Star.
London, England, 1827-11-20 00:00:00

LAW IN
COURT' OF CHANCERY, Woman IC
wria.mst V. TUE =Et 01 VIAVIPORT.

r~'~•,

An application was made by Mr. Roasts that ad id4*
junction, which we understood had been granted the!
Lord Chancellor late on Saturday evening is this mat"
ter, should not be issued, for want of an affidavit °Ethel
facts on the statement of which it bad been ordered..•-a
It appeared that the application was made upon atelier'
by a person who kept the boarding house at &OR at
which. Mr. Wellesley '+ sons were lodged. It was stated
that Ir. Wellesley went to Eton on the last halr-helya
day (Thursday), and took his sons to the inns Wherethey
remained with him from twelve till four o'clock ; that
on their return home they informed the person seating
the letter that they had been with their father, who had
told them that he would send them guns and dogs for
shooting ; and that if they wished to leave the schools
they might come to him at Hill-place, Regent's-park,
Mr. Wellesley was said, at the same time, to have told
them that he would tee them as often as he liked, and
to have made an appointment for them to come over
to Salt-hill to see him on onetof the days in this week.
On a statement of these facts, and on a request thatMr,
Wellesley might be testrained from seeing bis sons until
a petition, fixed to come on on Wednesday next, should
be disposed of, the injunction was granted.
Some conversation ensued between the Counsel, in
which it was stated that the requisite affidAvit should
be immediately filed, and the matter was dropped,
with the understanding that it is to be discussed on
Wednesday morning.
There was no ether public business of importance,
the whole of the sitting being occupied in bearing Coun•
sel argue an appeal on the con,tructinn of a will.
VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Now or:
His HONOUR, at the sitting of the Court this morn. •
ing, *toted, that he Wad brought do n with him the
letter which had been privately addressed to him by a
defendant, containing observations as well upon the '
general facts of the case as upon the conduct of the •
plaintiff. The cause was " Harris is. Gibbs," and it
appealed from a notice enclosed in the letter, that the '
plaintiff's solicitors were Messrs. Egan and Waterman.
If either of these gentlemen were then iii;•Court, 11s
Honour would, In accordance with the destination
made on Saturday, hand it over to them. Ibei '
having answered for these gentlemen, leis II • jlela
understood to direct that his Secretary Might trawl* '
the letter to them.

!SUM V. WEIGHT. • •
The bill in this case was filed by the plaintiffs,
Messrs. Kirkby and Goderice, to compel the specific
performance of a contract on the part of the defend-
ant, Griffith Wright.
It appeared that the defendant, who was the propri.
etor of the Leeds Intelligencer Newspaper, and who
also carried on the bestirs: of stationer and patent
medicine vender, agreed in the year 1818 to dispose
of his interest in the Newspaper, and his business in the
two other concerns, to the plaintiff Kirkby, and Meson. .
Goderice and Archbold, printers. who, as well as the
defendant, resided at Leeds. The purchase money,
'after a strict inquiry into all the details of the several
interests, which were the subjectiof the contract, was
fixed at four thousand pounds, Mr. Wright having as-
sured the plaintiffs that the profits likely to be realised
were very considerable. A Mt. Medic was then the
Editor of the Newspaper, but he refuted to be handed
over to the purcha ers; and subsequently started a
Journal upon the same political principle's, cared the
Leeds Independeat.--The purchasers, fearing that the
loss of Mr. Mudie's services as Edits,: might cause
'a deteriorati .n in the valise of the Intelligencer, men-
tioned their apprehensions to the defendant. Mr Wright,
so far from participating in their views, assured them
that his anticipations of success %eta most sanguine;
and at the same time, to prove the sincerity of his decla-
rations, entered into a bond to receive the purchase
money by instalments. In this bond an express proviso
was inserted, to the effect that if the profits arising from
the newspaper and joint business of Messrs. Archbold
and Goderice did not amount to 4,0001. the whole of
the purchase motley, by the Ist day of July, 1822, he
would make that sum good to them out of his own pro.
petty. Affairs being-satisfa.:torily arranged, the purrs
chasers proceeded to conduct the three concerns • but it
appeared that the first year's profits were only ;004—
they were still less on the second year ; and so unpro-
ductive did the whole purchase prove, that Archbold,
after struggling for some time, was forced to dispose of
'his share to Kirkby in the coarse of. 1820, being then,
from his embarrassed circumstances, unable to fulfil his
engagements with Wright. The mho business thus
came into the hands of Goderice and Kirkby, and for
the two subsequent years was carried on by them';—
there were, however, no profits, the instalments on the
bonds were not paid, and the defendant having ascer•
twined that the plaintiffs sold the whole concern for
3,3001. instituted proceedings at law against them for
the balaace due on the bond. The plaintiffs, upon this,
applied for. and obtained, an uojunction, to.restrain the
defendant Wright from prosecuting the action at law.
They At the same time filed a bill, the object tf which
Was to compel him to refund whatever sums they had
paid him over and above the profits of the business.
Mr. HEALD and Mr. HATTER were heard at consi-
derable length for the plaintiffs.
Mr..tionsta and Mr. BARBER appeased for the de.
fendant. They submitted to his Honour, that the whole
of the bargain must be taken as a mere permsl
contract between the parties. The plaintiffs had,
therefore, divested themselves of any right to relief
from that Court, when they had changed the partner-
ship. upon the retirement of Archbold. A business
like that of a newspaper required an attentive and
unremitting inspection on the part of all concerned
in it; and the defendant, when he stipulated to make
up the profits to 4,0001. must have been influenced
by the consideration that the three purchasers would
have attended .to all the details of the business. Arch-
bold afterwards, however, withdrew himself, and the
nature of the transaction thus became changed. The
Learned Gentleman then went into a variety of details,
with the view of chewing that the management of the
newspaper bad not been properly attended to.
The Vice CHANCELLOR inquired, whether the de-
fendant, Wright, was privy to, or consented in any
manner to the sale of Archbold's share?

Mr. HEALD admitted that he was not a consenting
party, but then he had corresponded with, and recog.
raised the new partnership. The Learned Gentleman
then contended, that there was nothing done by the
plaintiffs which Mr. Wright did not become acquainted
with at the time, or which he had not afterwards
recognized. He bad received notice of the falling cif
of the profits, and he was constantly offered the' op.
portunity of examining the accounts. The real cause
of the loss in the newspaper concern was not to be found
in the secession of Archbold, but in the lacy, that Mr.
\ludic bad transferred himself to a nest! establishment.
Under these circumstances, the Learned Gentleman
contended that the plaintiffs were entitled to'

tare