Court Of Chancery, Thursd...
The Times, 1824-01-23T00:00:00

-A WPWa7? Tfle'LOR'D-1U TcEGLLoR hatd proposed to- give Judlgendit iti thls case to.dasy ; and thiough he coutld not do ah hd' roinised he would s-' a few woraia p,n it inw. ThL bill~~ iiyd,ht' the arti. dces of a.certahi agreem-ent, nassel betwoCen par,ties in 1812, :might be specific,1lly performned, and that a mnaaager and re- ceiver mi ght be appointed to Covent-g-arden Thteatre, wvith a view to the application of' thie proflts according to the inter.ss ex- pressed in that deed.' He apprehended, that in conIearns of partmershilp property, thec. Coturt wouild only talce it into its own hands with-a View to the appoinitment of ai rWeiver andi mianager, to, carry into efltect thie condition of some proposed instfiinsent of agreement5 or else withi the intenit of dissolvlirg the concernm The question in tbis- case was, whether or n-ot th& condlitions of the deed of 1812 were obligatory on the lessees of te'ibyen-eightuhs of the property. It wouild appear generally, that piaiirs were bound by all agreements equally', whether the obllgationi resulted fo h construiction which thie law putt upon: their corndhtsC and 31acqui-r escence, or from p.ositive agreenients onie among anothier. In this, sense hea thiought that- the lessees were liable to all the ob- ligationsi of paitoer& cobeerned in any othezi transractions. If, so, he couildnot see how any one partner coild-so far divest himselfI of hiis power, as to otist'the -others of their right to an active interfe- rence. He regretted thait the case hadl ever been brought into the Court. If, however, the,Aarties looked upon the deed of 1822, as he did, in the light of a deed ishich could not sta-nd . as- to the othier parers pehap thy wuldcom tosome agreement among themelve an sav hi thetroule f dong,hat' which, 'withiin 24 hursaerr h ha doe i thy wuldallof the. heartildy re- peat.lie hereore elayd Id judmenttill that day vweek, in or- The ounel or r. arrs osered,that that gentleman, whol was materiallvy interestdithprety was niot before the Court, the other sid 'having nelce osrehm with notice. The Lou CssAN aLnsad aknew nothing of that, and he mnight, ifhbe were compeld to make any ortder, direct that other personsi shouldtbemtade pates inth suit before he determinedL it fnally. Buit they wouild domuchi better to compose their differencev without his interfermece. Several years of his administration bad been exhausted on theatres'. He had spent the whole of one long, vacation on Drniry-lane alone, and really this was a stcage of b-usiness on which he did not wish to performn any part whatever. Aiir. N-AtR.T.-Ily Lord, there is no.more hope of settling the bu. sinesli, than of my growing young again. TVhe counsel for I Ir. Harrs said that there was no possibility of I'djstn 'their differencest, as Mr. htarris had returned but lately to Engulan. He was,however, now re-Ay to appear, ant] as they wouild not serve him wit notice, he had no remedy left buit to filea cross- bill. The LoanD CtsAN,cFe.s.on persisted in giving them a week to, compose their difierences. EX-PARtTE GRSIMSTEAD, TNZ aE UOWARD AND) GIBES. Mr. POLLOCKc followed up the ar&unmeat -in support of the peti- tion. He particularly spok-e to the miatters which occurred in the the NMs Pr-ius trial. He had to complain, not only of much that had been done,, but also of' tluch that had not been done Fand ouight to have been done, in. these proceedings, lHe as a commo lawer wa conernedin tat trial,' and in thie result of he sse h mst av fet hattobe the mnost unfortuuate dayef is ife hd h no lokedupto this Court to do inus- tic~ tohis nhapy cien ultmatly.The fir-st thing of whichi he hd t comlai wa theconuctof the assignees in de- partig frm theinstuctios uner wich thlis Court sent. themi to trial in the court below. The reina-ks uipon wvhat was called the. Vice-Chancellor's jutdgment, in the speech ofthe then Solicitor4le.. nieral, were cointrary to the coinusion princtiples of the jurisdiction: f'or lie piut it to hiis learned friend.wl* practisedI in those couirts writhi himr (Air. XVlild), if, upon a newv trial grated uipon writ of error, it wvas not the practice to abstain fromn every allusioni, however dlistant, to the proceedings of the formier trial. Indeed, for