The Express.
London, England, 1847-08-06 00:00:00

Mir. Oasis, orlYr. Chasillse. is iwt ef the
t=sl!
sagest lls Tisawar's datiklm, erase& flit the
master had so power, leader the essoutts order 0
Nthronse, to take a general eiscomit of newsy transf
antis= basun& the solicitor and his silent Ilia
dielp was limited to the examination of the 'thanes 1
loads la the YR of eels. sad to the must* made in re-
=elthem fits the Aust. To easbh ths ureter to enter
so to smile resekral by the soliotor,
although en assuast of the dilssae lot est rid to hint ex-
=lV ken
of Its souls. would maim special direc-
, inserted ha dr sass to tax. The master could
set aside a qeseths of sot off; that was a assignee fur the
.asstlf the At had a sisia melees the solicitor for
Weds, reeeiwod by the hater ter him, lie might file a bill for
ea arenas The psstlm his, wee, what was the practice
On tinini _tab ash astoreat to the general order of
lead, whisk exsiwkel hews tut all items of payments
Incept such IS Wen applicable towards the satisfaction of
costs. The tear...marten thought the proper coursewas to
do no more that simply tax the bills.—Mr. R. Palmer sum
ported the Viemehencellor's decision.
The falcons:dor were, among others, cited and die
coned on both via. ;—" Anonymous" (2 Vesey, sea.,
452), o Jones e. ames" (1 Bevan), " Russell e. Bu-1
chums " (9 Simone). and " In re Smith " (9 Bevan).
The Lord Chancellor said the question depended on the
construction of the act 2 Geo. 11., c. 23. Payments might
made to a solicitor not in discharge (Able costs, but in payment
of other debts, and each could not be subject to taxation. The
question was, how the officer of the court was to execute the
e
order of reference. It was not disputed that payments wer
made to the solicitor in this case. If he received such pay-
ments in his character of solicitor to the client, the question
wits whether there were not applicable to his costs. It was
sot necessary to decide whether a general account of pay-
ments to the solicitor could be taken under the common order
for taxation of his bills. Toe cases cited 'bowed that that
could not be done. The appelant objected that any monies
received by him for the client, and not agreed to be
applied to the payment of the costs, were not subject
to taxation. There would be much inconvenience in laying
down that rule. His lordship then exsmined the cases that
were cited, and observed, that in none of them was it held
that the master might not, under the common order to tax,
take an account of monies admitted by the solicitor to have
been received by him in his character of solicitor for the
client. His lordship came to the conclusion that the taxing-
master ought to have taken an account of the monies so re-
ceived in this case, and set them off against the bill of costa.
Large sums were often paid out of court to solicitors for their
clients, and though they were not received expressly towards
payment of costs, the master, in his taxation, should tike an
account of them ; that was not a general account of all tran-
sactions between the parties.—llis lordship was of opinion
that the Vice-Chancellor's order was quite consistent with
the authorities on the subject, and dismissed the appeal with
casts.
NEWTON V. RICRETTB.—EEECCTORB OF A DISPUTED
WILL.—INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN THEM FROM PARTING
WITH THEIR TESTATOR 8 ESTATE REEL:RED.—The bill in
this cm was filed by Mrs. Newton, and her infant children,
by their next friend, for the purpose of restraining the defen-
dants, Lady Ricketts and other surviving executors of the
will cf Sir Robert Ricketts, deceased, from transferring
40,0001., Three-and-a-Quarter per Cents., part of the said
testator's persoaal estate, standing in their names in the
books of the Bank of England. Mrs. Newton is a daughter
of the testator and of the defendant Lady Ricketts, and she
some time back instituted a suit in the Ettlesiastical Court
to recall probate of the will granted to the defendants,
on the grounds that it was not the true will of
her father, Sir R. Ricketts. A decree was pronounced
in that suit requiring the defendants to bring the probate
into court, and they obeyed that decree, but no evidence or
other proceeding has yet been taken to avoid the will. A dis- •
tringse was served ea the Bank of England to prevent the
transfer of the funds ; bar!, on the expiration of the usual
time in such cases, the Bank gave the ;Asian& notice that,
unless an injunction was duly obtained within a certain
time they (the Bank) would consider themselves at liberty
to allow a transfer of the said stock if required by those in
whose names such stock was standing. Upon that notice
being served on the plaintiffs ILE application was made to
the Mseter of the Rolls in their behalf for an injunction, which
his lordship refused. This was en appeal front his lordship.
Mr. Newton (of the common law bar, and husband of Mrs.
Newton, the plaintiff), in suppirt of the appeal, stated the
general facts of the cams in the Ecclesiastical Court, and in
another suit (besides the present) between the same parties
in this court ; and he contended that, pending the suit to
annul the probate, though it was still doubtful what the re-
sult of it would he, this court ought, and was bound, to issue
the injunction, and also grant a receiver for the protection
of the deceased's estate. Ile cited " Andrews v. Powys"
(2 Brown's Parliamentary Cases) and subsequent authe-
rities—The Lord Chancellor, without hearing Mr. Res-
pell and other counsel who appeared to oppose the
motion, said that he did not find any imputations
made on the character of the executors, and they
were still in the exercise of the legal right over the feeds
in question. The decree already made in the cause in the
Ecclesiastical Court was in common form, and it did not im-
peach the will, which may or may not turn out to be a valid
will. The proeeediek so far uit had gone, would not jus-
tify this court to anticipate the result to be unfavourable to I
the defendants, nee to interfere with the jurisdiction of the
Eadesiastical Court. Shen were eases in which, upon proof
of improper conduct or character of executors, or where pro-
bate had not been granted, this court would appoint a
receiver, and grant an injunction, to preserve the property
in dispute. His lordship then stated several cases, some not
cited by counsel, in illustration of the principles on which
this court would interfere for the preservation of property ha
litigation ; but his lordship was clearly of opinion that the
resent Case aid not warrant any such interference, and lee
dismissed the motion with costa.
