Star.
London, England, 1818-03-09 00:00:00

LAW EiT4.LIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, MARCH 7.
HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE PRINCESS OF WALES
V. LORD LIVERPOOL AND OTHERS.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL moved the Court on be-
half of Count Munster, brother of her Royal High-
ness the Princess of Wales, and the Earl of Liver-
pool, who were the joint executors of the late Duke
of Brunswick, that her Royal Highness might be or-
dered to produce and submit to the inspection of the
defendants two promissory notes or instruments
drawn in august, 1816, by the late Duke of Bruns-
wick, in favour of her Royal Highness, the one for
the sum of fifteen thousand pounds sterling, and the
other for the same sum of fifteen thousand pounds,
payable in Louis d'ors. He founded his motion on
the affidavit of Count Munster, stating, that her
Royal Highness the Princess of Wales had filed her
bill in this Court against him and the Earl of Liver-
pool, as executors of the Duke of Brunswick, to re-
cover the amount of the money contained in the in-
struments in question ; and further stating, that hav-
ing been called upon to put in his answer to thebill,
he ceuld not safely do so, or prepare a defence to the
suit of her Royal Highness, unless he had a previous
inspection of the instruments alleged to have been
given by the late Duke to her Royal Highness. The
principle on which this application was made—by
motion upon affidavits, rather than by a cross bill,
for a discovery—was, that if the defendants filed a
cross bill, they would, in the due and ordinary course
of practice,. be compelled to put in their answers to
the bill of her Royal Highness, before they could
have the benefit of her Royal Highness' answer to
their bill.

Sir ARTHUR PIGOI T was on the same side, and
insisted that in point of practice the motion tow sub-
mitted to the Court was one which ought to be en-
tertained.

Sir SAMUEL Rostitiv, on the part of her Royal
Highness, contended that no such motion as the pre-
sent one had ever been made in this Court with suc-
cess ; and he was well persuaded that no circam-11
stance but the dignity of the parties could ever have
induced his Learned Friends to have risked such a
motion. He was assured his Lordship would, in
this case, divest his mind of every consideration
founded upon the illustrious rank of the contending
parties, and would decide upon the same f rinciples
as if, instead of the plaintiff being her Rod al High-
ness the Princess of N 1 ales, she had been Sarah Smith,
or any other obscure ilidividuaL His Learned Friends
must have been aware, that where a defendant, in a
suit of equity, wanted the inspection of a document,
in order to enable him to put in his answer, and that
such document was in the possession of the plain-
tiff, the uniform course was to file a cross bill, calling
upon the plaintiff to produce it. His experience had
not furnished him with an instance where a different
mode of obtaining a sight of a document required by
a defendant had been successfully resorted to, and if
xich an application could prevail, it would be a vio-
latien of the established practice of the Court for,
ages ; the precedent he considered would be danger-
ous in the extreme, and therefore he was well per-
suaded his Lordship would hesitate a long while be-
fore he gave it his sanction.
After some further arguments had been heard on
both sides,

