FROM MICHAELMAS TERM, 1837, TO TRINITY TERM, 1838, INCLUSIVE. IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY. The Right Hon. LORD COTTENHAM, Lord High Chancellor. The Right Hon. LORD LANGDALE, Master of the Rolls. The Right Hon. Sir LANCELOT SHADWELL, Knt., Vice Chancellor. IN THE COURT OF REVIEW, IN BANKRUPTCY. The Right Hon. THOMAS ERSKINE, Chief Judge. The Hon. Sir JOHN CROSS, Knt. The Hon. Sir GEORGE ROSE, Knt. IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. The Right Hon. THOMAS LORD DENMAN, Lord Chief Justice. The Hon. Sir JOHN PATTESON, Knt. The Hon. Sir JOHN WILLIAMS, Knt. The Hon. Sir JOHN TAYLOR COLERIDGE, Knt. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. The Right Hon. Sir NICHOLAS CONYNGHAM TINDAL, Knt., Chief Justice. The Right Hon. Sir JOHN BERNARD Bosanquet, Knt. The Right Hon. Sir JOHN VAUGHAN, Knt. The Hon. Sir THOMAS COLTMAN, Knt. IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER. The Right Hon. LORD ABINGER, Lord Chief Baron. The Hon. Sir WILLIAM BOLLAND, Knt. The Right Hon. Sir JAMES PARKE, Knt. The Hon. Sir EDWARD HALL ALDERSON, Knt. The Hon. Sir JOHN GURNEY, Knt. Sir JOHN CAMPBELL, Knt., Attorney General. REPORTS OF CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE Court of Chancery. BY CHARLES BEAVAN, Esq., PHILIP TWELLS, Esq., and FREDERICK JAMES HALL, Esq. CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE Court of Chancery. MICHAELMAS TERM, 1 VICTORIA. On a motion for the production of papers, letters, &c., the Court permitted an affidavit to be read by the defendant, to shew that some particular letters had been written by him to his solicitor, subsequently to the institution of the suit. This bill was filed for the specific performance of an agreement, entered into by the defendants, to take a lease. The defendants, by their answer, admitted having in their possession a case for the opinion of counsel, and the letters and copies of letters, stated in the schedule to their answer, which related to the matters in the bill mentioned; "however, the defendants said, that the aforesaid case or statement for the opinion of counsel was prepared and submitted to counsel in contemplation of, or with reference to, or in the course of, this suit; and that several of such letters and copies of letters were written subsequently to the institution of this suit; and they, therefore, submitted, that they ought NEW SERIES, VII.-CHANC. not to be compelled to produce such case or statement, or any of such last-mentioned letters, or copies of letters," &c. Mr. Rogers now moved for the production of all the letters and documents stated in the schedule. Mr. Hayter, contrà, resisted the production of the case, and opinion, and the letters written by the defendants to their solicitor subsequently to the institution of the suit; and he read an affidavit specifying which of the letters came within that class. Mr. Rogers opposed the reading of the affidavit, contending, that it was quite novel to permit a defendant to explain his answer by an affidavit; but— The MASTER OF THE ROLLS said, it was not novel, on such a motion, to introduce by affidavit something as a defence against the order for the production of papers, and that the defendants must not be deprived of the benefit of their defence by an accidental slip; he, therefore, ordered the production of all the documents, except the case and opinion, and the letters of the defendants to their solicitor, specified in the affidavit to have been written subse quently to the institution of this suit. B |