The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-11-22 00:00:00

VILA CIIANCEI,I6OIVS COURT—PanciT.

cARRINCTON r. wnITST3NE.

Ihe Vice CHANCIMLOR gar, judgment. In Oil case an
Insurance Compel 'w
-re made parties to a bill, merely
hecattse they win atakeholders. 'They sought to tile a bill
of interphmler to`protect themselves from further responsi-
bility. On the *tier side it was contended, that each bill
would ant on the principle of : n injunction. and as an in
nction was not of tamable by a co-defendant, against
ancther defendant, their application must fail. However
true the doctrine might be in other cave:, it would be dime
reruns in the nresent instance. The Insurance Company
rre mat parties 'litigant. They seek to secure themselves
rnU farther claims, and they solicit to pay into Court
hateter money is due of them to tither of the defendants.
that tlit Court may order it to he paid to the party entitled
et the end of the suit. Ilia Honour thought that the
;n:icnetion should be granted, but without costs, as the
Foint was novel in the practice of the Court. In future,
when such a point use raised, costs would be given
a.gttiost the party.
Mr. Haw: said he understood the rule then Isid.down by
the Court, to apply to all cases similar to those of Insurance
Companies. For instance where a deposit was left in
the hands of sectioarers. In the latter case considerable
difficulty was found.
His HONOUR thought that the question was well worth
eonsideration. At present. the two cases appeared to him
to stand on the same principles.
BARFIELD V. NI VIIOLVIN•
This was an application by the plaintiff to restrain the
it. fenolant from the publication of a certain work called the
Practical Builder. It appeared that the plaintiff and
the defendant agreed. in the year 1813, to publish con-
jnintiv a work entitled the Architectural Dictionary.
l'he defendant was to furnish the letter press, the plates,
and drawings, and the plaintiff provided the expense of
the publication, and he did in fact advance 4,0001. In
la'2l, an agreement took place, by which the defendant
assigned his interest in the work to the plaintiff. for the
consideration of 2.30/„ and executed a deed, binding him.
self not to publish any work that would he detrimental to
the Architectural Dictionary. Since that time, the Wes.
der t thought 6t to publish a work in numbers called that
Practical Builder, which, it was contended, was a copy, or I
nearly a copy, from the Architectural Dictionary.
The VICE CHANCELLOR granted the injunction on the
term% of the covenant, 1114 the defendant should not pub-
bah any rival work, or work detrimental to the Ambito:.
turn' Dictionary.
—oermeree—
COURT OF KING'S BENCll.—Fetnay.
SIMONDS V. WHITE.
This was a question whether an Enzlishman's son born
Auterio a, the father having been resident in that country
before and after it was declared independent of this
country, could inherit land in England. In an action of
• ejectment, verdict was given for the plaintiff, the special
matter bring reserved for argument before their Lord.
-ships.
Mr. Justice BATLEY, in the absence of the Chiefincice,
•observed that it was a case of great importance, and that as
the term WE% so far advanced it wont I be better to have
the verdict made special in the interval, and postpone the
*argument-to next term.
CROFT V. KING.
Difendadt was arrested for a debt on the affidavit of the
pia ntil, and as he meant to defend the action, Mr. CIIITTT
moved on his behalf, that the plaintiff he called on to give
security for the costs of the action. The application was
found on an affidavit of the defendant, who swore that he
hail reason to believe the plaintiff resided, and meant to
resitbaaelth his family at Soissone, in France, an 1 that he
had cores over specially to make the affi !mit on which the
defend int was err stet!, and then returned again to
soI;i0. 'lt svas.obvious, that if :Ie defendant proceeded
•witli the artier', he could have no remedy against the
plaintiff in ewe of getting a verdict.
Nit. Justice BATLEY—Hare you perfected bail yet?
Ir. CHITTY-At is not stated, my Lord, in the sty lavit.
Mr. Justice Bietev—Until you have perfected bait, you
tare no right to come here.
DOE, ON THE DEMISE OF RILDIGE V. BROTHERSTON•
A rule was obtained this term calling on the defendant,
an attorney, who had carried on some proceedings for the
alemised party. to show cause why his name should not be
Struck off the roll. He was charged with having included
enormans and unwarrantable costs in his hill, which were
afterwards considerably reduced by the Alastet.
Mr. PEARSON now applied to bare the rule enlarged, os
the ground that the defendant could not have sufficient
time within the present term, to answer the charges which
were matte against him, and which, he stated, he would be
able to insert in the most satisfactory manner.
Mr. B.OTCH °prised the application, at the express
instruction of his clients, who, thoogh they were poor,
were determined, if possible, to remove the defendant from
the profession. and to doing so, they conceived that they
were doing a public good. ,The charges which he made
in his b;Ils were so exorbitant, including fees to Counsel'
which never were paid, and many i.e:ns that never before
were found in an attorney's bill, that indelicate as it seemed
to be to pro ss a matter of this nature, he felt it his duty to
resist tbe motion.
The Cootie' conceiving that the defendant would not
have sufficient time to answer the rule this term, enlarged
it to next term.

FORRESTER V. BRIOMAN.
Mr. Cooeco moved for a mandamus, tailing on the
Ilibestial of the King's Bench Prison to hear, in his capacity
of Magistrate, the complaint of the tolslntiff against the
&fen !ant. In April, 1821, the plaintiff, being a prisoner
in the said prison, gave a ten pound note to the defendant,
wlto ri presented himself to be an attorney, far the purpose
of getting him to der some service which the plaiutiff
wanted. As soon as the defendant obtained the money,
he we.tt away, and never was beard of till August last,
when be was committed to the King's Bench Prison for
debt ; the Plaintiff bring also still a prisoner, and both
beim: ithin the walls of the prison, he applied to the
Alarshal to hear his complaint against the defendant for
money under false pretences.
Mr. Justice BATLEY—You sty be obtained money from
your client ender the false pretence of being an attorney,
an I prpposing to do services which, not being an attorney,
lie eo Oil not perform.
Mr. COOPER-1 do, my Lord.
Mr. Justice DIMLY—Take a rale to show cause.
CONSISTORY ,COURT.—FRIDAT.
MANVILLE V. MANVILLE.
De. LUSIIISGTON said this was an action of divorce
trotyrbt by the wife agaiust the husband, by reason of
cruelty and adultery; the husband had not appeared in the
regular manner, hut had suffered the ca.e to lay over from
time to time; hat the libel was unt brouzlit in, and hr
prayed that it might be admitted. - The libel stated that in
March, April, and May, IS2I, the wife was grossly ill
treated by bee linshind, they t'ien lived at the Constitution
public-house, GreatJaines-streer, Lissoc-grove, her husband
being the landlord; but through ill treatment she left the
Lonse.—Soon af'er the marria;e be need to brat her, and
use very disgusting language towards her. When she left
the bowie she er.ot to her brother's, but at the solicitation
of her Ifinband sbe returned home again, oil his promise of
atoendment; but his former violent disposition was soon re-
newed, and on one occasion he threatened to stab her with
a knife, bat his intention was prevented by persons coming
to her assistance. He afterwards knocked her down in the
bar, and on another occasion dragged her Into the kitchen,
• -.reek hef so violently as to break several of hrr ribs,
.as not since been restored to health. The adultery
iu his cogitation with several females, by whiCit

and strae
and sae I.
• eassisted •
•
r •• ••••.•:' - • --,•••
w