Hide Article Text (OCR)
SUG-lon for I of the r Mr. .•as not icrican it that[treaty, lich be have aa of right hand,' who liable lately ly ac-icnded differ-right la casein a than as le prin-nbt in insti-I among lotion event iff, the tiff and act ? ?rfere, ted.[he hadiff per-tcts the know, to thelm-ehcnd-n this .’his, it natureXground alone the Court was fcoand to direct another csne, and it waa to he considered whose fault it was that the case had not been properly stated to the Court below. Hb Lordship expressed much doubt whether he ought to set this important question again afloat. He would not now decide the point but woqJd reserve the judgment to some future day.C tC E-CHAN CELLO IV S COURT, Nor. 25.Houlditch v. The Marquess of Donegal.—Mr. Fon olanque, for the defendant, slated that this was a cause that required the minutest investigation, as a suit was instituted in Ireland to attain the same objects sought by the present bill.— The original bill in the cause woo filed in Trinity Terra, 1802, and in August, 1803, the Master was ordered to report wbat persons were bona fide holders of debentures affecting the estates of the Marquess of Donegal; in pursuance of which order be reported that Mr. John King was a holder of debentures to the amount of *20,0001., and also that other persons were holders of such debentures to a large amount. The plaintiff in that suitwas a Mr. Jones, whose claim was satisfied by a com-fromise in the year 1816j when his representatives were paid 1,0001. in full satisfaction. The preseat plaintiffs claim by their bill to be holders of various debentures of the above description, by assignment from a gentleman named DennisBerry, oud several others, as administrators of Sir John Ladd, who, it appears by the Master's report, were not the originalBishop id thuse suchuld be, fere in for the rson as Id also to do bound •ther.— lute, he bestion. isidera-ant the id fromgrantees, those debentures havingbeen originally granted to Mr. John King, a Mr. Grant, Mr. Davis, ana Colonel Whaley, none of whom are now before the Court, and who, if they were, could give most important information how those debentures were obtained. In the year 1809, the Marquess of Donegal paid the plaintiffs upwards of 6 0001. in satisfaction of the debentures they then held ; and in the year 1818, they filed a bill in Ireland for the payment of a new batch of debentures which they had collected after that payment. In that suit they claimed for all the debentures in the present suit, except those assigned by Sir John Ladd, which, however, they stated in their present bill, were assigned to them in 1810. If that statement were true, their conduct was oppressive in instituting separate suits for an object which might oe obtained by a single suit—such oppression as n Court of Equity would never sanction. The Marquess of Donegal put in his answer to the bill of 1818, in 1819, and asserted that he was not justly indebted for any of the debentures stated in the bill, except one assigned to Sir John Ladd, all the others having arisen out of gambling, usurious, and other fraudulent transactions. The plaintiffs were, by this answer, pot to the proof of the consideration originaUy given for these debentures, but they shrunk from the task; and to escape from the proceeding, were even content to allow their bill to be dismissed, although Lord D. himself had not proceeded to the dismissal of the bill. To avoid the proof of their claims, which was required by the Marquess of D.’s answer, in Ireland, the plaintiffs came into this Court, and obtained leave to file a bill, in which they sought to avail themselves of the Master’s report iu favour of the debentures made iu the year 1803. But if persons were found in possession of securities for a great length of time, and laid by, it must be for some object \ and what object was so probable in the present case, as to wait till the evidence by which the equity of such securities might be combatted was destroyed ? On this ground, and also on the ground that a suit lor those very debentures was still pending in Ireland, he prayed that the bill might be dismissed.The Vice-Chancellor said he had given leave to file the supplemental bill, because the case now made out was not then disclosed to him j the Marquess of Donegal’s affidavit made in objection to filing the supplemental bill having stated no other fact, than that a suit for the same debentures nv the same nnr-tions low; the estate, Mr. Ban I although hf first quest Counsel ?**J Mr. Bari that the in: atteution,tl Chief Clt; Indulge it. tion with . tlcman for not beinlt; duriug theCOiliHawkins stated that a barrister, sufficient sec( The annuity i| of the Duke of, if any ej The plaintiffJ bring his acti| of the statute! the usual disi trial until thi poned upon cessary to mej rule to show the sittings i give the plaii ounded on bankruptcy ol of the means ieen taken oui undergone a) Datureof 112 been allowed b| The affidavit to investigate 32 able to go iHIGH COFrench Bh this case a peti above vessel, w the vessel La L tain placed on -ord Dacre the head money for done no more l the men, as the raise of a future over till a laterThe Vau db 1* a case of salvage various espence: made at the tin award, on the gr cxpences; it had quently a report * it might now be c
Newspaper Details
Morning Chronicle
London, Middlesex, GB
Wed, Nov 26, 1823
Page 4
Full Page
Clipped by
Jeremy S.
USA 25 Feb 2016
Other Publications Near London, Middlesex
Bingleys Journal
Arminian Magazine
London Daily Mail
London Stars and Stripes
London Daily Universal Register
