The Statesman.
London, England, 1813-07-28 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

•
Mintror cIIANCERY, Jest v.
• ' DINEFIT SOOl n I ES.
WALTER AND OTIIERS V. COOKE AND IMMO.
This was a motion grounded on a petition, pre.
Moth(' by cerfah, persons that were lately elected as
Trustees of a Benefit Society, held at High lielboni.
under the uame'of "The 'Brothers of Hercules,."
praying for an Order to remove the preeentTruit-
ees, and to hare the Petitioners substituted In their
plate; and likewise ;for an Orttr upon Them to
transfer certain funds vested inthe stocks, standing
in their name; to the use of the Society; es also to
ply in the pecuniary balances remaiuing ,in their
lurnds,
Mr. lionuattAn support of the Petition, stated,
frets thejrifut affidavit of applicants, that ShoSociety
vast duly incorporated eider erticlet regularly en-
rolled pursuant to Act of talilatnent, by virtue of
which the Members harepower 'to hold Meetings, I
appoint Committees andarastaes occasionally from !
Lima to time,. as well as to remove such Trustees,'
when inefficient, negligent,' or otherwise objection•
ebte in the judgment of a *why of tbelleeting,
and fe appoint 'others in their stead, all whiCh had
beeis with in this, lostance. ", It was charged
that the Trustees had notice in writing of the resolu-
tions
the Committee to -re'roore *then, and to alb.
stirutettuiPetitieners in their place,. 'hip bad re-
ftisect,toyield 'compliance with soctettotilo;
Mr. Wrocercwoppoierl'the Petitiostoind'ettled.
from the affidavits of the Defendants 'their denial of
. any culpability or misconduct on their part.
Mr. Hostria replied, observing thet all the mate-
vial facts charged by the Petitionere were admitted
by the Defendants' affidavits, so far as the present
application could require, and that all the requisites ,
of the Artitles and Act of Parliament 'bid been duly
complied with.
The Loan CllANctLi.oit eipre ssed hintsglf of. the
same opinion, and granted the prayer of the Petitiois
directing the stock to be transferretwithin a fortnight,
and the other monies to be paid in the course of one
month.

Motion granted.
HOLM: AND OTHERS V. GRAHAM AND orgy's.
The Defendants in equity were hankers, to whom
it appeared one moime had been clerk or partner.
Holme had dealt improperly with theirpaper, and
fled ; but was pursued, and -.taken upon a warrant
under the Embezzlement Act: The Plaintiffs, near
relations of tialMe, ansioue is was alleged, to pre.
vent a pubild
.expOsure of ;Igis transaction, offered
the Defendants a security open their *hole property,
amounting to about 60001. to answer for their. loss
through the misconduct of their clerk. ft was not
expressly stipulated that the Defendants should re-
frain from a prosecution; but it was alleged, 'that
this condition was understood. The Defendants,
however, did, in face, prosecute; and Holine-was
acquitted upon the ground that he was not a clerk,
but a partner. The security wasa mortgage on ear:
bin freehold and. copyhold estates; and a covenant
was also introduced, rendering the Plaintiffs person.
ally liable ; and an action was brought upon this co.
smane. The Plaintiffs obtained anlitunetttoo to no,
strain the proceedings ; and the Defendants Wing
put in.tiwir answer, applied to hare the injunction
There was an attempt to support the'tainnition
upon the grounds chiefly, that the prosecution was
a violation of the condition ; and second, that the
cotenant of personal liability was inserted by'rnia6
take. These grounds, hottever, were dialed by the
answer. _ _ _

Tke Lolui CfttNesLLOß did not find it sufficiently
made out that the covenant of personal liability was
inserted by mistake; and as to the other (ground, the
Court could not eal in hay lily with,. nor give
any relief in respect of, histraiiiets granted for
*compromising a felony. The lujaaediso was therefore
dissolved.