In ABBOTT C.J. The plaintiff, in this case, seeks to bring the venue back on an affidavit very different from those filed in the cases which have been cited. Cailland v. Champion, the rule was obtained on an affidavit, which negatived that the whole cause of action arose in London, by stating the fact that the party whose life was insured died in Scotland; but there is no allegation of any such distinct fact in the plaintiff's affidavit in support of this motion. The plaintiff only generally denies that the cause of action arose wholly in Staffordshire; but that is swearing to what is, in his judgment, the legal result of the facts. I am therefore of opinion, that in order to bring himself within the cases, it was necessary for him to state some special fact in his affidavit to negative the affidavit made in order to change the venue. BAYLEY J. I am of the same opinion. The present is a very unreasonable application. The plaintiff only states that the cause of action arose partly in Staffordshire, and partly in Worcestershire; but that affords no reason for his trying the cause in London.. HOLROYD J. This case is very distinguishable from Cailland v. Champion. There a particular fact was stated and not denied; but if that be not done, it is the settled practice of the Court not to bring back the venue, unless the plaintiff undertake to give material evidence in the county in which it was originally laid. BEST J. Concurred. 1819. WOOD against PEBKES. Rule discharged. 1819. Saturday, not grant a mandamus to a trading cor instance of one The KING against The Governor and Company of the Bank of ENGLAND. The Court will DENMAN moved for a mandamus to the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, to proporation, at the duce an account of the income and profits for the last of its members, half-year, preceding the holding of the last general court to compel them which was held on the 18th March, 1819, with an to produce their accounts, for account of the charges of management for the said half the purpose of declaring a di- year, for the purpose of enabling the next general court vidend of the profits. to consider the state and condition of the company, and to declare a dividend of all the profits, the charges of management only excepted. The affidavit, in support of the motion, stated that the applicant was a member of the corporation, and a proprietor of 500l. bank stock. It then set out part of the charter, by which it appeared that it was competent to the proprietors, in their general courts, to make by-laws relating to the government of the corporation. It then stated, that in the year 1697, the following by-law was made, viz. "That twice in every year a general court shall be held for considering the general state and condition of this corporation, and for the making of dividends out of all and singular the produce and profit of the capital stock and fund of this corporation, and the trade thereof, amongst the several proprietors therein, according to their several shares and proportions. The one of which said courts shall be held between the 10th and 25th days of September, the other between the 10th and 25th days of March, yearly." The affidavit then stated that the applicant, on the 3d of December, 1818, had given notice to the governor and directors of the bank to to produce, on the day on which the next half-yearly court should be held, an account of the income and profits for the half-year preceding that day, with an account of the charges of management for the said halfyear, to be laid before the court, for the purpose of enabling the court to consider the state of the company, and to declare a dividend on all the profits, the charges of management only excepted. The affidavit then stated that a general court was held on the 18th March, 1819, and that the governor and directors of the Bank of England refused to comply with his demand. The motion was then made that the accounts should be produced, which motion was negatived by a majority of the Court. It was now contended that it was imperative on the corporation to divide their profits half-yearly; and the act of the 7th Anne, c. 7., was referred to, by which it was expressly enacted, That all the profit arising out of the management of the corporation, &c., the charges of managing the business of the governor and company only excepted, should be applied from time to time to the use of all the members of the said corporation for the time being, rateably and in proportion to each member's part, share, or interest in the common capital and principal stock of the governor and company of the Bank of England. This act is imperative on the company to divide their profits, half-yearly, among all the members for the time being. Now, if the company be permitted to accumulate profits, they will not be divided among the members for the time being, but will be divided among subsequent purchasers of stock. 1819. The KING against The Bank of ENGLAND. ABBOTT 1819. The KING against The Bank of ENGLAND. ABBOTT C. J. This is an application for a mandamus to a trading corporation, at the instance of an individual member, to compel the directors of that corporation to produce their accounts and divide their profits. It is, in effect, an application on the behalf of one of several partners to compel his co-partners to produce their accounts of profit and loss, and to divide their profits, if any there be. The examination of the accounts of a trading company may be effectually entered into in the Court of Chancery; but this Court is a very unfit tribunal for such a subject. A mere trading corporation differs materially from those which are entrusted with the government of cities and towns, and therefore have important public duties to perform. No instance has been cited in which the Court has granted a mandamus to a corporation like the present, and I think we ought not now to establish the precedent. BAYLEY J. The Court never grant this writ except for public purposes, and to compel the performance of public duties. This is an application, at the instance of one of several partners in a trading company, to compel his co-partners to divide their profits: but that is a mere private purpose, and presents a fit subject for enquiry on the other side of the hall. There is no instance in which the Court have granted a mandamus to a trading corporation; and that being so, I think that we should not now grant it for the first time. HOLROYD HOLROYD J. I am of the same opinion. The effect of this application would be to compel a public exposure of private concerns, and I think it ought not to be granted. BEST J. If we were to grant this rule, we should make ourselves auditors to all the trading corporations in England. Rule refused. 1819. The KING against The Bank of ENGLAND. HOLT BORWICK against WALTON. she OLT had obtained a rule nisi to discharge the rule to bring in the body, on the ground that the plaintiff had brought an action against the riff for the escape of the defendant, and had already rcovered the full debt. It appeared that the defendant had been arrested at the suit of the plain tiff, and the sheriff, upon a rule served upon him to return the writ, had returned cepi corpus et paratum habeo. But bail above not having been put in, and there being no render or bail-bond, the plaintiff brought his action against the sheriff for an escape, and recovered a verdict for 2007., which he had received, together with the costs. The plaintiff, notwithstanding the verdict, had ruled the sheriff to bring in the defendant's body, contending that he had a right to do so, inasmuch as the sheriff, by the return of cepi corpus, had charged himself with the custody of the body; and was therefore bound to bring the defendant into court. Espinasse shewed cause. The plaintiff has a right to require the sheriff to bring the defendant into court, in |