Vice-Chancellor's Court, ...
U1r.ILOuPEL.L, on the part of the plaintiff, applied for an injunc- tion to restrain the defendants from removing the business of the Morning Herald newspaper from Catherinestreet, In the Strand, wvhereit was at present carried on, to Shoe-lane. The plaintifflike- wise prayed that an account might be taken of the partnership pro- fits, &c. The plaintiff was one of the proprietors of the Morning Mer-ald nevwspaper, and the-defendants were other poprietors. The plaintiff's object was to prevent the property, in which he was in- terested, from being deteriorated, which he believed would be the consequence of removing the office ot the MorninR Herad from Ca- therine-street, where it had been estabi]shed for upwards of forty years, to such an obscure part of the town as Shoe-lane. lSe con- tended that, accordipg to the articles of partiership the defendants ha; no right to remove thebusiness of the paper wdiont his consent. The resolution for removing the office had been agreefd to on the 21st of July last, one of thedays for boldingz weriklygewieral fneet- ing of the proprietors, but w)hen only two proprietors wvere pre. sent,-naxnely, Mr.- T hwaites, jun. and Ir. Blyfield. Trht pTllntf had never given his consent tp gJie remoal of tht business of thq paper, nor hald his consent been asked. The plaintifffelt himselt'coniupelled to call upon thc Court to. direct an account to be taken, because he had been obstructed by the defend- ants in inspecting the partnership books. The plaiitiff in his affi- davit stated, that. a short time since he went, accompaniedl by MIr. Denhiam, his solicitor; to the Morning Herald office to inspect the divldend book, when Mr. Thwaltes refused to let him se- it in the presence of Mlr. Denliam. Utnder those circumstanoes, he trusted that the Court would think it right tp grant the plaintiff the relief which he prayed. Mr. K3NIGHT followed on the same side. Alr. AGAR said, that he appeared to oppose the application whiclh had been made by the plaintifft with whom his (Mr. Agar's) clients had the misfortune to be co-partners In a very valuable concern. When Air. Thwaites became a proprietor of the Morning Herald, it was a paper of no importance; bat he had, by his talent and exer- tions,greatlyincreased fts circulation. He would eadeavou6 to put the Court in pomsession of the real facts of the case. About two years since it was found necessary, in order to secure the early publication of the paper, that It should be printed by steam. The dilapi- dated state of the premises in Catberine-street rendered it im- possible that the stearn-engine could be erected there. The types when set up were therefore conveyed to aprinter nained Applegath, in Stamford.street, Blackfriars, where the impressions were taken off by means of a steam-engine. Mr. Applegath was about to re. move to Shoe-lane, and all that was now prolposed to be done was, to have the paper printed there instead of at Stamford-street as here- tofore. The defendants had filed an affidavit, in waich they denied that it was their intention to give up the house in Catherine-street. His HONOUR said, that he could see no ground whatever for the motion t the defendants had, in their affidavits, distinctly denied that they intended to renmove the business of the news- paper from Catherine-street. The refusal to let the plaintiff in- spect the dividend book in the presence of a third person, was not a sufficient ground for directing an account to be taken. Under these circumstances, the motion must be dismissed with cests. OILL'S-HILL COTTAGE. Mr. WrRAv'applied, on the part of a gentleman named Barber, who bad lately become the purchaser of Gill's-hill cottage, in Hertfordslire, celebrated for the dreadful scenes which were lately transacted there by the murderer Thurtell and his associates, for an iujunction to restrain two Dersons named Wardle and Evard, to whom the premises were let, from removing the fixtures from the cottage, and the shrubs and fruit-trees from the grounds attached thereto. The learned gentleman read a passage from the lease, to show that the defendants had no power to do that which it was the object of the injunction sought to restrain them from. The COURT directed the injunction to issue. I VICE-CHANCELLORWS COURT. W rn-yi'Rn AV. TITT-V 9R. Before the MASTER of the ROLLS. GLASSINGTO2 V. THWAITYES A.n OTITMRq.