The Express.
London, England, 1852-06-17 00:00:00

Lab) intelltgenct.

HOUSK OF LOItllS.-YMERDAY.
ArroAug MT ON THE O.r. Or tt.Aosost to I'CuII.ANU, Iturtt Corar or
crArt.ar. ASV Exuma,:OILNZ to lassatos.—Ltrroas Tits
Loan VtIAN.L. OIL. TY% I.VKIB 01 3410(111JITIllk AND TU. MAIWP,

TNOY~ON O. CNLIS?II. TRUST P
-LIAVILITT OF TILUSTRI.JUDONIINT.

This app;1.7•;1.,,t
Mr. Andrews having sow replied on the whole case,
The Lord Chancellor moved the judgment of the house.
The ease arose on the investment of certain trust money of
the estate of Mr. Haldane, of Kingslaw, under • trust,
disposition, and settlement made In 1789. Mr. Thomson (re-
presented by the appellant, his daughter and czecutriz),
• writer to the signet in Edinburgh, was one of the trustees.
Very large dbiere•ionary powers were certainly given under
the deed. In 1819, Mr. Thomson was the only surviving
trustee, and having previously acted as legal agent
(being himself • solicitor, or, rather, writer to
the signet), he continued to carry on the trust.
In that year be instituted certain proceedings in the court
below, for the purpose of bringing together the different
persons interested in Haldane 's estate, and having it pro-
perly
distributed. In 1822 he brought in his accounts, and
four years afterwards he advanced on mortgage security the
sum of 6001. in dispute. By the original instrument
creating the trust ho was bound to lay out the funds on
security, and undoubtedly the securities were not defined ;
but they must be understood to mean such securities as a
trustee could properly take. He advanced the 60W. with-
out taking the opinion of the court or consulting any of the
persona beneficially interested. The money was advanced
on two houses in Edinburgh, on which there was •
prior mortgage for 3,0001. There was soma evi
(lance to show that the property was of a larger
value than the whole amount of tho incum-
. .

was certainly alight, and not
of that kind on which the firintat reliance could be placed,
for no one of an experience in courts of justice, he was
sorry to say, could doubt that if evidence as to value was
brought forward on one side, that the chances were that
evidence directly contrary would be tendered on the other.
The 6001. were advanced to a Mr. Ireland on a deed, mak-

log, as before stated, the second mortgage on the property,
and a Mr. Alison joined in the bond as security. That this
was a good security according to the law of this country
was beyond doubt. If the law of Scotland was not settled
on the point, then nothing could be more just and reason-
able than to say that the principles of the law of England
should be applied to doubtful questions in dispute. It had
been matter of complaint in Scotland that the prin•
ciples of English law were too often applied
to cases coming from Scotland (so we understood
the noble and learned lord) but he for one wadi
never advise the house to apply the principle of the law et
this country to Scottish Mts, unless it was deer hems&
doubt that the law of that country was not guilds' tae
mtieular question under consideration. Bat le *MUM
Ike house was relieved from the necessity of. tinelliming
whether the set of Mr. Thomson in advancing di=
amounted to a breach of trust or not, according Oa
law. Was it prudent and proper to advanee mend et
property which was not greatly beyond the odes of tan is.
cumbrances ? House property was never a veep selhibto
tory security for trust money, liable as it wee is tmenallimuse;
for exemple, fire, from which land was exempted. Is made
this observation rather with the view of gulag, trustees is
Scotland in the choice of security for investmenb in order
to avoid damage to the property committed to their trust,
than as a matter bearing on the present question ; busses
he Might under the reculiar latitude of diapoddent allowed
hp the demi of settlement this portico:a set was me which
• semi a equity would not have visited on a trustee. Is
MI Mir. Thomson called for the repayment of the menu.
so der met having been done he put up the propeety
Nil la tee rte under the power of disposition contained in
ale medippe itself. The property was bought by two dif-
Ilinent persons who had acted u real purchasers, and who
WISO Muted es such. The money terms of the sale were
inademt to satisfy the full amount of two mortgages of
411111. end 1001., and to leave a surplus. Mr. Thom.
eon molested that sak, and received payment for his
l labour therein as a writer to the signet.
It , however, from transactions which very
ahaetiy afterwards took place that the two persona were
merely nominal purchasers. They had no right to relieve
themselves from the liabilities which they had bound them-
selves so signing the conditions of sile,or as they are termed
in Scotland, the " articles of roup." but they did so. It
turned out that both persons had bought the respective
portions of the property for a Mr. Alison. And who wu
this Alison ? Ho was the very Mr. Alison who had entered
jots the bond with saline which Ireland gave to Thomson
wises re SOW. were advanced. If there was anything
the emcee esleulated than another to have excited the care
sztarse of
paut.irut,tee;
a surety,
it surelywas
and himself
the ecirumstance
Beal
tare,
illi
tytothielavaemounnt
exercised he
Than
etism
pavan
tee as the purchaser, but Mr. Thames at IMP
mit
accepted By the articles of roup it was stipulated that
the purchaser should enter into a bond to complete the par.
Olitie ;• ands failing the completion, that the subjects were
es be mid. The court below seemed to have laid stress es
the eirommtance that the property was not immediately
mil emektr that condition. But be (the Lord Cheneelior)
al ON think that dist wen alone a sufficient ground se
whia to throw the responsibility on the trustee. Webs",
shwa, or generally, in England a condition blurted le or.
this et sale that if the purchaser fails to complete the per-
ohms it shall belawful to resell, and that the loot, if any,
sin& MI as him. But it is very seldom that this is resorted
to, sad no trustee would be called on to make good
tliii loam_ if be failed to net et the condition.

