Star.
London, England, 1811-08-08 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIG,ENCE.

COURT OF CHANc.FRT, AUGUST S.
NUISANCE.
Sir SAMUEL Rohnt.Lic begged, in the case of the
nuisance as to the soap work at Battersea, which
stands for judgment, to direct his Lordship's atten-
tion to the case of the Benchers of Gray's In v.
Doughtie.. He was aware that his Lordship was
fully acquainted with the case, but he mentioned it
now, because it had net been alluded to in the course
of the argument on either side. The bill of injunc-
tion was filed by the Attorney-General on the infor-
mation of the Benchers of Gray's Inn, to restrain Mr.
Doughtie from erecting certain buildings behind the
wall of Gray's Inn Garden, which would have the
effect of obstructing their prospect. The Lord Chan-
cellor refused the injunction, being of opinion that to
obstruct a prospect was not a rµ►iss.uce, but, if it had
been a nuisance which he was called on to restrain, it
was clear that he would have entert.ined the appli-
cation coming before him in chat shape.

A'fKINSON V. Sit:lief ASSIGNEIif.

Sir SAWICZ. ROMILLY stated this to be a WI, Slel
on the part of the executor of Mr. Richara Atkisson,
praying that an account might be taken of the state
dl the different trai►sactions between the deceased,
and Mr. Hutchinson Muir, Robert Muir, and Wil-
liam Muir, who had been Iviv. Richard Atkinson's
partners in trade ; that the sum admitted against the
testate of Mr. R. Atkinson should only be his propor-
tion of the sum of 877,000, being the amount of the
debts due by the partnership of Muirs and Atkin-
son, at the period of Mr. Richard Atkinson's death
in 1785, and that an injunction should, in the mean
time, be granted, restraining the assignees from mak-
ing a dividend among the creditors of the Muirs out
of the proceeds of estates which were jointly the pro-
perty of them ail of Richard Atkinson. It appear-
ed that previous to the year 1765. Mr. Hutchinson
Muir had carried on business as a West India mer-
hant on his own account. In that year he entered
into partnership with his son, Mr. Robert Muir, and
the deceased Mr. it. Atkinson. Mr. Hutchinson
Muir, at this time, had two plantations in the Island
of Jamaica, called Saxon and Caldwell, on account
of which considerable advances were made by the
company in the way of erections, furnishings, &c. by
which a considerable debt was incurred, to secure
which, Mr. H. Muir executed a conveyance of these
estates to Mr. R. Muir and Mr. Atkinson. In 1781.
a new partnership was entered into, Mr. William,
another son of Mr. H. Muir, being admitted into the
concern. The advances, on account of these planta-
tions in Jamaica, proceeded to increase. In the year
1785, Mr. Richard Atkinson died, and in the year
1793, the Muirs became bankrupt. In support of
the present application Mr. George Atkinson, execu-
tor of Rd. Atkinson, made an affidavit, in which he
;Astore, that, to the b?st of his knowledge and belief, a
considerable balance is due from the Muirs to Richard
Atkinson, and yet that the assignees on the estate of
the Muirs are going to make a dividend among the
creditors of the Muirs alone, of the proceeds of those
estates which belonged to the company of Muirs and
Atkinson. Robert Muir, on the other hand, had made
an affidavit, stating that the sale of a plantation, by
the company, to Richard Atkinson and Paul Ben-
jell, by which she balance was turned the other

