Star.
London, England, 1827-07-23 00:00:00

DOWNIZ AND NAGNALL.

Mr. MERIVALS applied in this cause for an order of
reference to the Master to approve of a settlement to be
made on the marriage of a young Lady who was a ward
of the Court. The mother and the guardians of the
Lady consented, and there were pressing circumstances
which rendered it advisable that the marriage should
take place with as little delay as possible.
Toe order was accordingly granted as prayed.
MARSH AND CO.'S BANKRUPTCY.

The motion for the new trial of an issue in this mat-
ter was fixed fat Monday, when Mr. Sergeant 13osurr-
gUaT and Mr. Pou.ocx are to attend to argue.
At the rising of the Court Mr. Cum; moved for the
usual order, that a Gentleman who had mat ried a ward
of the Court without permission shou9 be summoned
to attend his Lordship. The parties had been traced to
Dover, but whither afterwards was not known, although
it was supposed they were in Fiance.
The Loan CHANCILLOR ordered the parties to mend
him on Tuesday.

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JOLT 21.

The VICE CHANCELLOR, on being applied to to make
an order in a certain cause, declared that he would never
make any orders, even of course, without having read
the papers. He had reasons for adopting this plan; but
at the same time he begged it to be understood, that if
papers were handed up to him at night, he would read
them before morning, and make the necessary orders
in the causes.

MILBURN V. CODD.

This was a case in which the plaintiff, a shareholder
in, and solicitor to, the London Carrier Company, had
filed a bill against the defendant Codd, banker to the
Company, and other persons, to compel them to ac-
count for money which they had received from the sale
of the stock in trade of the Company.
The defendant Codd demurred, and the case now
came on upon the demurrer.
Mr. LOVA? was heard for the defendant, and in sup-
port of the demurrer. The plaintiff Milburn bad filed
a bill against several shareholders in a Joint Stock Corn-
pany called the London Carrier Company, praying,
among other things, for an account ; for an injunction
against all the other members of the Company from te•
ceiving any money due to the concern; and, in any
event, that he (Mr. Milburn) might be paid for the
professional business which be had done for the Com-
pany in preparing the deed of settlement and other
matters. The bill recited this deed of settlement, but
he (Mr. Lovat) would only trouble the Court with one
or two of its provisos. One clause declared that the
partnership should be carried on for the term of 99
years, or until it was dissolved under certain powe rs,
afterwards expressel. The second clause to which he
would call the attention of ttre Court was, that all debts,
liabilities, and engagements incurred by the Company
ince the 6th of May, 1826, together with the expense.
of the deed of settlement, should be defrayed out of the
funds of the asscciation. His Honour would tecol-
lett that Mr. Milburn had prayed, that whatever be-
came of the matter, he, at all events, might be paid. The

deed contained another very particular clause which tt-
lated to the dissolution of the Company; it declared that
'a dissolution of the Company might Woefully take place
by consent and approbation of three' members of the
Committee of Management, 'or the time being, toga-
ther with the votes of three-fourths of the proprietors ;
that after such dissolution the affairs of the Company
should be wound up; the debts against them satitfied;
all the stock, property, and effects converted into money,
and their debts collected; and then, that the remainder
of the assets, if any, should be divided among the pro-
prietors according to the value of their respective share
or shares. His Honour would see, from this, that there
was one, and only one way in which the Company
could be legally dissolved. The plaintiff, in this bill,
went on to charge that Messrs. Codd, bankers, for
whom he appeared, had a large balance of money, the
property of the Company, in their hands. The bill also
stated, that some of the Shareholders of the said Com-
pany, without the consent of the plaintiff, and in direct
violation of the deed of partnership, took upon them-
selves to dissolve the said Company, and passed a reso-
lution, that from the Sd of January, 1827, its operatic) s
should cease ; that the defendants, or some or one of
them, had sold the horses, carts, and other stock of the
Company, and that they, or some or one of them, had a
large sum of money in their hands belonging to the
said Company. The plaintiff then submitted, that as
the Company was not dissolved agreeably to the deed
of settlement, he was entitled to call for the payment of
his shares, or to make them give an account of the
Money in their hands, and pay over to the plaintiff the
balance due to him according to the value of his shares.
The plaintiff charged that he had applied to the dif.
ferent parties, but that they had refused to comply with
his demands. _ _

The VICE,CHANCELLOR—But upon what grounds do
you found ydur demurrer ?
Mr. LOVAT said that they founded the demurrer
upon the ground of their agreeing entirely with the
plaintiff that the partnership was not dissolved agree-
ably to the deed of settlement.
The VICE-CUINCELLOR—Putting in a demurrer is an
odd way of agreeing in the equity of a bill.
Mr. LovAT raid, the point which he had to submit
to his Honour was this: They ccncurred entirely with
the plaintiff, that the partnership had not been dissolved
as the deed of settlement required, and that, conse-
quently, the partnership still existed; but the partner-
ship still existing, the plaintiff had no equity that would
entitle him to an account. Upon the plaintiff's own
shewing, via. that the partnership had not been legally
dissolved, his equity fell to the ground, and for that
reason the defendants had demurred.
The VICI•CHANCILLOR said the case was too clear
for him to allow it to proceed any further. The defen-
dants admitted by their demurrer all the facts charged
in the bill; and, to put an end to this dilatory mode
of proceeding, he should dismiss the demurrer with
full costs.

Mr. Lovarr said, that with respect to full costs, he
was obliged to say, that the demurrer was not put in
for the purposes of delay, but by the advice of Counsel.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR was very well aware that
every proceeding of that Court must be signed by
Counsel ; but he could not listen to any exculpation of
that kind. He thought that the principle on which a
demurrer ought or ought not to be allowed was eri•
dent in the order of 93, made by Lord Rossiya. His
Lordship had made that order from a consideration of
the delay and expense which suitors experienced by
allowing demurrers, and he was sorry that that order
had become so much a dead letter. It was only common
justice to the suitors to compel the payment of full costs
on occasions of this nature.

Mr.LOVAT repeated that the demurrer was not put
in for the purpose of delay.
The Vice-CuencaLLon was sorry to differ from Mr.
Lovat ; but he had known suitors put to the expense of
SOL on similar occasions, and all that was allowed them
was perhaps 51. If the most experienced Counsel of
the Corset told him that he had advised a demurrer of
this nature, he should only reply, that his (the Vice.
Chancellor's) duty to the suitors of the Court demanded
that be should dismiss it with full costs. . .

Mr. SUODEN said, that no less than seven months'
delay had been obtained by this demurrable dr murrer.
The Vica CHANCELLOR said, that he had had as much
business, perhaps, as any Chancery Barrister, and that
he did not think that he had ever filed three pleas or
demurrers in his life.
Mr. LOVAT said, that he had never put in a demur-
rer for the purpose of frustrating the ends of justice.
The Vics CHANCELLOR gave Mr. Lovat full credit
for that. He could assure him, however, that he had
talked with the highest authorities upon this subject,
and that he was supported by those authorities in the
sentiments he had just expressed. He would now de-
clare unequivocally, once for all, that whenever the
case was so broad and plain, that it was manifest
the demurrer could not hold, he should feel it his duty
to dismiss it with full costs. By taking this course, he
merely indemnified one side from the mispleading of
the other.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY £t.