their subscription pack of hounds is kept. It
particularly dwells on a fine run which they had on Wednesday
se'nnight. On that day they started both a fox and a hare in the
same cover, when one half of the pack went after the fox and
the other hilf after the hare. " The Ayrshire hounds appear to
approach•every day nearer to perfection."