The Statesman.
London, England, 1821-12-19 00:00:00

..

COURT OF CHANCERY, Temper, Dte. IS.

?MIMI ADD I DAPPLE V. CADIELL AND MAW.,
MAD. AND OTKILIDI.
This was an appeal from the judgment of the Vice
Chancellor, upon the matter of a bill Mid by the plain-
tiffs under the following circumstances :—The plain-
tiffs were of a party of persons who, is the year 1804,
bed agreed to establish two Newspapers, under the re-
spective titles of The Biitiek Prue sad The Globe ;
'entering into certain resolutions and articles for the
• support and management of the same. These parties
continued partners in the concerto op to the year 1807.
Duritig the interval, the Papers had not been so suc-
cessful as was anticipated, and several of the proprie-
tors proposed to discontinue one of the Papers. Their
opinions differed so much about the esmilecting of
the concern, that several expressed a wish to have the
whole mid for the benefit of the proprietors. At length
it was agreed upon, by a majority of proprietors, at a
meeting held in December, 1807, that the two Papers
should be sold ; and, in pursuance of this resolution,
the property was sold, by private contract, to Mr. G.
Lane, for the sum of 4,6001., it being the highest
sum bid for the same. The plaintiffs, who bad an in-
t terest of thirty-one parts only in the concern, bad
at all times opposed the selling of the Papers, anti pro-
tested against the sale before it was completed. The
sale, however, was completed, and the committee of
proprietors who conducted the negotiation, duly in-
f. 'ruled the plaintiffs. as well as all other proprietors,
of the same, and tendered to them the proportions of
the purchase-money to which they were entitled.—
Mr. Lane afterwards took into partnership a number
of gentlemen, who had hien proprietors of the Paper
before the sale. The plaintiffs being of opinion that

their rights and interests had been compromised by
the transfer of the property, filed a bill in equity, in
which they prayed to be put upon an equality with the
present proprietors. The grounds on which they sup-
ported their claim to this extensive relief were—that
the votes of the majority of the proprietors, though
sufficient to bled the whole as to the administration of
the concern ; yet were not competent to effect a dis-
solution of the partnership, and a sale of the property.
They next stated that, even had the majority of votes
been capable of effecting such a 'Leasure, yet the
mode in which-the transaction was done, presented a
great many circumstances which would induce
a Court of Equity to regard it with suspicion.—
For instance, it was agreed upon that the property
should be sold, not by public auction but by private
contract. That the sale was hurried, and a partial
notice of it only given. That the biddiags were sea t
to sealed to the Committee. That it happened, very
•strangely, that William Stewart, one of the defendants
bad sent in an offer of 4,500/., and was out-bid by the
fortunate applicant by 1001. Lastly, they alleged
that Mr. Lane bad been merely a stalkiag-horse in the
transaction ; that he was set up by the body who af-
terwards became the partners with him in the establish-
ment, those very persons forming the majority who de-
termined upon the sale of the property, and who after-
wards completed it with Mr. Lane.
• The defendants put in their answer, in which they
denied or endeavoured to refute the allegations of the
Bill.

After hearing the case, the Muter of the Rolls de-
creed that the plaintiffs were entitled to be restored to
their thirty-first share each. The plaintiffs appealed
front this judgment, being of opinion that they were
entitled. on the grounds above stated, to much more
extensive relief, -
Mr. HART and Mr. RAITHRT argued the case for
the plaintiffs at considerable length.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took occasion to observe
that the decree of the Master of the Rolls was obvi-
ously deficient as to one point. It was evident that he
considered these plaintiffs as entitled to their share. It
also would appear that he considered Lane as in pos-
session of the whole. Now, under such circumstances,
bow was•the concern to be carried on. Were these dm e
persons to be the only partners in the concern ? and
bow was it to be regulated ? It appeared to him,
therefore, that either the Bill should have been dis-
missed, or the plaintiffs should have had a much larger
measure of relief.
Mr. WRTHRRELL observed that his clients, the de-
fendants, had an appeal likewise against the same judg-
ment, as they were of opinion that the Bill should
have been dismissed.
The case for the appellants bring closed, the fur-
ther bearing was postponed to Thursday.

COURT OF MU 'S BENCH, Dac. 18.
Middlesex Adjourned sittings after Miehaehnas Term before
the Lord ChiefJ Bailee and Common Juries.

NORRIS V. WARDEN AND OTHERS.

This was an action of assault and Lase imprison-
ment.

Mr. MARITATT was for the plaintiff, and Mr,
SCAILITT for the defendant,

The defendant had been a tradesman at Salisbury,
in Wiltshire and was declared a bankrupt. The de-
findants, attorneys of that city, were appointed
Commissioners to open the Commission, and upon the
plaintiff's third examination, having given, as was al-
leged, unsatisfactory answers touching his affairs, he
was committed to prison. He was afterwards brought
up to London by Habeas Corpus, and discharged, after
two months confinement, and this action was brought
to recover a compensation in damages fur the impri-
sonment, the plaintiff having given an undertaking
to give material evidence in the county. of Middlesex.
—There being nothing to prove that the defendants
bad done any thing in the county of Middlesex, and
therefore chewing that the cause of action arose therein,
Mr. Scasturrr, for the defendant, submitted that
the • ennt. ought to have been laid in Wilts, and not
in liciiesex, and consequently that the plaintiff must
be nonsuited, not having conformed to this undertak-
ing above mentioned. He founded the objection
upon a case recently decided under the like circum-
stances.

Mr. Martaraww wa• heard in answer. to the objec-
tion ; bot

The LID Cause Jurrica was of opinion that the
objection was insuperable, and therefore directed the
plaintiff 'to be Non-spited.
ORM' lESQ. V. HIRT. •ND OTHERS.
This irk action on the ease, to recover a com-
poliestioaw t Ares, for an injury done by the Je-
t oloon.; air -under the Coss„issioners of Sewers