Ix THE MATTER OF DYCE SORIIRS, A LUNATIC.—
There were several petitions standing over in this metier,
awaiting the report of Drs. Southey and Bright, who hare
been ordered to re-examine the lunatic at his own request,
with • view to obtain a supersedeas of the commission, or
some relaxation under it.—Mr. K. Parker and Mr. .7 H.
Palmer were beard in support of a petition of Mr. Cop.
pock, a solicitor end agent for parliamentary elections, pray-
ing that the Master's report in his favour be confirmed, and
that payment might be ordered to him out of the lunatic's
estate of a sum of 9111., fourd by the report to be due nibble
on account of expenses incurred in defending before a par-
liamentary committee the lunatic's return for the borough of
Sudbury. It appeared from the learned counsel's statements
that Lord Lyndhurst (Chancellor), upon application to him
for au order for this payment, directed a reference to the
master in lunacy to enquire into the dealings and name.-
lions between the petitioner and the lunactic. On that
reference Mr. Coppock was examined by the counsel for the
committees of the person and f estate of the
electlunatinc ; and
Mr. it
appeared that for the purpese the io of
Dye. Sombre (he was not found lunatic till long
after this transaction), for Sudbury, he gave Mr.
Coppock a cheque upon Coutta and Co. for 3,0001.,
which Mr. Coppoek got cashed, and then banded
the proceeds to a Mr. Massey. who went down to Sudbury
and got Mr. Dyes Sombre returned. Every item of that ex-
penditure was satisfactorily accounted for to Mr Dyce
Sombre himself, and, he being perfectly satisfied, the
vouchers or papers connected with the transaction were de-
stroyed. There was another sum of 3301. which Mr. Cop-
pock was authorised by Mr. Dyce Sombre to distribute
among the charitable institutions in the said borough, and
the money was so applied. These were customary gifts from
persons representing the boroneh in parliament. So pleased
was Mr. Dyes Sombre with Mr. Coppock, that he gave
him unlimitted authority to take all proper means
to defend his return, which was questioned before a com-
mittee of the House of Commons. It was in that defence
that the 9111. now claimed by the petitioner was expended.
The master found that sum to be due to the petitioner,
who, in his examination before hint, gave as explicit an ac-
count of the expenditure as could be given under the eircum-
stancen—The Lord Chancellor observed, that it did not ap-
pear by the report that the muter inquired into " the deal-
ing' and transactions" between the petitioner and Mr. Dyce
Sombre, according to the order of reference.—Mr. Palmer
submitted that there were no dealings and transactions be-
tween them, [further than the giving and receiving the
cheque ; and as to that, there was a settled account not to
be disturbed : " Carmichael e'. Carmichael" (2 Phillips, 101).
The Lord Chancellor—Where is the proof of the settled
account? Wes Massey examined before the master f—Mr.
Bethel (counsel for the committee .f the person of the
lunatic) said he was not. Mr. Coppeck was asked before the
master to produce him, or give his address, but he declined
to comply.—Mr. Palmer : Everybody could see that there
was good reason for not subjecting an agent, like Massey, to
an examination as to his expenses. Mr. Dyes Sombre him-
self examined the accounts at the time, and was perfectly
saddled with them.
The Lord Chancellor, without bearing the several counsel
for the committees of the person and estate of the lunatic,
referred to the facts as before Matilda the application to Lord
Lyndhurst, and the order of reference to the muter made by
hislorelthip. It appeared that the inquirrio directed hid failed,
for want of evidence of the dealings and transactions into which
the inquiry was ordered to be made. Now, in the absence of
any evidence in these matters, his lordship, who was the guar-
dian of the lunatic's estate, was asked to sanction not only
an expenditure of 3,3001. of the lunatic's money without the
least proof of the manner in which it was expended, but also
miyment of a further sum of 0111. out of the lunatic's estate.
The report failed to be satidactory in consequence of the
petitioner's not furniahiog or withholding the proper evi-
dence before the master. The question now was, whether the
committees would consent to have the report referred back
to the master, to be by him reviewed upon such evidence as
the petitioner would bring forward, or the petitioner would be
left to his remedy at law as to the 9111.—The counsel for all
parties consenting to a reference back to the master, an
order to that effect was made ; the expense* to be paid by
Mr. Coppock.—At 6 o'clock the court nee for the vacation.

Before Vtec-chancelke Ingram
Ex PARTE MARSH RE TES REGENT'S CANAL COMPANY
ACT —COATS OF APPLICATION MR PAYMENT OUT OF
COVET OF PURCHASE MONEY.—The company, under the
provisions of their act, had purchased certain lands of the
petitioners who, at the time of the contract, came within
the dewrip!tion of " incapacitated persons," mentioned is the
act. The petitioners were at that time tenant for life in
remainder, ami tenant is tail in remainder, of the land in
querdia, the pewiwome missy for which had been paid into
court wader the petrehleste of the act Since that time, the
int Wawa ihr bed died, and the petitioners haying then
mental diewehM4 deed et the money., presented their
psalmist pernewt MINN eat of court. The question WM,
winded eSo& ipt the milmation and incidental thereto
ebeddi be berme by die }milkmen or the company. The 35th
aseliat slew Eet perelded that where, by reason of any dis-
ability ee Imam mity of the person or persons, of corpo-
ratism, eatithrd to any lands, Mennen* or hereditaments,
to be ahem wader the authority of the act, the pure's,'
money for the lame should be required to be paid into court,
and to be applied is the purchase of other lands, tenements,