Court Of Chancery, Wednes...
The Times, 1824-08-05T00:00:00

LAW REPORT. - - '-svp-aquuZ bvr znt corm tirmenr ot a sojic&ttferzflte non-production of papers. It was argu,ed Oii i for;te dv. * * - On coming into court this morning, his Irtdslsh' itUtioned the case, and observed, that from the affidavits it appeared thltsapbad had been employed by ColeFrave as solicitor in the cause of 9 Cfle grave and Manby." DOarng the progress of that cause, Raphael assigned his business over to a person named Beetun, and -with it Colegrave's suit with lianby. Colegraveobjeetedto thistransferof the management of his causc to a party not of his owvn selection, and. he applied to Raphael for his papent, that he might give hiscause to oWne o his own clhoice. This undoubtedly he had a rightto do, and such a claim could not legally be resisted; but it was assertea ox the other side, that Raphel had a lien on the papers for his costs, iod that he would retain possession of them untitl those coats were paid. It appeared chzet the papers in his possession were oftwo Irinds. A. part of them related to the cause pending, and the remainder were documents referring to other matters. Now he took it to be clezr that a solieitor had a right to his costs, and, gezerally spealng, had a lien upon papers in his possession until those costs Yerepaitd but this lien was not tQ prevent the client from having arcess to all papers necessary for carrying on a suit pending. Trhese the soG 'iitor wvas boound to allow that use of which shoultl be fornd requisite for carrying on the caure, but without giving uPp hsis -ee neral lien for the payment of his costs-that was, he wzs bound to produce them at the Alaster's office, at all times when they niight be required. If he refused todo so, 'most undoubtedlv he should be answerable for the consequences. As to the other papers, ot. connected with the cause, the molicitor had a right to retain enfire possession of them- until his claim for costs was satisfied. But it was stated on the other side, that Mr. Colegrave had, as it were, barred his claim against Air. Raphael (for that he too'l to be the meaning of the affidavit), by having consented that these papers shlti3ld remtain in the posression of a fir, Bisihop, who had been a clerk to Raplhael, and who afterwards becanme clerk to Mr. Beetuti. What claim this M r. Bishop hlad upon the papers did not appear ; but in a motion like the present fbr the commitment of a partv, it waS necessary that this niatter shorld be explained, aud he would give the parties leave to do sa by filing fres,h affidavits. Qc wished Lo know whether Bishop as a solictor of that court ? It was answered thiat le was, but had unt talcen out his certificate. ''he LonD CiHANCE1LOL tI'Then let him make an affidsvit exrlhining ms conduc- writh respect to those papers. and pporp what. ground it is lie retains ther. 3lr. UlART hoped that his lordship would malke the order thav iShop should tile lis affidavit on an eariy dav. ils claim was itn fact set Dp to defeat that of' AMr. Colegrave. kc was a fact that Blshop ha4 been clerk to Rapbael, and was now clerk to Beettnm wvhat clajiti lie would have upon papers belonging to his former mas- ter's client, lie was at a loss to know ; but it was strange that a rman shouid nave two solicitors in this way-that he shoald be the client of a solicitor and olbhis clerk at the same time. It was here stmted by a soliritor in the cause, that Bisbopfg conduct coutld be fully explainet. lie had acted as intermediate agent bhtweent Ar. Colegrave sad Rabatel, and in that C,t)acltv thle papers caine into his possession. Il- hail a dcaim onwior his servi cc-,. The LORD CI1ANCELLOR..-I don't understand what is tneant by sitermediateagent " I find liere that thits Air. Bishop hsa. been acting as clerk tO Raplael, and that he afterwards became clerk to Beetun. Now I wish it to be urderstood, what Las been an& what I trust ever shall be the prsectice of this Court-navaely, that j 'he acts of inmsnaging clerks, in a cause, are to be consridered as those of their masters. It is possible that in the course of the cauce, Mr. Colnorave mighlt have comlnmunicated with Bisliop for the purpose of cxpediting it; but that does not constitute him an aerent distinct ftront his master. nor give hini a dcam for services. If this ir. Bishop is a solicitor of this Court, it is his du v to explain wv hy e I retains those papers. Let hinm lo so by Monday next. Mr. H.ART-.1y L,ord, it ie t.tated that this gentleman (Rishop) has a cUiii up-n riy client. WVe wish to know what tFhat is. We have Raphael's bill up to the lime when he as. sig.ged over his blushness to L?.eetun. M-hat separate claim his clerk can have,me krow 'not. It has been said before your Lord. sniip, that Mr. Bishop is a solicitor, but has not taken our his certi- ficate. What claim, under such circumsiances, he can have for any scrv;ces as a solicitor, I cannot guess. I trust your LoGrdship will call upon the party to give in hlit explanation on aa carly day. Wte lave now been twelve months endeavouring to procuire the restora- tion of tihose papers. The LORD-CtHtA.X CELLOL.-At will behove this gentleman (Mr. BiEhup), it he hias not taken out his certificate. to look to what claim he can make for any services in the cauSe. }Let him send in his affidavit by Saturday.-The case tien stood over. COTRT OF CgANCERY, WgEDwSvDAT. AIGnSsT 4. U;)L^.AAE. 'V 1-RAPHATL.