HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0836 and id is 1 raw text is: HALL V. .BENNETT
[78] HALL v. BENNETT. June 25, 1824.
Solicitor. Costs.
Bill filed by a solicitor on instructions furnished by the brother-in-law of the Plaintiff,
without any communication with the Plaintiff himself, being dismissed with costs;
the solicitor ordered to pay the costs, it appearing that the Plaintiff had absconded
before the bill was filed.
The bill in this case had been dismissed with costs for want of prosecution.
The Court was moved on behalf of Feavor and Marshall, two of the Defendants,
that the solicitor, who had filed the bill for the Plaintiffs, might pay the Defendants
their taxed costs, on the ground that the Plaintiff had absconded eight years before
the bill was filed; and that the solicitor who filed it never had any communication
with him, and did not receive his instructions from him, but from his brother-in-law.
[79] Mr. Pemberton, for the motion, relied on Wilson v. Wilson (1 Jac. & Walk.
457) and White v. Stanley (Ibid. 674).
Mr. Horne, for the solicitor, opposed the motion.
THE VICE-CHANCELLOR [Sir John Leach] ordered the solicitor to pay the costs.
Reg. Lib. A. 1823, f. 1770.
E79] SHACKELL V. MACAULAY. June 30, 1824.
[See S. C. in House of Lords (sub nom. Macaulay v. Shackell), 1 Bli. (N. S.) 96;
4 E. R. 809 (with note).]
Pleading. Multifariousness.
Demurrer allowed to a bill for a discovery, and commissions to examine witnesses in
aid of the defence to two separate actions for two separate libels.
This was a bill for a discovery, and commissions to examine witnesses abroad in
aid of a defence to two separate actions for two separate libels published by the
Plaintiff. The Defendant demurred to the bill.
The bill stated that for some years past a weekly newspaper has been published
called The John Bull; that in the latter end of the year 1823 a controversy arose
respecting the state and condition of the West India Islands, and the slave population
there; that the Plaintiff Shackell had published in The John Bull newspaper (of
which the Plaintiffs were proprietors), divers articles of intelligence, arguments and
observations about that controversy; that the Defendant took an active part in that
controversy, on the side opposite to that advocated by The John Bull newspaper;
that, on the 26th of October 1823, an article was published in The John Bull news-
paper in the words and figures set forth in the bill; and that on the 9th of November
1823 another article was (80] published by the Plaintiff in the same newspaper, in
the words and figures also set forth in the bill.
The bill averred that the several witnesses, *by whose testimony the Plaintiffs
could prove the truth of the allegations contained in those articles, had gone abroad,
and that after they had gone abroad the Defendant commenced two several actions at
law against the Plaintiffs in the Court of King's Bench, and had declared in those
actions; and in the first count of the declaration filed in one of them, complained of
the whole passage published on the 26th of October, as a false, scandalous, malicious
and defamatory libel of and concerning him, the said Defendant; and in the 2d, 3d
and 4th counts, set forth particular parts of the passage, and laid his damages in that
action at £10,000. That by leave of the Court of King's Bench the Plaintiffs pleaded
divers pleas to this action, in justification of the several allegations contained in the
passage printed on the 26th of October, and alleged by these pleas that the several
allegations in the passage were true : that in the first count of the declaration in the
275
2 six. & ST. 78.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0836&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)