way, tad a considerable tem was due bt Aaiun*
to the Muirs. He admitted, however, that no ac-
count had ever been taken, and ascertained between
the parties; and he also admitted that it was from
the property of Muirs and Atkinson that it was now
,intended that a dividend should be made among the
creditors of Muir alone. In this state of matters the
Learned Counsel had no doubt his Lordship would
grant the prayer of the bill, and would stay the di-
vidend
in the mean time. • 1
Mr. SUADWELL followed on the same side. - -1
Mr. RICHARDS objected to the extremely late pe.
.riod at which the present application was brought,
rout being till a farther dividend was about to be
made, Mr. Richard Atkinson having died so long
ago as the year 1785. He proceeded to read from
the affidavit of Mr. Robert Muir, a variety of re-
' ferences, and attempts at adjusting a balance between
the parties ; also, that after the death of Atkinson,
his partners had discovered that he had made pro-
fits of Government Contracts, and by shares in Go-
vernment loans, which ought to have belonged to
the cornpaay. By a reference to Sir Samuel Hannay
and Sir F. Baring, on the 12th June,l7BB, the result
jscif the whole was, that on the 30th April, 1785, Mr.
'Atkinson was indebted to his surviving partners in
1 £31,.500, a balance, which, from circumstances stat-
ed by the arbitrators, might be increased, but could
' not be diminished. A suit was afterwards brought
by the Muirs against the executors of Mr. Atkinson
' for the profits of the loan, but it was put a stop to,
first, by Mr. George Atkinson leaving the country,
' afterwards by the failure of the Muirs. Various at-
tempts had since been made to obtain a settlement of
taccounts, but the executor of Mr. R. Atkinson would
" neither acquiesce in nor dissent from any proposals
made for that purpose. Even when, on a suit brought
by the creditors of Mr. It. Atkinson, the matter came
first before Master Popham, and afterwards before
.Master Thompson, t!‘it executor objected to the Mas-
ter taking the act aunt, on the ground that he had no
jurisdiction in such a matter, it being a partnership
account. The affidavit then went on to state the
conviction of Mr. Robert Muir, that when a state-
ment of accounts shall have been made out, and Mr.
Richard Atkinson shall have received credit for every.
thing that hecnuld beentitled to from the Muirs,at the
time of his (Mr. R. A.'s) death, it would appear that
he was many thousand pounds indebted to the Muirs.
Since the failure of the Messrs. Muirs several divi.
' (lends had been made among their creditors, and no'
attempt to impede them had ever been made till now.
Till this moment the Messrs. Muirs, or their assig-
nees, had never heard of any claim being made
against them by the executor of Mr. Richard Atkin-
son ; on the contrary, the claims had uniformly been '
made by the Messrs. Muirs against the executor of
their deceased partner. No claim, however, nor
shadow of claim, had now been made out on the part
of Mr. Richard Atkinson's executor ; and the Learn-
ed Counsel submitted that the mere statement of Mr.
I George Atkinson could not be sufficient to prevent
the creditors, who already had. as it were, a judg-
ttent in their favour, from receiving their dividend.
Mr. HART and Mr. TROWER, on the same side,
observed, that this bill had been tiled only within
these few days, asking an account of transactions pre-
vious to the year 17115 : and an injunction not for
any period, or as applicable to any particular fund,
but such an injunction as should have,the effect of
stopping all beneficial proceedings under the com-
mission. What disposition had the executor of Mr.
Atkinson shewn to bring these accounts to a 'cute-
ment ; and what obstructions had the Messrs. Muirs,
or their assignees, thrown in the way of such a settle- I
ment ? The conduct of the two parties had been I
quite the reverse of this. Even before the Master, I
the executor objected to the account being taken.—
Why did he allow things to go so far, and then, when
a dividend was about to he made, come with this
bill ? If the present plaintiff had any good right, he
should have come earlier, and by a petition In the
bankruptcy, asking to stay the dividend.
The Loan CIiANCELLOR asked what was the
amount of the dividend to he made ?
Mr. Timer said, one shilling in the pound, amoun- i
ting to about Rsooo or £lO,OOO.
The Lord CHANCELLOR asked, how much would
be left behind ?
Mr. HART said, the whole amount of these estates,
this dividend arising merely from the proceeds.
Sir S. ROSIILLT, in reply, begged it to be observed,)
that this was not an application by a creditor, but by
the executor of Mr. R. Atkinson, warning the assig-
nees of the Messrs. Muirs that they were disposing of
What did sot belong to the Messrs. Muirs, but speci.
fically to the Messrs. Muirs and Mr. Atkinson. Phis'
was the nature of the application. It was not like a I
petition in bankruptcy by a person who was a credi- ,
tor, deairing that the dividend might be stayed, that
he might have an opportunity to prove a debt, but
only an application by a part proprietor of the plan-
tations called Saxon and Caldwall, requiring that the
dividend should not be made out of these estates.—
As to the lateness of the application, the present
plaintiff could not know of the dividend till it was
advertised. He had no wish, however, to stay the
dividend, if the assignees could say there were other
funds from which the plaintiff would be secured. It '
was a mistakcsto say there had been no step taken out
the part of the executor to procure a settlement of
these accounts. He was a party to all the references
which had been spoken of. The result of one of these I
references s!uewed a balance of 434,500 against Mr. 1
R. Atkinson ; but from this there was to be deduc-
ted £21,0n0, which had been paid by Mr. Benfield,
and Mr. R. Atkinson's own share of the estate, with I
neither of which sums he had been credited. The i
objection to proceed before the Master was correct ;
as, whatever had been done by him in a suit where ,
the proper parties were not present, must have been
so much lost. The only question here was, if pro-
perty admitted not to belong to the Messrs. Muirs
alone, can be divided among their creditors, to the
prejudice of their executor of the deceased partner, be- l
fore it has been ascertained, by an adjustment of ac-
counts, that it is to be considered the property of the
su.vivors alone? He was surprised that the assig-
nees should insist on going on, as they must be respon-
sible themselves, having had notice that this was not
the property of Messrs. Muirs. He again said he had '
no wish to put the assignees to inconvenience, if they
would agree that no further dividends should be
made. and that they woul roc* to have the state
of accounts take".

