Star.
London, England, 1829-11-30 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. go.
• • • nocummr,,—.oLonn a Orem.
The LORD Cuancessam, is this appeal from the Vice-Chan-
cellor, affirmed his Honour's judgment. The simple question was,
whether the plaintiff was or was not entitled to prove a debt under
the joint commission issued against the firm of',O'Nell and Martin?
. The hots were these had entered into a contract with
&Ming, the owner of a vessel, by which the latter undertook that
'his vessel should proceed from Newfoundland to Charleston, and
return to Limerick to deliver a cargo. The freight was to be paid
half in money and the other moiety by a good bill drawn in Lon-
don, at four month's date. Golding performed his part of the
contract, and half the freight in money was paid. A bill was then
drawn, and remitted to Golding who sent it to the house of
O'Neil and 51artin, under the firm of O'Neil and Co. It was left
for acceptance in the usual course, and after remaining there for
several hours, it was delivered by the clerk of the house accepted.
The firm ultimately failed before the bill became due, and the
question was, whether it could be proved under the joint commis-
sion ? Golding knew that it was a several and not a joint contract
at the time he entered into it, and knew that the firm was not
liable. The only circumstance in the case which raised any ques-
tion, was that of the bill being left for acceptance, and accepted in
the way he had mentioned. Upon coutideradon, however, he did
not think that fact varied the case. It was an acceptance of
O'Neil, without the authority of Martin, and therefore Martin's
estate ought not to be made liable for the payment of the debt. The
Commissioners did right. therefore, in rejecting tbe proof. He
should confirm the order of the Vice-Chancellor, by which the de-
cision of the Com Missioners was supported.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 28.
JOHNSON V. MIT.
His Honoua gave Judgment this morning on the question in this
cause. A testator had bequeathed his property in the English
Funds to certain individuals, and it was contended that Exchequer
Bills and other public securities were included is that denomina-
tion. In his Honour's opinion, according to the plain English
acceptation of the words, the testator must be held to mean only
that part of his property which was invested in Consols, and be de-
creed accordingly the costs to be paid out of the testator's estate.
• INJUNCTION.CLZWE V. MAMIE&
Mr. KNIGHT, on the part of the Hon. John Crewe, an infant,
moved for an injunction to restrain the defendants Mr. and
Mrs Cunliffe, from selling, disposing of, or alienating certain
articles of plate, pictures, and furniture, which had been devised
by the late Lord Crewe as heir-looms to pass with the estate
and mansion of Crewe Hall. The Cunliffes were executors
of the will of the late Lord Crewe,and be believed that there were
disputes between them and the present Lord Crewe, the father of.
the plaintiff. He believed also that the present Lord Crewe con-
tested the will of his father. With these disputes, or contests, the
Court had now nothing to do. These heir-looms were left for the
use of Lord Crewe for life, and afterwards for the use of his son.
the present iqfant plaintiff. The defendants threatened to sell them,
and he now prayed an injunction to restrain that sale.
Mr. Seance, for the defendants, said, as be wasinstructed, these
heir-looms were given to the present Lord Crewe on the express
condition that he was not to contest the terms of the will. Lord
Crewe, however, had commenced proceedings to set it aside, and
those persona whose interests :night be injured by the proceedings
of Lord Crewe were now desirous of selling thee, articles in con-
sequence of that refusal: The late Lord Crewe possessed a con-
siderable number of advowsons • these be bad disposed of for the
benefit of certain persons named in his will, and it was in the event
of the present Lord's refusing to accede to and contesting this be•
quest, that he was to be deprived of the benefit of the heir-looms,
and that other parties were to receive the advantage. Now, Lord
Crewe had determined to contest the will, and therefore the exe-
cutors, who were not at all interested, proposed to sell the property.
Mr. HATITS said he had read the will with some attention, and
he did not recollect any passage containing the alternative to which
Mr. Spence alluded, although he admitted there might be such a
passage.
Mr. Seems was instructed to say theta was such a clause.
The Vica-Cnaunoccoa thought that the injunction must be
granted. Supposing Lord Crewe determined to contest the will,
the property must remain as it was until the result of that question
be known ; and even then there was at remainder over to the
Plaintiff, which Lord Crewe's acts could not affect.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 28.
SZ•PARYS SIIRILI/I'S orricas.
Mr. Kat.tor moved for a rule to show cause why an Attorney of
this Court, whose name for the present need not be mentioned,
should Dot pay to the applicant, a Sheriffs officer, a sum of money
which he had lost through the fault of the Attorney. The
officer bad a warrant to arrest a perion of the name of Stirling.
