« AnteriorContinuar »
selves ordered to appear at the ture of the injury for which the Sessions in January next.
action was brought. The cause
extended to a very great length, Lancaster Assizes.
owing to the number of witnesses Before Mr. Baron Richards and examined on both sides. On the a Special Jury.---Holt v. Meddou- part of the plaintiffs it was proved croft.—This was an action for di- that their mills were frequently verting the water of a river called unable to work at their usual the New Roach. The plaintiff and speed, while the water was runhis partners were the proprietors ning flush down the defendant's of several fulling and carding sluice. On the other hand, it mills, and it was stated that they was contended by the defendant's had been for upwards of 40 years counsel, that his client had done in the exclusive employment of no more than he was by law enthat portion of the waters of the titled to do. He admitted that river which flowed to their mills, the person who became the first and for the purpose of appropri- occupant of the waters of a river, ating the waters, had erected a by erecting a wear, had a right wear of the proper standard to the enjoyment of what he had height. The defendant, a pro- so appropriated without interrupfessional gentleman of eminence,' tion; but he was entitled to no became, by the death of a relation, more, and if it was observed that possessed of a corn mill, which he had more than he wanted, and was situated near the plaintiff's a part of the water ran over his mill. ,The defendant's mill was wear to waste, in that case his fed by a scanty stream, called neighbour had a right to take the Cathead Brook, but of so ineiti- overplus for his own use. This, cient power that the mill could he contended, was all that the not be worked above one day in a defendant had done. He had so week. The consequence of this constructed his sluice above the was, the defendant could with dif- level of the plaintiff's wear, that ficulty procure a tenant for his the water would not enter it, till mill, and if he found one, he was after it had flowed a certain depth obliged to let it at very low rates. over the plaintiff's wear. He therefore endeavoured to add peared, however, by the testimony to the power of the mill, and this of the plaintiff's witnesses, that he effected by cutting a sluice the greater the body of water was from the river to his own mill. that tlowed to waste over a wear, By doing so, he greatly improved the heavier was the pressure upon his mill, and rendered it of consi- the wheel, and of course the inore derable annual value; but it was facility was given to all the insoon found that in proportion as ternal operations of the machithe sluice added to the power of nery. Of this opinion were the the defendant's, it deteriorated jury, and they accordingly rethose of the plaintiff's, and made turned their verdict in favour of it impossible for the wheels, for the plaintiff. The question was want of water, to work the same considered of very considerable quantity of machinery they had importance to persons interested done before. Such was the nä
in this species of property; and of witnesses were examined, wito the defendant's counsel intimated clearly deposed to the Pilgriins'. his intention of bringing the sub- road being the boundary line, ject before the Court of King's and to the lands south of that line Bench.
being tithe free. Earl Stanhope
stated his opinion to that effect in Lord Le Despencer v. Eveleigh, the most positive manner. He Clerk.This was an issue direct- spoke of it as a circumstance ed by the Court of Exchequer to which tradition verified-he said try whether certain woodlands his father had assured him the belonging to the plaintiff were Pilgrims'-road was the boundtitheable ; and secondly, whether ary, and that no tithe was paid the loeus in quo was within the within it. The case consequently, district, called the Weald of Kent. on the part of the plaintiff, appear. The cause, from the amount of ed to have been completely made property which depended upon out. On the part of the defenits result, excited a very consi- dant it was contended by Mr. derable degree of interest. The Serjeant Best, that the Pilgrims'. main question was, as to the road and chalk hills did not form boundary that divided the Wealds the boundary, but that the boundof Kent, Upon this depended ary of the Kent Wealds was the whether the plaintiff's property Red-hills. He said he should prove was or was not tithe free; for by that tithe was paid within the line an ancient and immemorial cus- described by the plaintiff as the tom the Wealds of Kent