The Statesman.
London, England, 1809-07-19 00:00:00

...

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF COANCERY.
Tuesday, July IS.
Ritaisairaw v. 1111211 MOOD. •
This was a motion on behalf of the Plaintiff,
to remove a Mr. King from being his solicitor,
and that he should pay the costs of a former and
the present motion.
The Plaintiff, who is a man in very humble cir-
cumstances, had, some time since, filed a bill,
claiming an estate under an antiquated family set-
tlement, the discovery and production of which
was prayed by the Defendant. The cause and the
upon= of it were undertaken by a person of the
name of Newton, upon a stipulation that he
should receive 5001. per annum out of 'the estate,
if recovered; and he employed Mr. King as soli-
citor to conduct the suit. In the course of its
progress, a brother of the Plaintiff interfered a
good deal, and, upon a disagreeineut. with Mr.
Newton, made au application to the Lord Chats.
cellor, in the name of the Plaintiff, to remove
Mr. King from being solicitor in the cause, upon
an imputation of delay and misconduct. In order
to counteract this, Mr. Newton prevailed on the'
• Plaintiff to make an affidavit, disclaiming all
kaowledge or approbation of his brother's con.
duct, and that he was highly pleased with the con? ,
duct of Mr. King as solicitor in the cause. The
, Court, upon another motion, grounded on this at.
fidavit, discharged its former order, natured Mr.
King as solicitor for the Plaintiff; and fixed the
brother with the costs.
To support this second application for the re-
moval of Mr. King, and for saddling him with the
costs of the present and the former suit, the Plain.
tiff put in another affidavit, in which he deposed,
that he had been persuaded by Mr. Newton to
swear the former affidavit, without being aware of
its extent and effect, and imputing to him a design
of defeating the claim of the Plaintiff ; but not
charging Mr. King with any misconduct, but
merely as having been employed by Mr. Newton,
and therefore praying his removal.
The Loan CHANCELLOR said, that as the eh".
racier of the Solicitors of this Court was of es.
wind importance to their respectability, he was
always anxious to mark escry dereliction of those
principles which ought to actuate them with the
must exemplary severity ; he was obliged there.
fore to wake the former order upon the imputa.-
lion made in the affidavit against Mr. King ; but,
was exceedingly glad to recal it upon the second
application. Upon the present occasion, how.
ever great the Plaintiff's cause of complaint might
be against Mr. Newton, there was not a, parti-
cle of blame imputed to Mr. King's conduct.
• The Plaintiff certainly had a right to remove Mr.
• king from being his solicitor whenever he pleased,
paying him his costs as well fur the former appli-
*cation as the present.
HORROCK V. SUPPS. : • . -
Mr. Ificr.o, on behalf of the Defendant, .put
in another affidavit, as directed by the Court on a
former day, in which he.denied, in the must poi-
tire terms, all knowledge or consent of any in-
terview between his daughter, Clara itrpp, and
Ilorrocks, the infant. lie particularik declared.,
his ignorance of Mr.• Hurrocks's intention of vi.
siting at Mr. Esdale's, in Haker.street, in the
month of May last, until he saw the young gen.
tleman there, when he took an opportunity of re.
monstrating with him upon the impropriety of his
conduct in continuing to pay his address'', to his
daughter, and earnestly conjuring him to discgn.
tinue his intentions. He again repeated his ,e 0...
approbation of the match, and complained of
the dangerous saltation in which his daughter
was placed, being hourly threatened with the
horrors of a prison, on the slighter intercourse
• with the minor, ‘sho was at 'this moment hii
own master, and might go at any time where he
pleased. Ile therefore prayed the Court for
some restriction upon the actions of Mr. Ilor.
rucks, similar to that which existed against his
daughter.
Sir S. Itomixxv deolined making any comments,
when

The Loup CHANCELLOR said he would take the
affidavit home with him, and give his opinion to.
inurrow.

PIZUCE V. WATSON.

The Plaintiff filed his bill in the character of
Patentee of a particular process for the manufac-
ture of soap, and praying the Defendant might be
restrained from the violation of his patent, by
using the like process. The Defendant, by bill,
answer, denied the Plaintiff was the first inventor
of the process, and his consequent right .to te ex-
chime exercise of it. The Court, upon this, di.
reeled an issue, by the Plaintiff bringing an action
against the Defendant, for the supposed breach of
his right; and, until that was_decided, restrained
the Defendant from the exercise of his claim.
The action was accordingly brought, and a Special
Jury struck, at the instance of the Plaintiff; and
Open the cause being called en at the present Sit-
tings, oily three of the Special Jury attended.
The Plaintiff declined to pray a tales, and the
cause went off without trial.

The Defendant now applied to the Court, to
dissolve the injunction, on the +ground, that the
Plaintiff had not obeyed the spirit of his Lordship's
order, by being the occasion of the cause nut be.'
hug tried, and the injury the Defendant would
sustain, by being thereby put over the long Tacit.,
thin, without a chance of using that which he
claimed a right to, in the mean time. To this it
was replied, that if the Plaintiff refused to pray a
taes, so did the Defendant, who was equally the
cause of the delay in trying the issue ortterwl by
the Court, and therefore he had no cause of cum.
plaint.
litte LORD CHANCELLOR...." When a posses.
'ion is claimed under the sanction of a patents
this Court does not suffer it to be violated without
sufficient grounds, and under this principle the
Issue was ordered. The Plaintiff refused to pray
a tales, and the Defendant did the like, thereby
distinaly admitting the propriety of having the
cause tried by a Special Jury. How, then, can
I, under these circumstances, dissolve the injune.
tion ?" The motion was refused, but without
costs.