REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS AND CORRUPT PRAC UPON WHICH HIS HONOUR VICE-CHANCELLOR SIR W. PAGE, “It is a privilege to comment stringently, and, if recessary, severely, on the proceedings of courts of justice; freely to canvass their decisions, and, if need be, to hold them up as erroLeo 15."-- LORD CAMPLELL, House of Lords, July 6th, 1855. In the High and Honourable Court of Chancery of England, J. Forscr (were it called the Papistical Court of Inquisition of England, the Hon. its meaning would be better implied). Member for enemies to Commerce, evidence Upton and LEGITIMATE Commerce between England and the native traders of the West Coast of Africa condemned by the honourable free-way, trade Member of Parliament, John Forster, and Andrew Swanzy, freedom of Esqrs., African barterers, and confirmed by Macgregor Laird, Secret unEsq., a director of the African Steam Ship Company, whose scrupulous evidence, prepared in secret by affidavit, by those highly respect- prepared by able solicitors, Tatham, Upton, Upton and Johnson, Esqrs., of Tatham, Austin-friars, was successfully pleaded by those talented advocates of truth and justice, Jolm Rolt, Esq., Queen's Counsel, and Hugh MacCalmont Cairns, Esq., Queen's Counsel, Equity Hagh MeDraughtsman, an unpaid member of the IIouse of Com- Cairas, mons, and a professed advocate of the liberty of the people. The learned and penetrating honourable Vice-Chancellor, Sir W. Page Wood, Knight, ultimately deemed it necessary to grant the required injunction for the committal of the defendant. Court of Chancery. Calmont a talented equity draughts- inal. Vice-Charcellor The following report of his Honour's judgment appeared in Wood. the Shipping and Mercantile Gazette of the 15th of March, 1856:- CHANCERY COURT. OGILBY V. GREGORY.-(Before Vice-Chancellor Wood.)-This cause came before the court again on Thursday last, when the Vice-Chancellor gave judgment as follows: notions of This is a case in which I entertain as little doubt as it is now Clandesting presented to me, as I did when it was formerly before me under a Knight of different circumstances. The question now is one of a very different character. It is, whether or not this gentleman (the mac the Chan cery fur nace. defendant), in the course he has thought fit to take, in the clandestine manner in which he has acted, has not justified the plaintiffs now in saying that they have no longer that confidence which ought to exist between partners, and that the time has arrived when the court must see its way clearly (and in the present state of circumstances, I must say I do see my way very clearly to it) whether the result of the cause would not be a dissolution of the partnership, and, if so, whether they would not be entitled to an injunction? Then the question is, whether there are not also acts done by the defendant which justified the plaintiffs in saying that, until that dissolution and windingup, the defendant ought to be restrained from interfering with the affairs of the partnership, using the partnership name, or pledging its credit, and from receiving or disposing of the partnership debts or assets. With regard to what has taken place in this gentleman's conduct, I think it is of a most reprehensible character. The partnership articles distinctly provide that no partner shall, without the consent of the others, "enter into or engage in any other trade or business in any way whatsoever, either separately or jointly, directly or indirectly, with any other persons whomsoever; nor become agent or assistant to any person or persons whomsoever for any purpose whatsoever." Nothing can be more plain or clear, than that none of them shall, without the consent of the others, directly or indirectly, enter into any other trade or partnership business whatsoever. The articles of partnership provide for the payment of a sum Chancellor. of money as liquidated damages for breach of the articles in this respect; but I look on this injunction as asked upon this much broader ground, and in these much broader terms, because he has been guilty systematically of a breach of these partnership articles, and has concealed that fact during the whole time he has been carrying on other business, which, by the articles, he was prohibited from doing. It has been argued that a partnership can only be dissolved where there has been a systematic breach after continued complaints and remonstrances. Now, how could there be any remonstrance here, when it has been going on, in fact, during the whole duration of the partnership, without any one of the partners, until now, knowing anything about it? Therefore, the case comes simply to this, whether or not, in a partnership, where the first rule of the court is, that among partners there must be uberrima fides in every respect, a partner who has carried on a separate business, Broad ideas of a Vice Inquisito rial rule of the Court of Chancery unaided by a jury. contrary to the articles, without informing his partners of it, can be allowed to continue any longer to have the direction or management of any portion of the business of the partnership? The case was this: The defendant was himself an active agent in the promotion of the African Steam Ship Company. One of the rules framed by the company, was, that no director, agent, or servant of the company, should directly or indirectly be engaged himself in the African trade, because it is obvious that the merchants would have their jealousy excited if the directors, who were to be the carriers of the goods, were to be themselves traders, and give themselves advantages with reference to freight, rapidity in loading or unloading, and the like. The answer of the defendant was not a very creditable one, I must say, to him. It is this:-"I, knowing that I was precluded, as a director of the Steam Navigation Company, from directly or indirectly being engaged in any business, took on myself to become a trader under another name, in order that it might not be known I was so engaged in that business. I traded under the firm of Desnaux and Co." And in his affidavit, he