are ex- boundary, and if he did so, there empt from tythe. It was there would be an end of the plaintiffs fore the object of the plaintiff to càse. He accordingly produced shew that his estate was within as many witnesses as the plainthe boundary line, and with tiff, all of whom as positively and this view, he contended, that the distinctly stated that the Red-hills road known as the Pilgrims’-road, were the boundary. It was also was the true and exact boundary proved, that nearly all the parishes line. This road passed along the within the district, which the range of white chalk hills that plaintiff said was part of the run from West Peckham by weald, paid tithe 'to the clergyMaidstone, and on to the eastern men. Endowments, terriers, and parts of the county. As a proof a variety of ancient documents, that this was the boundary, the shewed the whole district to be Solicitor General said he should titheable. It followed, that the prove that all the lands south of foundation of the plaintiff's case this line were tithe free, and he was taken away, and the jury, should also prove that they were after a trial of ten hours, without snbject to an ancient custom, cal- suffering the learned Judge to led Land Peerage, in virtue of sum up the evidence, returned a which the trees on the waste were verdict for the defendant, by not the property of the Lord of which the right of the dergy to the Manor, but of the tenants tithes, within a wide district, is nearest to theni, A vast number completely established: **
Before the Lord Chancellor.- such material facts as had come Cholmondeley (Earl of) v. Clinton to his knowledge, while he was (Lord). Whether an attorney or solicitor for the defendant, Lord solicitor employed for one of the Clinton. It appeared that, while parties in a cause, and discharg- the partnership subsisted, Mr. ing himself from being so em- Seymour alone had been the conployed, can legally become the so- tidential solicitor of Lord Clinton; licitor or attorney of the other and that Mr. Montriou had, acparty in the same cause? This cording to his own affidavit, been question, so important not only concerned merely in the open ma to solicitors and attornies, but to nagement of the cause, or public every branch of the profession of part of it, and that he knew nothe law, and to the public, now thing of a secret nature to com
remains for decision in the Court municate to Lord Cholmondeley; ..of Chancery. It was brought and Sir A. Pigott stated, that Mr. forward upon
motion in the above M. was perfectly ready to deny, cause, under the following state in the most positive terms, on of facts, being all that appeared oath, that he was the person who to the Lord Chancellor necessary had given Lord Cholmondeley the to be attended to for the decision anonymous information which had of the general question. Messrs. 'led him to institute this suit in Seymour and Montriou, or soine behalf of himself and Mrs. Dasuch name, partners, were em- mer; and it was admitted on all ployed as the solicitors for the de- hands, that for any thing that then fendant, Lord Clinton. In Sep- appeared, Mr. M. might have hotember last, they agreed to dis- nestly thought he was justified solve the partnership; and one of in accepting the appointment, the conditions in the contract of though it was insisted that he was dissolution was, that Mr. Sey. in possession of confidential inmour alone was to remain Lord formation. Clinton's solicitor, to which sti- In the course of the argument pulation Lord Clinton assented. in support of the motion, it was Lord Cholmondeley afterwards asked, speaking to the general appointed Mr. Montriou his soli- question, whether it was proper citor in this cause, and that ap- to place the suitors of the court in pointment, after consulting seve- such a situation that their soliciral legal friends, Mr. M. thought tors might, in the middle of a himself justified in accepting. cause, discharge themselves, and The motion on the part of Lord take the opposite side in the same Clinton, or Mr. Seymour, or both, cause, in opposition to the genewas that the court should restrain ral principles that solicitors were Lord Cholmondeley from appoint- bound to keep the secrets of their ing Mr. Møntriou, and Mr. Mon- clients ? The court, dealing with triou from accepting the appoint- its own officers, had clearly jurisment, or acting for Ld. Cholmondediction to order in terms of the ley in this cause; and also that Mr. motion ; and even if the right M. might be restrained from com- were out of the question, a sense municating to Lord Cholmondeley of propriety ought to prevent Vol. LVII.