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that he hoped in
this case, as well as in every other, he should decide
with strict and impartial justice. He had nothing to
do with those who came into that Court but to con-
sider them as plaintiff and defendant. This was a
bill filed by the Priacess of Wales against two persons
who are executors of the Duke of Brunswick, and
it was filed to obtain payment out of the assets of
the Duke of Brunswick of two bills, which had been
given by him to her Royal Highness. The defend-
ants stated they had been aivised that it was mate-
rial to them to insist on her Royal Highness's de-
mand being made out in the first instance by the
production of the bills. He held it his duty to dis-
pense the same measure of justice as he should do
between other parties. It was a case of very great
importance with reference to the practice of the
Court. He should say but little on the subject, be-
cause he did not intend to give his final judgment
till a future day. Nis Lordship remarked, that in
Courts of Law, it had been the practice for ages to
insist on having a profert of a speciality, and here his
Lordship alluded to cases in the time of Lord Mans-
field,and also quoted the opinion of the Learned Judge
upon the subject, as founded upon what he conceived
to have been the practice of Courts of Equity.—
His Lordship, speaking with deference of such a man
as Lord Mansfield, said he did not appear to him to
have recollected what a Court of Equity would have
done upon the questions to which he had referred;
but his Lordship added, that the cases at law did not,
as he apprehended, apply to the present case. The
present case could be decided with reference only to
the practice of that Court. There might be particu-
lar exceptions to general rules of practice, but then
care must be taken that the Court should be satisfied
the exception did actually exist. It became him,
therefore, with reference to all those rules by which
the production of instruments was enforced, to recol-
lect what it was those rules required. The bill stated
that a double security had been given for the sane
sum. It would be necessary h&eafter, when the an-
swer was filed, to look at the bill, in order to see
what the bill said ; but as the answer was not put,
and as the defendants alleged they could not put it
in without the previous production of the instru-
ments, he must look at the affidavit on which the pre-
sent mdtion was grounded, to see that it stated a case
forming an exception to the general rule of practice.
He should read the papers, and look at some of the
notes he had taken as the argument had proceeded,
and would deliver himself on this subject on Tuesday
next. The Court was extremely crowded to-hear this
motion.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MARCH 7.
BROOKS V. S. J. ARNOLD, ESQ.

This was an action far goods sold and delivered.
Mr. MARRYATT stated the case to the Jury. The
plaintiff, he said, was a timber merchant ; the defen-
dant was the proprietor of the English Opera House,
and the present plaintiff's demand was for timber
furnished for the building of that Theatre. It ap-
peared that, originally, Mr. Arnold's contract was
with Messrs. Robinsons as builders ; and Messrs. Ro-
binson: contracted with others to supply them with

the matedals which *ley wanted. The timberlloer'l
chant with whom Mr. Robinson contracted for the
timber was this plaintiff; and, up to a certain period
of the work, namely, up to the month of March,
1816, Mr. Brooks supplied Robinson with timber,
being paid for it by Mr. Yatman. At this time, 400,
ever, the payments ceasing to be regular, Mr. Brooks
declined supplying any more to Mr. Robinson. He
was applied to on the subject by Mr. Beasley, Mr.
Arnold s surveyor, but still refused to supply any
more umber on Mr. Robinson's account. He, how-
ever, consented to supply the timber which might be
wanted on Mr. Arnold's credit ; and he did accord-
ingly supply the timber in future to Mr. Arnold, and
the orders for all future supplies of timber were fur-
nished upon orders signed by Mr. Beasley ; and as Mr.
Arnold had another account with Mr. Brooks, which
he called his yearly account, to distinguish this ac-
count respecting the Theatre from the private ac-
count, Mr. Beasley's orders always specified that the
supply was for the general account. The balance
due to Mr. Brooks upon this general account was up-
wards of 4001. and to recover that sum the present
action was brought. The defence to he set up was,
that Mr. Arnold was no party to this second agree-
ment, and that he had already been charged the sum
in question by Robinson's trustees.
Mr. Beasley was examined.—He began to coun-
tersign Robinson's orders for timber in May, 1816.
He was not authorized by Mr. Arnold to do it, but
did it as general agent to Mr. Arnold. Ile did it
because he saw that unless he adopted this course
the Robinsons would not bz able to go on with the
contract. He gave Brooks a verbal guarantee to
this effect, that if, when the theatre was finished;
there should be nothing due to the Hohinsons, then
Mr. Arnold would be answerable, and upon this
agreement the plaintiff was to supply timber, and
did supply it.
Lord ELLExaonoucat.—.' Then the money was to
come out of Arnold's pocket, although he might ap-
ply any sums which should become due to Robinson
in the course of the work to that purpose ?"
. _

Mr. SCARLET?.-" Yes, my bird :and I can prove
under Mr. Brooks's own hand, that Mr. Arnold has
paid to him above SOO/. which he ought otherwise to
have paid to Robinson."

Lca:cl ELLENEOROUGH held that this was a special
contract. It now appeared that the final settlement
between Brooks and Arnold must depend on the final
settlement between Robinson and Arnold; that set-
tlement had not taken place. The contract was in-
definite; it was a foolish contract, but the plaintiff
must abide by it.—Plaintiff nonsuited.