The Statesman.
London, England, 1818-11-19 00:00:00

_ .
.

VICIiICIONcELLO 11.1 COU4T, Nov. IS.
II . .
ALIIII AnD OTHERS V.. CABIPBELF..
The Derentiabtlad advanced several sums of mo.
lltey to the firm of Widened Co. iiNfitTerent times,
'from 1794 to 1798, and elites* aceotrtst 'had been
.kept up between the partite. Petrie end .Co.
reailed various bonds and mortgages with the De-
?
ndant, as securities for his ;thaws, A Cemtniii-
'si;4l of Bankruptcy had been issued esainst Petrie
'anti Co. kind the assignees on the bankrept estate had
-filed' Lill against the Defendant, praying tit& he
.'fight be compelled to exhibit a statement or ail deal•
Ind transactions between him and Petrie
, and Co., and also a list of all the deeds deposited in
his hands, as securities for his advances. Against the
first part of this petition a plea had been entered by
_lb. DetentlAnt, on the ground that in October, 1798,
ou h4lanted account of all dealings and transactions
bed been given in by Petrie and Co. to the De-
fendatit,.irt which they acknowledged the balance.
• Mr. IIAuT, for the Plaintiffs, said, that if sn ac.
Count had been settled, and the balance agreed ony
, be ,would rolniir that they could not call for another
secoont of transactions anterior to that settlement.
.But he appteliended that the object of the plea went
further than to bar this enquiry. Various sums of
nuAiley bad been taken op on the s. rarities; and he
was apprehensive that the expression `4 tit-dings end
transactions". used in the bill, m glut shelter the De-
fetol.ii.t from Put ooquiry re.pecting these ?.urns.
VICE (.:1 NCE1.1.0n...-411.4 plea does not bar that
enquiry ; it only refers to the inspection of items of
• . account, op to the date of the last settlement. There
is in the bill a distinclion here eon " dealings and
transactions," and '6 the del.ositing of securities."
Now the plea of the Defendant applies only to the
flea; it does not protect him from producing the se.
corities.

Mr. Bt,tas.—At the foot of the *refloat, there is
a meEnntailflum st4ine, that Petrie and Co. are ac•-
coentable to the Defendant for 20,0001 stock. This
sum is not stated at all in the account ; and conse-
quently, if this plea he good, the I),lend.trir may re-
fuse to account to tht Plaintiffs for the dividends of
this Cock prior to the date of the settled account.
Vice-CitaercEr.Lon Then the plea covers too
much. The memorandum admits that the parties must
game to SCCoUtlt for the dividends of the stork.

Air. Put.r..—.Nly Learned Friend is in a mistake.
The disidends, prior to Oethber, 1795, are stated in
she, accoun►, a►►d consequently they are to be ac.
counted fdr only subsequently to that date.
VICE CII tNCELLOR.-Nly opinion is, that the plea
is good. The Counsel far the Plaintiffs have fallen
into a great mistake, ifs supposing that the plea es.
tends to the whole bill ; whereas it relates only to
'• transactions," d stiTtguished from " securities:9.es
On the latter theeflefondant is bound to comply.
BELLAMY V. MFLL. _ _

•- The Plaintiff Mod a hill in compel the Defendant
fo account to him for his shsre of the profits arising
from theiabour of a horse, which the Plaintiff .tatty!

they had purrlißsed in partnership. The Defendairt ;
pleaded that he i! (I
snot buy7the horse in partnerships
nor (lid the Plain!iil pay any share of the price.
After heavirg Mr. HORNE in support of the plea,:
•nd Mr. Bmticea for the Pteiutig,
T 1 eV JCR- CHA 74CILLLon said, that thiscase WWI ren• ;

deted itnpottaro, by the nature of the Defendant's
plea. The !!itliculty Of negative pleas bad stit.ck
every Judge. Lord Thurlo.w doubted mach on this
subject • and he (the Vice•Chanceltor) did not un.
deratarui his doubts until he itinself..,as in the same
eituation, end felt the same embaxrassmen t. The
icotty bed often been felt, but bail oeV.r been met.
It appeared to Mtn,
.that the best way of meeting it
was to make it a ride of Court, "that a oil/alive plea
should not be cowl:unless. accompteled4yen
ewer to every circumstance relating to the Pleistite
ti,iiin.