Lord Cholmondely and Mr. M. to allow interest on a debt which from placing themselves in the he admitted he ought to have relation of client and solicitor paid, “Go to him with your in this cause. On the other arguments about delicacy and hand, it was asked, how far propriety,- I have nothing to do it was intended to carry the with any thing but the right.” principle, whether clerks hav. So he (Lord Eldon) said in this ing got some confidential know- case-"Go to Lord Cholmondeledge of a cause in the offices of ley and Mr. Montriou with these their masters were to be pre- argumentsI have only to do vented from accepting appoint with the dry question of right." ments on the other side, after they He therefore dismissed entirely set up for themselves ? &c. But from his mind all the facts of this suppose it were a general rule, case, except as they bore on the that a solicitor who had been question of right, and on those employed for one party could not consequences, as far as they could discharge himself and take an ap- be foreseen, which the decision pointment from the other party of the question of right in one way in the same cause, this case must or the other would involve. It be an exception, as Lord Clinton appeared that the intention of the had agreed to the discharge. Court had never before, as far as
The Lord Chancellor.When he could ascertain, been called a client employed two partners judicially to a question of this as his solicitors, he was entitled kind. They were therefore totally to the services of both. If they without any precedent to guide dissolved the partnership, he must them; and the question must retain one or both, or neither. therefore be decided on general Whether a man would choose to principles. Whatever the decis cntrust important interests to two, sion might be, it must apply to who were unwilling to act to- all the Courts; and therefore it gether, was a question to which was fitting that the attention of the answer could not be doubtful. all or most of the Judges should If he employed neither, were be called to it before it was de either of them to be at liberty to termined; and the matter must take the opposite side; and if he stand over in the mean time till cmployed only one of them as the he had an opportunity of consultloast evil, was the other to be ing with the Judges. considered as discharged by him? No: the discharge was the conse- Court of Chancery, Jan. 25.quence of the contract of disse- The Lord Chancellor stated as fol. lution between the partners, and lows :-" In this case, in which not the act of the client. As to a solicitor has become concerned honour, and delicacy, and pro- for two opposite parties, I repriety, and so forth, he had only quested the two Chief Justices of to say, as Lord Thurlow had the Courts of King's Bench and said in a case where the question Common Pleas, and the Chief was, whether a noble Lord who Baron of the Exchequer, to prothen sat by Lord Thurlow ought cure for me the opinion of the
Judges. I have not yet had the the 24th December, when he was opinion of the Barons of the Ex- liberated from prison, and put chequer ; but the opinion of the under a guard in his own house ; Judges of the Courts of King's from whence he was sent to StilBench and Common Pleas was ton Barracks, remaining in conlaid before me yesterday, and that finement there till the 12th of opinion is,-" That no solicitor March. The action for this asis authorized so to act.” “ The sault and false imprisonment was same is the opinion of the Master commenced on the 27th June folof the Rolls, and of the Vice- lowing. Such was the plaintiff's Chancellor likewise."
case; and on behalf of the defen
dant it was urged at the trial, Baillie v. Warden.-This was a that the school had been estawrit of error from the Common blished because the serjeants Pleas, in an action of trespass were incompetent to discharge and false imprisonment. In the the duties assigned them by the Court below the names of the par- articles of war ; that when anties were reversed, Warden v. other serjeant, named John Baillie, and the facts that appear. Hooper, was admonished for ed were shortly these :-The late not attending it, the plaintiff Mr. Whitbread, as Lieutenant- Warden addressed him in these Colonel of the Bedfordshire Lo- words —“D~ your eyes Jack, cal Militia, issued an order that don't give up-don't go to school. the serjeants and other non-com- I will soldier it with any body, but missioned officers, whose duty it I will not go to school. I will was to make certain official re- not be made a boy of: I hope turns, in order to render them they will settle it before post, that more competent to their duty, I may write to my father, who will should attend a school, at the see me righted though it cost head of which was placed the Ad- 200l." Upon which a serjeant, jutant. Warden was a serjeant named Smith, observed, that such in the Bedfordshire Local Militia, language was enough to excite a and with others was directed to mutiny. It was also proved for attend this school, which he neg- the Adjutant Baillie (the defenlected. For this disobedience he dant below) that he acted under was reprimanded by Mr. Whit- orders of Lieutenant-Colonel bread, on the 1st December, but Whitbread, who, in consequence repeating it, he was ordered to of the conduct of Warden, and attend parade on the 2d De- the language he had used, wrote cember, where the Adjutant, Bail- to General Pigott, commanding lie (the defendant in the Court the district, through whom Warbelow), put him under military den was brought to a General arrest. From thence he was con- Court Martial at Norman-cross, veyed, by order of the Lieute- and being acquitted, was dis- nant-Colonel, by a military es- charged on the 12th of March, cort to the public gaol, and de- after the sentence had been conlivered into the hands of the firmed. gaoler, where he remained until Upon these facts a verdict was