says he did it because he knew it was not competent for him to do it as a director. That, in the outset, is a very unfortunate Unfortu statement for this gentleman to make. But then he says, as conception regards his partners, he did not believe it would be any damage of Viceto them, but, on the contrary, that it was to their interest as wood. agents that the company should have as large a business as Monopo possible. But, in order to secure the confidence of traders, it was of equal importance to the company that their agents should not be traders, and some of the merchants have, in fact, taken umbrage at discovering that the defendant, one of the partners in Messrs. Ogilby's house, the agents of the company, was carrying on business as a trader; so that this gentleman not only engaged in a concern which he concealed from his partners, but engaged in a way, as it appears to me, extremely detrimental to the interests of his partners, and this without their having the slightest notion of it until they are accidentally informed of it in a manner which is in itself an aggravation of the defendant's conduct. The way in which they became acquainted with it is this:-The defendant and Mr. Desnaux* had disputes of their own, and the defendant, finding goods coming to Desnaux and His Honour, from evidence before him, was aware Desnaux was Mr. Gregory's salaried servant and had misappropriated eight hundred pounds of his money to his own private purposes. nate mis Chancellor lizing mer chants sup ply his honour Wood with dence. selfish evi Unjust and oppressive junction Co., by one of the Steam Company's ships, he, without consulting his partners, used the name of the firm of Ogilby and Co., as agents of the Steam Ship Company, to give an order for delivering goods out of the docks to an agent of the defendant not in the firm of Desnaux and Co., or Ogilby and Co.; thus making Ogilby and Co. liable to Mr. Desuaux for anything wrong which had happened to these goods from their misdelivery to a person against the consent of Mr. Desnaux. The gravamen of the whole offence here is, that the defendant had not only carried on the business clandestinely, but has used his position as a partner in the firm of Ogilby and Co., to make use of the name of the firm of Ogilby and Co., in order to determine the destination of goods which are in dispute between him and another person with whom Ogilby and Co. had no transaction, and as to whose connection with the defendant they were entirely ignorant. He settles his dispute with Mr. Desnaux in his own favour, by using the name of the firm of Ogilby and Co., to order their goods to be handed over to his own agent, as against Mr. Desnaux, who claims to be entitled to the goods, as partner with the defendant. I think a proceeding like that justifies a total want of confidence in the parties who entered into partnership, and justifies them in putting an end to the partnership, as I apprehend they would be entitled to do, at the hearing of this cause. Under that state of circumstances, I think they have a right to say he ought not to be any longer intrusted with using the name of their firm at all. Accordingly, it seems to me that that part of the injunction which asks to restrain him "from interfering in the affairs of the partnership, and from using the partnership name, or pledging the partnership credit, and from receiving or disposing of the partnership debts or assets, and from intermeddling with the affairs, should be granted; but I do not mean to prevent this gentleman attending at the office of the partnership, and looking at the books and other concerns there. An injunction was then granted to restrain the defendant from acting or interfering in the affairs of the partnership firm of a Knight of Ogilby, Moores, Gregory and Co., and using the partnership nume, or pledging the partnership credit, and from receiving or disposing of the partnership debts or assets. of the Court of Chan cery. 3, Ingram Court, Fenchurch-street, Gazette an instrument To the Editor of the Shipping and Mercantile Gazette. SIR,-I was sorry to find, by your gazette of the 15th instant, The Ship. that that valuable mercantile organ had been made an instrument le of designing persons to publish the case in the High Court of Chancery of Ogilby v. Gregory, in a very incorrect form, leaving of desig out most important and valuable matter referred to by the ViceChancellor in my favour, and introducing, in its stead, misstate ments. As it is of the utmost public importance that correct reports of law intelligence should appear in your columns, will you oblige me with the name of the person who had the temerity to furnish you with such an atrocious report; at the same time publishing this letter as a caution to persons unscrupulously disposed. I am, Sir, your humble servant, CHARLES WILLIAM GREGORY. ing persons. Austin Friars, March 22, 1856. an sion of a unjust in junction. SIR,-Messrs. Ogilby, Moore and Power, inform us, that you A legal iden are drawing checks, through the instrumentality of your brother of evaEdward, which, we have no doubt, is an evasion of the injunetion; and we trust it will not be persisted in, or our clients will be compelled to apply to the Court for redress. We are, Sir, your obedient servants, TATHAM, UPTON, UPTON AND JOHNSON. C. W. Gregory, Esq. 3, Ingram Court, Fenchurch-street, March 27, 1856. To the Editor of the Shipping and Mercantile Gazette. SIR, On the 18th instant I wrote to you for the name of the person who had furnished you with an incorrect account of the atrocious proceedings perpetrated against me and my brother, in the High Court of Chancery, of which I am sorry The Slipyou have taken no notice. ping and Gazelle notice of an The proceedings I am preparing for bringing to a criminal antile court of justice persons moving in the highest circles of society, takes no will be such as, I fully expect, will condemn the Court of inj Chancery in its own furnaces. It is not now my wish that perpetrated you should take any further notice of the matter, as the criminal columns. injustice through its |