Court Of Chancery, Monday...
The Times, 1824-01-20T00:00:00

. -: A W-IEPORT. r1ie LoItDlUmHANCELLOR had intended to have given jittnent In this case to-day, but, from the delay of the parties in frtnishing particular papera and Information required of them, which delay he agam very grrvely rebuked, he proposed togive judgment on Satvr- day, any laches of the parties after this notiee notwithstanding. - _ HARTRS V. 19ODENITA31 AND PIttf.LIPS. Thearguinemt, which liael- been considerably protracted; cm- - eluded to.day. The-LoRD CHAICELT.OR said that-this was anrse Whick ought to produce aconsiderablefeelingo?caution with per.sons 'of property how they entered into any transactions which they inight vot after- wards wishfo have known * and it: ought to serve particularly as a iwarniiigtogendr-men cone.ned in the biisiness of bahking, not to run any itnproper risks for the sakl;goy profit merely. It up- -peared that two persons of itdependent property had!-emn- bark-ed in, a bank at Hererord, together- -with one'man of bu- siness of the. name of Garrett. There. were ba.rpins trans- I acted by this 1nt named pers:nm as,if os- alleged 'on behalf o'o the firm, In stock jobbing, which amoutmed first ant last to nearly three millions sterling. Amongthe paftiis with whotsthese barganps bad been transacted was the plaintiff,' ivho had been deeply Ciml i ated in them. The-defendants avowed their responsibility-itt a- portion of these transactions, bat, naming a particular period tat whiich they said that they had ceased to have any dealings themn,- they declared that they had positively dirgeed lUr. Garrett to havet done with them also; and that upon his-failivg to observe ihesedi- recions, they caused him to leave the firdi., During this last period, and before the departute of Mr. Garrett, there-hid been.new bar. gains effected between him and the plaintiff Presently aftervsirds, the defendants make up their books, and send to the plsintift, de- 'matnlding, the balance of their account due -from him. He prqosed to set off' the account the balance of the'stocl; tyrns.- actionit, which proposal the defendants oppose, alleging that those jobs were betwreen (Garrett and the. plaintiff on Garrett's separate account, and that the firm had nothing whatever to do with them. JUpon this followed proceedings at la*, in the course ot wbich it would appear that Air. Garrett had supported the assertions. of the defendants: for before they could bring their action ai law, the plaintiff had indicted Mr. Garrett for-perjury. Uion the trying' of tiDaicause, Alr. Justice Bayley was of opinion that there was no, proof of any material perjury; y or as the ground for an indictment for perjury must be laid in fair and sound transactions, zo in this case the transactions being entirely illegal, no material perjury could bc committed. In giving that optnion, the excellent Judge seemed to entertain not the least doubt upon tbe'law of the case. ,But with deference to so respectable an muthority he (tbe Lovd Chancellor! entertained very coniderable doubts as to the law. The pltintifl however, obtained an injunction from this couirt to restraun' the defendants from proceedirng at lav. for the recovery of the balance which they claimed. And the-form of their proceeding was thisa:-They had paid over to a-Mr. Alatthews, who, seemed throughout to have acted as a very honourab)e man, a pro- missory note given by the plaintiff, and for the -better security oe Air. Matthews, endorsad by the defeDdants, and he was in the act. of prorceding to the re-overy of it when stayed by the present in junction. Now, without prejudiclng any of the facts a?theyi h been set forth by the defendarts, and witnout the slightest itatetto't impeach their veradty,- le did tlunl; it very material to cortLer, upon the face of thes proceedings, what would be the effect of c allowing bankers, or other' persons connected in par'nership5 to' disown, upon their own surnl0Se, 2 long course- of transacticms the uninterrupted records of which were to be found in their oin books, letters, bills, and accounts. -hat security could there 'Le for the public at large,in dealing with an - one who should afterward- turn out to be a partner in a firm ? I5ie-ould not now say what must be done with the case eventually, buf nt any rate hie must-put the defendants to the trial of their right by an isgite at lale It would be material to obseve what line of examination Fould be likely ep answer the purposes of justice, before determining Athe feirmiof. the issue, as the admissihilty or non-admissibilitvof evidence its.lst be considered on each side. He ratlher thought that the liankers o0,ght to bring the action, -and not Mlr. Matthews, after striking out thebtr own endorsement. If they hearl nothing more from hbim- by We4 nesday morning, it was to he understood that they were at liberty tw proceed to an issue at law upon the bill, without any preu7idce, bow_ ever, to their right of addressing hMm upon the subject in the meat time. The injunction in the mean time remains undiesturbed ORDERS OF THE COURT. 