The toRD CHANCIMLOR said, if ails had heed in
application on the part of a creditor, after a delay of
26 years, he should at once know how to deal with it;
but the present was an application of a very different I
nature, and one, the object of which was to prevent
the distribution of that which was not the property
of Messrs. Muirs, but of Messrs. Muirs and Atkinson,
among the creditors of Messes. Muirs alone. If assig-
nees chose to divide the property of Messrs. Muirs and
Atkinson among the creditors of bluirsaione, it was im-
possible to say that they would not be personally liable.
If the state of accounts were ascertained, and a balance
were found to be due to the Messrs. Muirs, then they
would be entitled out of these estates to make good
the deficiency arising on the other assets of Mr. At-
kinson, but not till then. The length of time could in
this case make no difference. Let the dividend now de-
clared be made without prejudice ; and let it go to
the Master, during the long vacation, to ascertain
the state of accounts between the parties. If there
was a demand on either side, the Court would give
i the means of enforcing it as well as it could.

ASSIZES.
BEDFORD, AUGUST 5.

WAnotte v. BAILEY.—This cause, in consequence
of a nonsuit, entered at the former trial having been
set aside, came on to be tried again before Sir JAMES
MANMVELD and a special Jury. The plaintiff, who
is a private in the Bedford Militia, sought to recover
damages for having been arrested and imprisoned
contrary to law.
It will be remembered, that the mill had neglected
to attend a regimental school ; and in consequence of
ex&essions, considered of a mutinous tendency, he
was brought to a Court Martial, and finally acquitted.
After a patient heating of nearly eleven hours, the
Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages,
Al 4. 10s. Si. It was proved that all due diligence
had been used by Col. Whitbread in reporting to his
superior officer the proceedings against the plaintiff.
The cause, WARDEN tr. WHITBREAD, remains for
the Spring Assizes 1812, when the whole question
will be again discussed.

loakfng Tvonttg223M, about 19 yetts of age, find ii as
Apprentice to Messrs. Abraham, Dickenson, and Son.
woolstaplers, iu Leeds. The prosecutria was only la
years of it.;e at the time the offence was committed. -
and, up to Sirnday I.tst, servant to Mr. Cummings.
chilorm an, of the same place. The offence was stated
to have been committed to the night of Good Friday
last, in a stable belonging to the master of the priso-
ner. The parties ware acjnainted with each other....
An attempt was made to assail the character of the
girl in a part which was supposed t 3 be vidneraqe,
and which has hitherto always had great weight in
charges of this nature. But the Judo refused to ad.
mit evidence as to any specific facts to the d.sparage.
snent of the prosecutrix, which were mit necessarily
c.inottted with the present prosecution. This determi.
nation the Counsel for the prisoner cnniid .red as con.
trary to the practice which had ~t late prevailed its
Ciurts on trials of this nature ; and this part of the
defer.ce of the prisoner was n cessarily abaed

HERTFORD, TUESDAY, AUGUST 4.
SAP 4..11 L L tr. WOOD.
This was another action against the Berkeley Hunt.
The Defendant in this cause was Major Wool, and
the trespass alleged to have been ci,mmitted in a place
called Hanging Wood, on the Plaintiff's farm.
A witness of the name of Knowles stated, that on
the day in question he saw Major \Vo.'d, ?h the nni-
f.rm of the Club, riding in the wood in pursuit of a
fox. On the other side, three Members of the Hunt
swore, that Major Wood was never in the pl.tee al.
leged, but rode round a different way.
The Hon. and Rev. Mr. Capel was called to speak
to conversations he had with Snoiall, the plaintiff in
the present action, which in substance WAS—that he
was made an unwilling plaintiff ; that Lord Essex
had influenced his landlord to compel him to give
the Members of the Club notices that he had sus-
tained no damage, not even a farthing's worth, and
he had no objection to the hounds following a fox
over his grounds.
Another Gentleman of the Hunt deposed to the
same expressions from the plaintiff, who had declared
he was sorry to have been ind,iced to bring actions
against his neighbours and former friends, and he
had hoped Lord Essex woold have dropped them,
hut it the action went on, he hoped it would be scouted
out of Court.

Lord alit/Isnot:gm observed, in his charge to
the Jury, that if such WAS the Plaintiff's opinion dills
own action, he need not to have troubled them with
trying of it, but have taken a much shorter method,
by releasing the Defendant. His declaration was,
however, material in another point of view, as it went
to the amount of the damages which he li.►d declared
to have beau done. With respect to a tenant being
obliged to bring actions by his landlord, such a co-
venant might be a very beneficial one to protect the
inheritauce, when dismissed under a long lease, and
if such a power were abused, it .14i not follow that it
might not be used for very beneficial purposes.
The Jury, after some deliberation, found for the
Defendant.

There was another cause of the same description.
which wits withdrawn.