the temnporary airgumnent, it was always assumed thiat no trial hiad been !!ad before- The next evil was th-e introduiction of four letters, whicht were-not in any, maniner admissible as evidence against AMr. (lrimstead. The), were the only, proof advance-d of a consparacy between Gibbsi anti Air. (ltimisteadt; anid yet, not only hadl Mr. Girimsteasl nothiing to do with thje writing of them-they were inot addressed to him-nay - nmorer, two of thietu were written by, Porter to Tibbs, oni his way to Calais before hie could itase seen Air. Grimscead. Thie letters w. ere,~ however, adm-itted, thoughi not withouE reference to the review which might be had in this Court of the proceedings-not without controversy on the proprietv of adtmitting them: nay, if his recol- lection served him rgigtly, h e believed that the Chi'ef Justice warn- ed the Solicitor-General, that he introduced themn at his peril, if lie (did stot feel quite sure of establishing themi as evidence. Amnong thle directionsi ofthie ChiiefJusticeeto whicht he mnost particelarlyob- jected, was this-" The great question in this ease is, Do youi, after wha= o ave heard, believe Ailr. Gibbs, or do you not?" Now thswsnt the gteat.que%tion in thecause. They coulalhave nade out their case without Mlr. Gibbs, but they called biun solely to sa- tisfy' the intentions of this Vourt. Hebhoped that bis Lordshiip would decide the case hiimself. Buit if it must, go to a new trial, he prayed thtat Mlr. Grimsteael's iuse mighit ioto be clogged with the obloquy) of Al r. Gibbg's cvideiice. If the other party wished to have hiim, let themi call him and thtn brand hiim with infimy and frauid as grievously as mnight suit their own case. They imade use of his evi- dlence to)achieve thie triuimphi of the (lay. '-lhe had it, but thev wvould scot be able to hold it long. They were requireil by te paintff' conselto rodce the examiinations of the commisionrs, nd th copes o Gibs's letters to Grimstead, whih tey ereboud t doin airessand iin justice : for when thi Cort end anissetotril, t desnot intend that thie parties shoud g to he ourt ofcommn lwtu display thieir dexterity in i'ds Puso practice, but to lay all tIme . circurmstances of the case before thcotan jury. By the rule of Nbsi Prusr, they might ill strictns wihhl theexaminationis; buit these. were thievery evidencee upon which the petition came before tlme Vicc-Chattcellor~: they ought-not to have withheld themii; they were atsked to produce them; thiey were braved asnd eveni threatened with thecon.Nequences; they were told that an appeal wouild be miade to the Chancellor,if they' did nor prodtice them, and yet they wvithliteld them. Hlad tlhe order for an issue been drawn up 'in January instead of iNovemnber, un- gdoubtedly an appeal would have been made instantly. Aifr. diointa- gue wasof opinion that thiey ought not to haye accepted thie order for a trial at law, and all the counsel were of opinion that their duty would have been to appeal, had the order been dlrawnx up hii Janu- ary instead of November. Now as tothiecbarge of usury which had beea made to taint the case when put inissu,e,it wasnot athing to be surmised anad whispiered. It was a matter highly criminal- the penalties were severe.-.-the evidence must be positive. In'this case the evidenice might be divided into oral and writtenl.estipisony. AU the oral evidence was on pace side, in favour of Air. Grimstead. Of the written testimony, that which was prodaced was not evi.. dence, and that which.ioubld have confirined the oral testimony was most limproperly andl resoltutely withheld. The trial by jury was nRot. the best for all maes, and this was' one fr,r which it was not suit-able. All the matter of evidence was in writing, and at any rate the pro. per oat of that modle of trial was not to direct thle juTy to determine one way, because Air. Gibbs had sworh another. The LORD1 CITANCEL.Loit did not observe any directions of the Vice-Chancellor that Gibbs shtould be examined. Alir. Gririn. stead therefore called Air. Gibb4. of hi4 own discretioni. It was a very delioRte part of the duty of this Couirt to give directions as to who should be examiined inaai issue at law Air. Gibbs, however, was called,, and suiposing his evidenc~e to be entirely destroyed, then the qusinwas, what evidence. remained pf the crime of usury. It would appear, thien, tchat there would be no evidence left butt thne pass.bookt. But- another question was, wlsether. tlie'case wen't to the jury under this view of it'; and if not, whiat wete thae grounds as to the ustery which wvere subm-itted to 'them.