'An order had been published in November last, in thcSiStClerksf' office and that of the Registrar, by which it is directed tha sl eases adjourned without reason assigned should be peremptotily stuck out ofthe paper. Mlr. AGAIt applied to have a cause restored to the paper, wblhi had been displaced in consequence of this order. There might Ere something very proper in the order; but,with all deference,it was not rendered sufficentlv public considering its irmportance. It Yss is- sued late in Novembers and many country selicitors w ho were not aware of it had adjourned their'cases over the holydays, and would be madeto suffer without the conaciousness of having committed aDy offence. AIr. HART didnotdi.91ike the order so muchashislsasrnedfriend Mr. Agar. There were cases; however, in which -it might operate prejudidally, though,on the main, its tendency-was obviocady good. Sometimes aplaintiff had a very ricketty case, so much so'that-he inightratherprefe.nottto bring it-on than otherwLse. Heuwonldc eg_a of such an opportunity as this order afforded him to commit lher which would for ever dispose of the case,'especially as by- that means he would be enabled to pass by the disagreeable question of costs' Perlaps the order would perfectly answer al the purposes of justice, if h isLordship vould add to it, .leave for tbe defendant to .how cause* for adjournment in case of lt: momentary default of Ihe plaintiff. The LoRtD CIANcET.Lon approved of the suggestion of DlIr. Hart. Buttheorderhad been rendered necessary-by tEecontinualad- journmentofeausesin which the Courthadnopowerto bring them on, though thesolicitorshad, and of causes soi:djournedwitJioanyreasoni asigned, there were at the time of mAlingthe order no leas than 93, It was timeto speak out. The obloquy of tbege deays had been throvwn upon thieCourt, when the blame belonged exclusively to the parties in the suits or their solicitors. The Court had enugh- to answer for without -taking upon itself the odium whlch' be- longed to others; and for his part he was determined to have the'Or - der enforced. Cr.AUGHITON, Al. P., V. HARRISON. This was an applicatioa for an injunction to restrain the defenaant fronm proceeding at law for-the recovery of the v alue of certain pro-' missory notes, which were e.ther accepted or endofsed by the plainuffj vho is a member of the House of Commons, on the! ground of fraud alleged to have taken place in the rodginating- andl passing of them. The plaintiff's bill alleged, that being in want of money, it was p;opoted to him by one Lee to raise money upon bills, which upon proper security were discounted by the house of -Mrland and Co.; and it further appeared, that when diue,Ithby' were covered by other bi5ls in the usual course of such transactions. Some of the bills were uno- duced, and certainly thev bore rather an assuming character. I'hey were drawn on accotunt of the Pemberton Coal Cornp any, James Parquharson, Secretary; for the advantage of " The African Corn- pany," or " The Cape of Good Hlope Company ;" no such com- panies or establishments having any existence, except,as the plinti , alleged, in the head of the said Lee and his coadutors. The Loitn CHANCELLOR said that the bils were very impos- ing in their form; but there wats one little misfortune attachod tO them. On inquiring for James Farquharson, secretty, at the rei- dence described in the notes,no one knew anv thing of such a peron. It was contended on the other side, tiat however the plaintai might stand in regard to the transactions upon which the bills were issued by him, he could not a2ege that the defendant had any share in the fraud, because he had given positive value for them, and they must prve the defendant's participation in the fraud before they could shake his right to recoier the value of the notes. The de- fendant's answer refuted that hnputation in the most perfect man.- ner; and if every word on the hill were true, there was nothing itr it to weaken the defendant'sa right to the payment of the notes Thecasehadbeenpiresed on, because the trialatlaw was ex- teced to take plac to.mosrow. Th'e argument had proceeded thus tar, when The Long CHANCELLOR said that he must postpone further hearing, as he could not then stay longer. As it appeared to him, however, there was no dinger to be apprebended from the delay, as the parties would haTdly venture to put themselves to the risk of having to meet all the averments of the answer by direct evidence. COGiURTFCLIANCER-Y. MfoNDAY. JA%r. 19. -R GOt4T.AY V.I ZE MXUE or S02OERSET.