He therefore did ast ths bows la Ws I
cm to fie the BONN, ef the Imam en that Mr.
Thomson lived he Ogee pees after the It meld
appear that the persbase issemsyym net fartheldh%lll.
Almon, and this Tiesassa saaiy eha=ba
character of the tsammetism thsturiisfy
and introducing waking bat warseiss. Alison paid =
sae of interest, but mat an delft of the lethal was ever
paid. Theemos eusetsd deeds Now, jag lath of the pro.
prone to Moos, ami the original deed end bond, and
samba security, were delivered up to him. He (the Lord
Cleemmeer) had seldom heard of a more careless and um-
paw transaction on the pert of a trustee. It was
eat to be tolerated that • trustee who had
=&ht a property to aide balms Mhad law
to obtain repayment •Ir NOM adostmod
is it, was, the moesest that sale wee ethelekte
and endanger the trust, by eislivedue up ditt=dl
possessing, and to permit the peadmitsie to reuds_pWWWun
without paying • single shilling of the mosey. fle *OWN
on the facts of the me, that this wee an manifest • leash
of trust, that no court of equity woad hesitate aftne dve
minutes' consideratios. He believed that Mr. 71111.1.01
neglect might be attributed to MUM, owl Wet lis had
himself in effect retired from the trust; but ustleasedd
be safe in conveying hie property in trust, if enth
nem as these were suffered to asks phase. He y,
therefore, of opinion that the transaction on tbe part of
Mr. Thomson amounted to a breath of trust, that the de-
cision of the court below, finding the appellant liable, as it
was the duty of Thomson to recover the prices of the pro-
perty over whirls Ireland and Misses bond was secured,
was • right judgment, and must be affirmed with costs.
Judgment accordingly.
STRTIIIINMON O. HIOOIIIIBIII.—Eason—STATTTE fit
0101011 111., C. 6.4.---OPTICS OR PROCTOR IN IRELAND.—
This writ of ono, oa a manes fee penalties, wee argued
in the easily part of last sessien. The eimistiffils the salon
was Mr. 0 sew fleaplommen, • limbo Of the
Coactntda of the lemd Bishop id Dews sad Ommsrlir Itlikdr-
feW, 14. Bow Tlisaplene Mlopsums,spy
of the assess, UM not • yowls, Ksay sMsi~
iMisM mart
is Inds d.
Lord litiro, in moving lisjedwaent of the husk mid
that this was a writ of error from the Court ef imhequer
Chamber in Ireland, affirming the judgment Kea Chan-
cellor of Exchequer is that constee, _ Ties wasetion was
whether • registrar of • Weems was Male m seetais penal-
ties of tor. each under the filth Ow 111. a. Skew. 10, en-
titled " An Act for the kW* weaken at Mesimdmil
Courts M Ireland, and 1114==ssirry WlCharek
Rotas and Tithes." Thuths dsl.
i• saw with wino ohukissd 'whets mitle moot m
the somase hew is the Issississised Onet, mod st pro-
, curing letters of administration to be meted sat of it. sad
I of preparing inventories and ashadules of goods and istiels
for grants of probate or admishtratios, and the afdavifs
and certificates to verify the same, last{ K. the
grant of marriage licenses by the mid asses it
averred that these duties appertained to the tellw-4
a proctor. The action was tided at Caretaker., be-
fore Mr. Baron Perrin. Evidence was Mamma ,
the defendant to show that the sets referred to
were by custom performed by registrars or their deputies.
This evidence was objected to on the part of plaintiff, who
insisted that by the 9th section of the statute the acts were
by the very statute Itself declared to be aos appertaining to
the office of proctor. The learned judge, however, decided
that the evidence was admissible, and the ruling was ex-
cepted to. Several other witnesses were celled, one a
whom proved that in some dioceses, more particularly is
the diume of Elphin, there were no proctors; that tin
registrars transacted business; and that when anything
requiring the service of a praetor occurred the parties seat
to Dahlia fir one. The learned judge told the jury that
the plaintiff had not made out the cue, and a verdict wee
returned for the defendant. A bill of exceptions was ten-
dered to thst direction. Judgment tenoned, and • writ a
error was brought into the Exchequer Chamber. Sever
ledges were 4/opinion that the jedgment should be affirmed,
and four were,/ a contrary opinion. The present writ of
error was Meerdingly brought. When the tame wee
argued the WNW judges attended, and two questions were
submitted fee their opinion ;
" I. In an astion at law' brought against a registrar a
an Eoelesisstisel Court is Ireland, to recover a pesky
claimed by the dadlarefor he have been forfeited by the Is-
*of swidstuslailhOd ts appertain to the dies, fear
Yes_ _ alipsusths of • praetor, would it be competent le ,
Me gehnit to give evidence that for several it bed
INNS imwastise of the registrant of different irMaiattlsal
Courts
p/ ads sash acts ae those referred to in swoons with
r
wa
'IL Meld each declaration be sustained by proof that
the ilsilhadwit me not a proctor, sad that he hid-prepared
dose the acts n flan as ~nected
with the eltembilag end emceeing Mitelleattary and
y.=gene, and extracting preheise ef nth, end draw-
sod pemethig inventories, de.. In the aismusa of any
Wet the acts done, and the lamstimsula red
awls iiii=amd. alt:tert;iord seg. laismeal is Os left
leirsamaill;649".9 (ama we notibehei math
lam alma divided I. spara sithitse
peinwei %Jr the*
IMMO WM adial by Ile lam