Star.
London, England, 1828-06-26 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

•
•
COURT OF CHANCERY. J2xt 25. s

DLAKEMORE Vs THE OLAIWORDANSHIRE CANAL COMPANY.
The arguments r'f Counsel were concluded in this
case, and the LORD CHANCELLOR granted a limited in-
junction, restraining the dt f-cdants from proceeding
with the further enlarging the tunnel, and directed two
issues.to the Coutt of Common Pleas, to try whether
the Company have power. to' proceed in the proposed
alterations, and it such alterations will increase. the
traffic on, and consumption of water of the canal; so as
to injure Mr. Blakemote's works ?
NEROT'S HOTEL.
Mr. Noma moved that the sale of this property, un-
der' an order of the Court, should be stayed. •
The LORD CHANCELLOR offered to speed the hearing
of the appeal from that order in the House of 'Lords,
and the motion was not proceeded in.
C01.711T OF KING'S'BENCH, Jun.2l
'Sittings in Banco.
MURRAY 9. REEVES.
This case-cattebetore the Court on• a motion to enter
a non-suit. It was an action on an agreement, whereby
the defendant, an attorney, in consideration of the plain-
tiff's withdrawing his opposition to the discharge out
of prison of a person of the name of Sheerer,• who was
charged in execution at the suit of the plaintiff Murray,
undertook (amongst other things) that the plaintiff should
be idle assignee of Sheerei's estate and effects; and that
he should receive, within a specified time, a sum of 904
arid a further sum of 401. in • lieu of certain 'household
furniture, 'which the assignee would become entitled to
as' belonging to the insolvent Sheerer in right of his wife.
The-defendant having neglected to perform his part of
the agreement, the action was brought to recover a com-
pensation in damages. At the trial, a verdict was found
for The plaintiff for 2051. A rule •nisi was afterwards
obtained, to set aside the verdict, and enter a nonsuit,
on the ground that the agreement was a legal fraud, it-
having been entered into without the knowledge or con-
sent of the rest of the insolvent's creditors; that for the
same reason it was contrary to the provisions of the I t.
solvent 'Debtors Act; and that it was contrary alio to.
[Write 'policy. Last week the ease came on for argil--
mencupOn the rule nisi, when Mr. Campbell, in show-
ing against the rule, submitted that whatever
fraud there war in the case, rested with the defendant
hithself, who, after having made an agreement with
the plaintiff; of which the-insolvent andlits creditors had
had the benefit, now refused' to perform his part. The
agreement, besides, was very beneficial to the creditors,
.and was not coritrary-eriher to law or public policy.
Laid TENTealitt4 pronounced 'the -decision of
the Court, which' was; that the agreement warcontrary
td • pnblie policy/ and therefore void. An amicable
arrangement of this kind between an insolvent 'and- his
detaining creditor wok trom• the genital body of credi-
tors that eontroul beer
.the insole's-Cs property which
the Legislature-bad:placed in their bands,. and owe-
+randy deprived them. of that full disclosure of them.
solvent's.-affairs -which the tred.ors were entitled -to
have.-eibule.obsoloti for a nonsuit. •. . . •
• :-• :•• KING 9. MOORS.
• Thiewas an- application fur a•writ of Habeas Corpas
to toting into 'Court a young Lady; named Buxton,
alleged to have been carried• away from her husband
by -the defendant, her uncle. 'The Court granted the
wrift.' Mr. FOLLETT, some does-atter, moved 'to quash
thrwait, on the ground that the young Lady was not
lawfully married to the person who applied to take her
hotel& Moore, her uncle.. It was stated that sbe had,
beewperstutded to a mar tinge which was invalid, and the,
Coca Milli induced to grant a Rule to enlarge the titue
for Malting a return. tn .the wt it.
Sit-.l:Smiatatr.this day appeared to show cause
'gains* the rule for the-enlargement ; but the Court
married the Lady. to be brought before a Judge at Cham-
bers this day- sehmight, when the right of the defendant
to Atishbold her (tom her alleged husband' will be argues
Paw! esatr'" '•• '
in. '111: • •• PLACARDS.

16.116tikSittra aid, be had found, upon due ingoiry'
hilts illematter-respeCring the placards displayed by an
inliabitentnt Cheaptide. before the door of an auctioneer
in the Sinintneighbourhood„ that the' Court *mild not'
interpose any 'extraradittary jOrisdictiOn, therefore, the
sule:he had obtaiinedfor filing a criminal information
Might be di:chary'? ed.l
LitdThesenni—Doastlar Counsel calk other side miletic
to the discharge?.
Mr. Basawanast—Our, alpdavita are very long.
Cord Tinriaoss—The tale way be enlarged to next Terre.
Me. IlaonotiAst—l woldd rather biai It Wdarged.
The =Hee accordingif Wanda *Vet. to next Tenn.
THE ICING V. DUNN —Ma: KING V. ?MICHEL,
• Mr. ADOLPHUS said he was instructed its these pro-
*stations for the publication of !itself,- to make full and
easpie apologies to the Honourable Baronet (Sir Paul
aleddiell) and his Lady, and to declare •on the part of
Mrs. Teucher. that the said 'publications were false,
calnansieei..and without any other foundatton than the
datidetedis Conversation of persons who had been in the
Berianet's: family. With respect to Mr: Dunn he was
authorised to state, that Vie defendant was not the
*nth& of the libel, and he expressed his regret thatit
• had been published'.
•MT. BRooo.ltAit was satisfied Witik the• apologies
tbas.made, and the rules calling on the defendants to
show cause why criminal informations abolti not be
filed against them, were abandoned. •
THE LATL.ERHHSWiCK THEATRE. •

Mr. MILLER had e Court for a Writ of
certiorari, to remove, the Record of the Coroner's Jriqui-
aid" held before klauticu Thorne', on the bodies of D.
fs. Maurice Said others, ;*.lip were killed by the falling of
theiate 't 'static. Tbis.grounds on which Counsel made
.:sfie,sgiplicittion-tivere, tblst the irquestbad not been held
thrf Coroner,. bud *fore his Deputy, and on that
.
account r!.* .
the Court arsocri the isle to show cause.
'T'he SaiciroftlitilltßAL clAy appeared to show
causeagainsttherulip .He stated, that it the Court were
slisiiiised to set aside the inquests, there would have been
a number of persons' buried over whom vo inquest was
held.
told Tawrzaoraz—Oh, yes, there was an Inquest holden.
Tie SOLICITOR GRNILIIAL—But should the inquest
Dein aside on the ground that the inquest was informal,
be considered the verdict as void.
Li•rd Taw-arum—Mot as respecting the verdict of
die persons killed, as that is not the subject of complaint.
The SOLICIToIt GE.IErAL then read the 6nd,ng ef the
J,iry, 164 when he c.itrie to that part of the finding
which 'related to the deodand, , •
Liirt:TrinzaDerr Addressed Mr. Miller, and said, if
'be taxlet'stbod Truly; that was the part complained of.
Mr. Miller'—yes, nip Lord, it is.
' Lord TENTERont 'said iliac that part of the finding'
should be quashed, 6n the ground of informality, as it
ould be Ltifficult to ascertain what particular part of
' the property could be identified.
The verdict was thereinte allowed to stand as re-
ipected the persons who were k3lO, but that relating
to the deodand was quashed.. ' •