Court Of Chancery, Saturd...
The Times, 1824-03-01T00:00:00

LAW REPOR?t; an o.. --sU v i-aLLOR, an tne-course ot the rnorning, tool an opportunity of saying, that as it bad been. reprenlented tlisthe person wrho sat here did mischief, by beAring certain motions with. Out the sienature of ceunsel,-that 'was to say, wvhen motions hac been rmade to discharge an order of the Vice Chancellor, or th, Alaster of the RolLs, that such motions bad been brought on withoui thesignature of counsel,_he had onlv to state, thathavingbeen in thi Court since 1778,whenever a motion *ad been made beforete t lastet of the Rolls,which he had refused to allow, or which hedid allow,and upon an application to the Chancellor to vary what the Master of the lls had done, or to destro) it altogether; and so again, whenever a nmotion had been madebetbretheVice-Chancellor andcounsel had been of opinion that thle motion had been improperly granted ordischarged, the party had always, in all those cases, been at liberty to move aFain, with a view to set the matter right; and if thesignature of counsel wvere necessary to alter the practice of the Court as it had ob- tained since tbe period he had mentioned,- all he could say w.a, that he had not a right to tax the King's subjects in that way. With re- spect to appeals and rehearings, it was supposed that he had heard them on new evidence, and thereby brought discredit on some part of the Court. It was an utter falsehood. On rehearings, it was always competent to read the evidence given in the cause, though it was not read in the court below , either by the coun- sel or the judge: farther than that, t,he Court did not go. On appeals, it only read what had been read in the court below, and that prac- tice he had never departed from in any one instance. Therefore, really, before tlhings were so represent , Particularly by gentlemen with gowns on their backs, they should at least take care to be as- curate, for it was their business to be so. Mr. AGAn.-Upon motions it wouild be imnpossible for counsel to certify. The LoRD CreANCELLOR.-Such motions as he had referred to had been made for half a century, and never with the signa- ture of counsel; and yet the pubic were told that the signature of counsel was necessary by act of Parliament, and that he had dis- pensed with it. COVENT-GORDEX TIlEATRE.-CONs'r v. - ARIaS. Mr. SHADWELL applied to his Lordship to have an alteration made in the order appointing a receiver Ml\r. I!ART objected, as the object, he said, was only to crcate farther delav. Ml[r. SllADWm LT. disclaimed any such object. The LoRD CHANCELLOR declired, at present, varying the order: ifanyvalteration were necessary, itmight be made en i'uesday. SINGLETON'S EYE OINTMENT.-GREEN V. cISURCH. In tbis case a tecree hat been obtained in the Vice-Chancellor's Courn, directinganissue to be tried toascertain theaamountoftheprofits arisinig ftoin the sale of a ccrtain ointmnent for the eye, in order that they might le fairly divided between the five children of the late Se- lima Foijambe, daughter to - Singleton,the original inventor of the ointmnent. Bv the marriaFe settlement of Selima Singleton with Mtr. 1oijambe in 1791c the proftitsofptheointgent,amounting to 2,0001. per annum, were settled on MNr. Yoljambe and his wvifefor theirlives; an*d thcn on trustees for th e benefit of their children. Mlrs. Foljambe com - municated the serret of comnpounding the ointmnent to her son, to wholm, after her deatlh, the other children :pplied for their share of theprofits , inconsequence of which he executed a deed in 1816, agreeing to give a fifth of the profits to cacl of the children, but re- serving 25 per cent. on each share to himsef for his trouble in com- poundingtheointmelnt. Threeof the clildren acquiescel in this agtreement, but the plaintifF, who was inarried to thcfou rtb, dissented. :ulr. iIORNE now argued against the propriety of directing an issue, as the deed of 181 V) was fair and reasmnable; and a trial before a jury mnight have the effect of ruining all the parties by divulging the secret o?' compounding the ointment Mr. IHART, for theplaintiff, objected to thedeed of 1816, which was not binding upon his client, and wlich allowed so large a or- tlion of the pronac to the other party for hbi trouble in comnounding the medicines. He contended that the ihsue ought to betried, in order that the profits might be fairly divited according to the deed of 1791. TiCe LoRD CITANCELLOR dig not Inow how the exact value couild be ascertained: if it were sent to ajury, they might require the ointment to be analysed, and then tSe secret being divulged, would no longer continue valuable. He vould, however, take home the bill and answer, and the decree, andhe would on a future day SalV whialr bil~t. t-I m 1A. - - __COURT OF CHANCERY, SATfioruy. Ftn. 2R.