The officer was ready to arrest, when the Attorney in question,
_who appeared coact for Stirling, observed to him that he need not
arrest, as be would give bail. This was five-days before the writ
• was returnable. The Attorney named the sureties, and requested
the dicer to lend him his warrant for a short time, to enable him
to prepare the bail-bond. .The officer, though very reluctantly,
'left his warrant with the Attorney while be went about other bu-
siness. Having finished that business, he called it the Attor-
ney's office for his warrant, and was informed that the Attor-
ney was not at home. In a day or two after he peremptorily
insisted on having his warrant back again, but the Attorney
left word that be would not return it, and both he and Stirling
kept out of the way till after the writ was returnable. An action
was then brought against the Sheriff for not arresting, to which
thete was no defence • and the officer, under his indemnity to the
Sheriff, was compelled to pay the money, and. besides lost the
Sheriffs business, and being a poor man, was almost ruined
by this conduct of the Attorney. Under these drcumstances, be
hoped •the Court would interfere in a summary way, and compel
•
the Attorney to make the officer some compensation.•
Mr. Justice Lern.araxe—Had the Attorney. received any of the
?
money
Mr. KELLY—That did not appear.
Mr. Justice Larcsnacx—How, then, could the Court interfere
in this summary manner? On that principle this Court would be
oiled on to interfere summarily in all cases against attorneys,
whether civil or criminal. If you have lost the money through his
misconduct, you may bring an action against him.
Mr. Keszy—lt is an extremely hard case on this poor man.
Mr. Justice Bar:me—Perhaps so; but can we, for that reason,
interfere in this summary way It appears in the statement that
they are both is peel debit% for the officer left the warrant with
the attorney, which he ought not to have done.—Rule refused.
=HINSON V. VALET.
Mr. Justice &Tarr announced, that the Judges bad consulted
Mr. Justice Boaacruan, before whom the action was tried. It was
an action on a bill of eichange for .2300. accepted by John Wllbs,
for the Cornwall ann Devon Mining Company, against the defen-
dant, a shareholder. The verdict was for the plaintiff but this
Court, on argument, was of opinion either that a nonsuit should be
entered, or a new trial granted ; and on consulting with Mr. Justice
Busammat, they were now of opinion that a nonsuit ought to be
entered.—Rule anointe for the nonsuit.
GAISSVOSD V. MAME/ILL.
• Mr. Culver bad obtained a role to show cause why the defen.
dant should not be discharged out of the custody in which be was
held in execution,on the ground that the plaintiff bad failed in the
regular payment of his weekly allowance tinder the Lords' .Act.
Mr. Tsunami showed cause against the rule. This was a re-
newed application, for the same application bad beat made to Lord
Tenterden, by whom it bad been rejected. The whole question
which their Lordships had to decide upon in this case was, whe-
ther a shilling paid on the 51st of August by a clerk
lo)feasoraintiff
to Jones, a turnkey of Wititecrose4treet prison, for of the
defendant, was a good or a bad one?
Mr. Justice BATLIT....It was the rule of this Court that the
turnkey was the agent for the defendant in receiving the money ;
and that, when the turnkey accepted, the plaintiff had done all that
was incumbent on hint. 'To he sure, if a plaintiff or his servant
were to place the money in the turnkey's hand, and then run away
immediately, without giving the turnkey time to examine it, that
would alter the case. That was not the fact here; and after all it
was doubtful whether the shilling Was not a good one.
Mr. Justice LSITLIDALZ and Mr. Justice Peens concurred with
Mr. Justice Eimer; who said that the rule ought to be refused
with cams : and the plaintiff might get them as he best could.—
Rule discharged with costs.—Michaelmas Term ended.
BOARD OF EXCISE, Nov. 28.
James Allen, landlord of the King's Arms, Neptune-street,
Welklese-square, was charged with having spirits. in his possession
without a permit. On the night of the teeth April ilia defendant
was mopped in Upper East Smithfield, carrying 2k gallons of gin
is a stone bottle: In his defence be said that he bad received the
gin io question from another, pubikan.to whom be had lents similar
quantity a•shert rime before. He. had noperratt,,—The..Consmis-
stoners cooderosed tfie gin, and finettthe defendant 45.
SHERIFFS COURT (MID, •LICSEX).

summon At. rmiLeta.

This was an inquisition to assess the damages in an atlas for an
assault. The plaintiff is a builder at.Brompton sad dm defendant
an es-iroomonger : they were jointly interested in some building
that was going on at the above place respettingwhich they bad high
words. and the defendant at length struck. tka...phsintiff a. blow
which brought him to the ground, and by which ens of his teeth
was knocked dart.—The jury amused the damage, at 410. . .
Weineiany evening Os Cap* ,Sunderland, of the
t.,
disc.
rawileara. was returning, treat. 604 War WM Dour
near the barrack. and we day say MW:A town:of allingar. be was
suddenly knocked down by some miliaria who Acts ran off with
his pn.— firatmealls Aurae.