The Statesman.
London, England, 1818-07-10 00:00:00

THE STATFSMAN.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JOLT 9.

The Court of Chancery was this day again throng-
ed, under the imprestion that the Louie CHANCEL.
Loa would IMP gilren judgment in the case of Lady
Emily Vane Tempest. No farther proceedings, how-
ever, took place in respect to it.
His Lordship was occupied the whole day in hear-
ing As farther arguments of Counsel in en appeal
cause, in which a Mr. Dudley and others are Plain-
tiffs, and a Mr. Freeman and others are. Defendants.
The point at issue is merely what construction should
be pot on the will of the testator, of 'no interest to
any but the persons concerned.
ROLLS COURT, JULY 9.

ship with Gray, who, before the Were of Clarke,
had got an assignment of all she partnership proper-
ty, and who had of course taken open himself the
payment of all the partnership debts: The whole
question in this cause was, Whether the bit), is
question were to be considered a pertwei.ship
debt, or whether Clarke had obtained the eCeipt:,
sores of the Pleintiff merely for his own Pilatife bat!,
,and accommodation.
Mr. SCARLZTT conducted the case on the per( of
the Plaintiffs, stating the general principle of Lew,
that a sleeping partner like Gray must be liable for
all the engagements of his coadjutor in trade, pro-
vided those engagements were made for the purposes
of the business in which they were mutually concern-
ed. The Plaintiffs had lent their acceptances to the
Defendant Clarke, who conducted the affairs of
himself and Grey, and had paid them when due.—
Clarke had failed, but Gray was still a man of large
property, and was bound to repay to the- Plaintiffs
the money they were out of pocket, for the accom-
modation of the firm to which he belonged.
Mr. Knight, Attorney for the Plaintiffs, Mr.
Stocker, and Mr. Jarman, were then called, who
proved declarations by Clarke, both before and af-
ter his failure, shit the hiHs in question and others
were obtained for the purposes of the trade, and that
they had been applied to the partnership account.—
The first of these witnesses said, that Clarke told
him that the property assigned by hint to Gray ex-
ceeded 50,0001. end that the concern was perfectly
solvent at the time of the diwsnlution.
Mr. MARRVAT, for the Defendants, said that this
cause was one of the utmost importance to Mr.
Gray, who had already lost the 10,0001. with which
he entered into partnership with Clarke; anti had
been besides called upon to pay many heavy demands.
He insisted that the bills before the Court had no-
thing to do with the partnership account, excepting
in this way—that Clarke being bound to pay a ca-
pital of 10,0001., had resorted to this mode of nits.
ing mono) ; and it was a settled prificiple of
that for borrowed capital, for the purpose of com-
mencing trade with another person, that other per.
son was not liable; it was a private and individual
debt, with which Mr. Gray had nothing to do. In
truth, Clarke had never brought in his stipulated
capital, but had put it 4•ff from time to time, end at
lei'gth failed, after Mr Gras had advanced in hard
cash, the whole sum required by the articles; the
hills in question %vete no where to be found in the
joint accounts, nor did they ever make their appear.
ance at the honkers of the firm. Under these dr.
cumstances, he apprehended that the Jury would not
61 Mr. Gray with the payment of one more debt,
from the contraction of which he had never received
the slightest benefit.
Mr. Philpot, an Attorney at Gloucester, swore to
the great difficulty Mr. Gray had always in bringing
Mr. Clarke to any 'king like an account : though urged
repeatettly, he had never brought one shilling into
the concern. The witness had advanced 7,0001. to
Mr. Gray, to enable him to meet the demands upon
him after the failure of Clarke.
Mr. Thacker, who had been one of Clarke's as.
siatents its business, gave evidence to the bat trans-
actions of Clarke. The partnership between Clarke
and Gray was kept secret from him. Clarke spent
about 5.0.001. upon a house at Hampton•wick.—
There was no entry in any of the books of capital
brought in either by Gray or Clake. The witness
did net know of any dealings in goods between
Clarke and the Plaintiffs subsequent to the partner.
ship with Gray. The witness admitted, on cross.
examination, that at the signature of the articles the
stock might be worth 7,0001., but how much of it
was •paid fur he did not know; he did not think
that the concern was even then in a solvent state.
Mr. SCARLZTT called a witness of the name of
Wilkins, who contradicted the evidence of Thacker,
that there bad been no dealings in goods between
Clarke and the Plaintiffs, subsequent to the partner.
ship with Gray. The Learned Counsel then ad.
dressed himself to the Jury, observing that there
could be no safety in commercial transactions, if the
Plaintiffs did not obtain a verdict; sleeping partners
must he responsible for the debts contracted by those
whom they trusted with the management of the bu-
siness: he insisted that Mr. Gray had been attempt-
ing a sort of fraud upon the Plaintiffs, by resisting
the payment of this debt under pretence that Clarke
had obtained the acceptances with a view to make
them a part of his capital. Thacker had admitted that
the stock was worth 7,0001., and it might be more ;
that perhaps was the capital of Clarke.
Mr. Justice ABBOT summed up briefly, leaving
merely the question to the Jury, whether the pro.
duce of the bills in question had been applied to the
general purposes of the trade, or otherwise.
The Jury found a verdict for the Plaintiffs-
-9781. ss. Gd.