Star.
London, England, 1829-07-27 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

•
,

.•.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Ins
POINT OF PRACTICE.--FRY V. WATSON.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT. Jost IS.
THE VIGO BAY SCHEME.

-- - -
Mr. Temple applied to set aside an order, granting an
injunction made by his Honour the Vice Chancellor upon
an interpleading bill. The plaintiffs, the solvent partners
of Fry and Co. late bankers, had admitted by their bill
quit they held in their hands 8711. belonging to the de-
fendant, Mrs. Watson. The executors of her husband
had likewise claimed the amount, and brought an action
to recover it, triable at the present Assizes in Shropshire.
A suit in this Court had also been instituted by Mrs.Wat-
ton in respect of it. No affidavit had been made that a
counter claim had been set up for the money before the
filing of the bill, and yet, merely on the assertion of the
party, the Vice Chancellor had issued the injunction to
restrain the trial. In Langstone v. Boylatone, in 2d
Vesey, it was decided the practice of the Court required
an affidavit, and as none had been filed, the Learned
Counsel submitted the injunction ought to be dissolved.
Mr. Lovat and another gentleman appeared on the
other side. They denied the necessity, according to the
practice of the Court, of having an affidavit. The deci-
sion in " Walbank v. Spokes," supported the practice
that had now been adopted. If an affidavit had been
deemed necessary, one would have been instantly filed.
The Lord Chancellor put several questions to those
around him, for the purpose of ascertaining what the
practice was ; and in the result said, " L find upon this,
Sir Anthony Hart, when Vice-Chancellor, was dis:
finely deceived upon the practice being one way, and the
present Vice-Chancellor is of opinion that it is the other
way. The experience of the Registrar is, that it is not
necessary to have an affidavit in order to entitle the party
to an injunction. The prevailing opinion at the bar is,
that it has been usual to file an affidavit before applying
for the injunction. These contending views will cause
me to adopt the usual course of ascertaining with still
more precision what the practice really is or ought to be,
and then to settle it. I shall state on Monday what the
rule is."

The Solicitor-General (with whom was Messrs. Horne
and Richards) applied to his Honour on behalf of Mr.
Polhill, calling upon the directors of the Vigo Bay Com-
pany to deliver up all the deeds, papers, and documents
respecting the above scheme, and that they should be
deposited in the Master's Office, so that they might be
inspected by all the parties concerned.
Mr. Horne said, he thought there could be no objec-
tion to the defendants complying with the request, par-
ticularly as his client did not ask them for any of the
treasure.

The Solicitor-General said, he did not believe there
was any treasure; but if there was, the defendants should
have the benefit of it for the present.
Mr. Ellison, for the defendants, contended that it
would not be proper for his clients to grant the applica-
tion, inasmuch as there was a certain action at law now
pending respecting some of these very documents, which,
if lodged in the Master 'S office, would expose their defence.
Counsel on both sides consulted for a short time.
The Solicitor-General said, it was not the wish of his
client to press for the immediate production of the
papers connected with the trial in question—they should
be excepted.
His Honour then directed that all the books, papers,
and documents belonging to the Company should ,be
lodged in the Master's Office, with the exception of
those relating to the trial now pending.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY LI.
LIEELi.-MUREAY V. SCOWLER.

The Attorney-General (with *loin were Menem.
Bioughani arid Richards) stated that the defendant was
proprietor of two newspapers, The Mancheider Courier
gad The Manchester Herald, and the action was brought
by the plaintiff against them, to recover compensation in
damages for several libels published against them in these,
papers, in September and October, 1827. The plaintiff
witi a young man, lately come of age, Who was early
noted for his talent in making surveys ; and he, before he
was nineteen years of age, projected a work which pro-
mised, if well execttted, to be of great public benefit, and
to produce a fortune to himself; that was, to make an
accurate survey, and publish a map, of the inland navi-
gation of the vicinity of Manchester—a vicinity almost
intersected with canals. Accordingly he set to work, and
hdd, in 1827, made considerable progress, and obtained
a great number of subscribers. In 1827, Messrs. Nichol„
Mid two other gentlemen of Wakefield, applied to the
plaintiff to join with them, as they were preparing a work
of the same kind. The Attorney-General here gave a
very minute statement of the circumstances, but, from
the manner in which the case terminated, without any
evidence on the Merits, it will be most proper, at present,
tcititati the nature of the case generally, without im-
plicating any one. The plaintiff allowed that the propo-
sition was the, he should be a partner with a fourth share ;
tlftit. Menne. Nichol and Co. after deliberation, were not
'*}fling to comply with this, but offered him a liberal
nitetnance for his assistance ; that he rejected this, and
prepared to proceed for himself, and that the Messrs.
Wild had represented him tie having been disinissed
fiain their service in advertisements of their •own work,
which were published by the defendant in his papers„ to
the great injury of the plaintiff and his work. This action
Wski for the publication in the Manchester Courib..
The affidavit of proprietorship, from the Stamp Office ,was
'reduced, and a copy of the paper wits offered in evidence,
ei It might be by an Act of the 33d Geo. 111. without
f that it had come from the defendant's office, in case
the copy corresponded exactly with the title, &c. as set
out in The Cattle, end with the affidavit et the stamp
ecfe. It was discovered that fhe copy did not corres-1
• plaid with the affidavit. The stamp office copy was' not
signed by the defendant, as the custom with respect to
the &mail papers was far 4hb copy signed by the pro-
"niter to be sent to the local Minim distributor, and then
the local distributor sent to the General Stamp-office *
c,y signed by himself.
bird Tenterden said, that the Act gave great power to
plaintiffs, and that the conditions must be strictly com-
plied with, Which here they were not ; sad he thought
the objection fatal. If they had the copy signed by the
defendant, it Might have assisted them.—Plaintiff non-
suited.

Setirdey Morning, about one o'clock, during the storm
of thunder and lightning which visited the metropolis, a
6e Stoke out in Cagle-greet, Southwark, at the house'
a oil,. Forth, a fig Maiuficturef, which soon conitmi-,
ateated Au the adjoining poetises; in the occupation of
MC Jepson, both of whioll Wits destroyed. The in-
taglio of the lattEflustige hid d arrow escape, ,titled mite
titled by hag, ne the roof of Mr.
. lose "ibis* ii4y. *fa A
admitted thiotth go
AT- • tin a state of nudity.

.iii