- As to the negleet- and want of caution in Mr. Grimastead, as it seemed to him, withoist meanling to prejudice the case on the other side, ttlsat argument seemied to have been carried miuchi too. fir: for he very well -0pl. lected hiearing in the House of Lords1 on, goodA authority, that Lor-d Mlansfield declared that he had'- never looked at anly deed that he signed iii the whole course of his life. Noiv_si~pposing that in .Ja. nuary, Gibbs had said to Air. Grimstead, 1' I- you htave 10,0601. ready, I can invest it for you in an annuit'y. Theli writings are not ra;;bitt veiti many ulqmetm upon nly' seeing themn executed if,you will iadvan&e the money. Supposing in six niontlis afterwards Gibbs were to say again, "1 d (id not invest yoar moneY as I PromDised to do in January last; but I shall soon be able to do it-, aod in the mleani time I whU enter in the book asum to youir credit equal to th6 produce of an antnsity for the initermediate time because, if I do not, you miay recover in an action asalnst me." Hie dlid not Imiow that thuis would be usuirv, and he did not think it would. SuppoRe,in the mean time,H1owarT1 andi Gibbs to becomelI bankrupts, then the claimi for an annuity, which would otherwise sound in damages for not having ehl'ected it, w&ould lull into a debf.-Now wvhat Ihe *awiO to kno wms this-did -thet evidence of the pass-hookc -gi I t thle juLry wiith such distiiictions' as under these Aupposed cireum. stanlces it oughit to have gonie? Because they should have beent, in this case, directed to say whiat part of thiose sums entered for produice were usurious transactiorns, and which. of -them were itie actual-pro. dOmee of anhijitles and of tlhOse ebstiies df iniere.*t charged withi tsua ry, which of them might he considered as the equiValent of the dla- miages1 to which Air. G-ibb.4 cDuld have been liable ; or in the otitife event, if the whole contents of the paiss-book were tainted with utsury. A-nd the distinctions, if ant,', should have been retuirned as to thb di%frent sumls. God Almig:hty forbidhlint this couintey should ,ever lose thp blesmiogs of ihdt #ftat initittiltOs _h i y jr u Certainty It was an impression on his mind which het nefer idoiotld bie able to get rid of, that the-e were cases in which it-worked ver'y- little benefit to the interests, ofjtmstice. He vecry yell recollected that a gentlemnan of some emiinenice now living, was tried and convicted, and su$ered thepainsofljerjtut,-, Helu2id been accufsed of defstudin~ the publl'cby usinig deficienit weights, in a contract whielt tffted; tui~ he nmade ani affidavit thtat he had not comnmitted any such fraud, and upon that, after it long tria in the King's Bench, he was foundt guiltY Of PJntfjdy lahl Attorney-Genera4 of thi~ day tirocceeded insllyt him m the CoUrt of Exchequer fof M60 .4evepl Veiialties whcltihe had incuirred. He (tbe Lord Chancellor) and Mllr. MaIns. field wvere engaged for himn in an appeal on the equtity side of thC Exchequer, and thle hiearitig lasted for nearly a fortnight. The Chie' Baron at thie end of that time overturned all that had been ddmieAs to th1 oinah tie~ t sIsa the Curpf King's Bench, and ittthe k ~i1fliC t1r' taria' that lo1ils6fildidit,1morelhonoturable Sisan did not breathe than. tgC defetidant appeared to) him to be frdmn the whole of the proceedings. And thet first act of Chief B3aron Eyre, when lie became first Commissiorier,was to aiffix the great seal to a pardon, after the defendant had suffered tlhepVans of perjury. Air U. POLLOO felt thnkd for the sA gstsno how- bY tq Coi" aad in gratlhtide woild W ei ain Mum troubling his iordsnip with one word more. Air. MONTAGU resntmed his address in support of the petition, which he had suspended in courtesy to Alr. PoUock, who had urgent husinea in' his, own Court. . The learned genfleman ex- hausted the:rest of the day, .n4 the+completion of hisaddresswas adjourned ovefto.ISaturday. - - COUtRT OUA NCERY, THURSDAY, ii. 22. - I . ' - CONST V. 1;ARRIS.