The Statesman.
London, England, 1809-07-05 00:00:00

or promoting the Interests of MS Consetwatts, ll'
the utmost .of Ms abilities. -
The thanks of the Meeting were then voted to
the High Sheriff, for his npright, honourable, and
impartial conduct. The Meeting was then dissolved.

LAW INTELIAGENCE4 ,

COURT OF CHANCERY. LINCOLN'S INN HALO
Tieesday, July 4.

♦AVOIITON V. REAP.

This was a Petition by the Plaintiff to procure
an order upon the Defendant, the Guardian of
four young Ladies who reside at the house of Miss
Willuck, who keeps a Boarding-school at Ken.
siiigten, to compel him to permit these Ladies to
visit their sisters daring the holidays.' One of the
sisters is married to the Plaintiff, who resides is
W.irwickshire;tha other to a Mr. Stevenson, who
resides at Lincoln. This case had come before the
Court in Term Time; but it was then left unde-
cided itl order to give time to the Guardian to state
his objections.
Affidavits were. now produced on the part of the
Guardian and Miss Willuck, which state in sub.
stance, that the Plaintiff had prevailed upon the
Lady, who wale now his wife, to accompany him
to Scotland, where they were married, without his
having made any settlement upon her, notwith.
standing the efforts of the Guardians to secure
I that object: That he had tome brothers; and that
two of the young Ladies were of the ages, the one
I of 19 and the u th !tor 17: That the Plaintiff had
spoken in disrepeciful terms of the Guardian ;
and- that the father, while alive, had kept the
, Ladles at the boose of the schoolmistress during
the holidays. No objection was mad to Miss
LWillock's school on either side ; the only object
of the Plaintiff was, u his Counsel (Sir S. Ito-
' Wily) expressed, to prevent the young Ladies
from being kept close prisoners at Mis; Willotk's.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought it extremely
desirable that a free communication should exist
, between the sisters; but at the same time the pre-
ceedingof the Plaintiff, in respect of his own mar.
riage, was a circuinstauce to be considered. lie
observed, however, that the guardianship was a
joint appointment of three persons • and it was
hinted that one of them bad renounced,lL He wish.
j ed that fact to be aseertaiued before he decided—
j for if one of the Guardians had renounced, there
was no guardianship. He therefore ordered the
case to be mentioned again the day after the second
seal (Monday next.)

COURT Or RING'S BENCIT.

Tuesday, July 4.
WRIGNT V. DAUNA.

Mr. Gaaaow stated this to be an action
brought to recover the value of four sacks of
clover, sold by the Plaintiff to the Defendant,
which, together with the charges attending the
sale and carriage,. paid by the Plaintiff, amount-
ed to 711. 4s. sd. The goods were sent from the
place of sale to the Defendant's place of resi-
dence in Derbyshire, and the charges of the
Plaintiff were entered in his own hand at the
rate of 61. 18s. per sack; the Defendant saw that
entry, and said it was wrong--that it ought to be
only 61. 15s. per sack, and desired the Plaintiff to
alter it to that sum; the Plaintiff had done so ae.
cordingly, upon which the bargain was concluded,
and the goods were forwarded by Pickford's Hying
boat to the Defendant, and to widely. the Delend.
ant made no objection at the time. Mr. Gamow
therefore contended, that as this alteration was
made, not only in the presence, bat at the request
of the Defendant in this cause, the Defendant
could not contest the charge, because, he contend.
ed, that this direction amounted to sit admistiou
of the amount of the Plaintiff's deotind.". The
fad or this entry being made by the `Defendant's
order being proved,
Mr. PACE said, that this was a written con..
tract, if it was any thing, and void for want of
the signature of the party who was now sought to
be bound by it.
And of this opinion was
Lord ELLE:4IIOEIOMM, who held that this en.
try could never be binding on the Defendant, no.
less made by himself, or by some person who wu
his agent. By himself it ..WaS not made ; it was
made by the Plaintiff, at his request. Bat then
the Plaintiff in making that entry, as the Defend.
lant's Agent, could never change that character af.,
terwards, and, by his own act, convert himself
into a Plaintiff. If a third person had made this
entry, by the Defendant's direction, it would have
, been well ; but the person who made it by direc-
, tion of the Defendant, could not be agent for him
in doing the act, and afterwards a suitor against
him to adores thw performance of it. In a word,
no man can be the agent of another to performs
contract, and then a suitor against him for the
non-performance. Upon whieb the Plaintiff was
nonsulted.