Beer v Ward
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 April 1821 |
| Date | 17 April 1821 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 37 E.R. 779
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. Jac. 194. See Ramsbotham v. Senior, 1869, L. R. 8 Eq. 579; In re Holmes, 1877, 25 W. R. 604.
[77] beer v. ward. ward v. beer. April 17, 1821. [S. C. Jac. 194. See Ramsbotltam v. Senior, 1869, L. R. 8 Eq. 579 ; In re Holmes, 1877, 25 W. R. 004.] Motion to restrain a solicitor from giving evidence of confidential matters, refused, the propriety of his being examined being left to the consideration of the Court before which he might appear as a witness. A solicitor who has been discharged, may upon proof of misconduct be restrained from communicating information that came to him confidentially from his client. Sembl. The defendant Ward, had been for some years the committee of W. Cotton, a lunatic, who died in November 1819, leaving three sisters and the grand-daughters of a deceased sister, who were the plaintiffs in the original suit. The lunatic was tenant for life of a considerable real estate ; the ultimate remainder of which was limited to his father in fee ; on his death, the remainder falling into possession, the estate was claimed by the plaintiffs, as co-heirs at law to the lunatic, who was heir to his father. The plaintiffs had been treated as the co-heirs and next of kin of the lunatic, in the master's reports, and other proceedings in the lunacy. Shortly after the lunatic's death, the plaintiffs applied for letters of administration of his personal estate, when a caveat was entered on the part of the Crown, alleging that the luna,tic was illegitimate. At the same time a claim to the real estate was made by the defendant Ward ; he alleged that the father and mother of the lunatic had married subsequently to his birth, but previously to that of his brother E. R. Cotton ; that the ultimate remainder had, therefore, vested in E. R. Cotton, under whose will he claimed. The above suits arose out of these opposite claims ; and a suit for the administration was depending in tho ecclesiastical court, between the plaintiffs and the Crown. A motion was now made on the part of the plaintiffs in the original suit, that the defendant's solicitor, and his clerk might be restrained from disclosing (by the giving of evidence in judicial proceedings or otherwise) any facts, circumstances, or matters, relating to or con-[78]-cerning the rights and interests of the plaintiffs, which came to the knowledge of the solicitor, while he acted as the clerk or assistant to G. L. V., deceased, who was the solicitor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Canada Trust Company and Others v Century Holdings Ltd and Others
... ... The privilege is the client's and not the Solicitor's, and accordingly, the client may restrain the solicitor from making disclosure Beer v Ward [1821] Jac 77 ; Davies v Clough [1837] 8 Sim 262 ; Carter v Palmer [1841] 8 CL & Fin 657 at 707 , HL ; Mellor v Thompson [1885] 31 Ch ... ...
-
Goodman Estate v. Geffen, (1991) 127 N.R. 241 (SCC)
...produce without the consent of the plaintiffs being requested and obtained. "Lord Chancellor Eldon said, in Beer v. Ward (1821), Jacob 77; 37 E.R. 779, at p. 80: '... it would be the duty of any court to stop him if he was about to disclose confidential matters ... the court knows the privi......
-
Russell v Jackson
...v. Rastall (4 T. R. 753), Qromack v. Heathcote (2 Bro. & Bing. 4), Chant v. Browne (7 Harer 79), Jones-f.Pugh(l Ph. 96), Beer v. Ward (Jac. 77, 82), Cholmondeley v. Clinton (19 Ves. 261), Flight v. Bobin-\3Q$\-son (8 Beav.,22), Herring v. Globery (1 Ph. 91), Wheatky v. Williams (1 M. & W. 5......
-
Goodman Estate v. Geffen, (1991) 125 A.R. 81 (SCC)
...without the consent of the plaintiffs being requested and obtained. "Lord Chancellor Eldon said, in Beer v. Ward (1821), Jacob 77; 37 E.R. 779, at p. 80: '... it would be the duty of any court to stop him if he was about to disclose confidential matters ... the court knows the privileg......