The Express.
London, England, 1847-03-23 00:00:00

NAVAL

tab) Ent*Marna.

UOVSB OF LORDS.
Present, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, and Lollar:samba
BARRY V. Moans —LTOACT TO A CHILD.—ADTANCIS
rots mu TO MI DADUCTED.—Loss BY Baccittex.—This
was an appeal from five interlocutors of the Court of Session
and Lord Ordinary, in the construction of a deed of settle-
ment and trust, dated in 1825 (which is in effect a will), by
which Dr. Berry gave his monies and effects to trustees,
naming a provision of .5,0001. for his son (the appellant),
subject to reduction by the amount of any sums the settler
(or testator) might advance for him in his lifetime. The
son was connected with, but not partner in, the firm of
Ahern Farquhar, Hamilton, and Cu., of Liverpool, carrying
on business also at Bahia and other places abroad. Dr. Berry,
after execution of tie said settlement, gave his bond
to guaractse a debt of 2.0001. due from that firm
to one Boner. That debt was settled, and the
bond was returned to Dr. Berry by a member of the firm, at
the eon's request. Some time afterwards Dr. Berry gave a
renewed bend for 2,0001., as security for the said firm, and to
guarantee a debt of theirs. The son was then at Bahia, and
was notconssilted on this transaction. The firm of Messrs.
Farquhar and Co. stopped payment within a year after this
bond was given, and their effect* were assigned (under •
deed of inspectionots it is cslled in Scotland), for the benefit
of their creditors. Dr. Berry made his claim for the 2,0001.
which he had paid on his obligation, and he received a divi-
dend out of the estate. lie died in 1834. The son claimed
of the trustees of the settlement the 5,0001. legacy, with re-
duction of 1,5001., money actually advanced to him. The
trusts es claimed to deduct the sum hat on the bond, :insisting
that the band fur 2,0001. was an &deuce by Dr. Berry
for his son within the terms of the deed of settle-
ment. The Lord Ordinary (Cunningham) held that
the bond was not an advance for the son within
the meaning of the deed. Misjudgment was brought under
review of a division of the Court of Session, and sed,
and several other interlocutors consequential on the reversal
were pronounced by the court and Lord Ordinary, from all
which the appeal was brought.
Mr. BethAl, for the appellant, after stating the facts, said
the question was, whether the appellant's legacy was to be
reduced by the amount that was lost on his father's bond
pained as security for a debt of Messrs. Farquhar and Co. ;
and the question depended on this, whether the father's
bond—the second which was given without consulting the
appellant—was an advance for the appellant in the meaning
of the terms of the deed of settlement ? He contended
that it was not such advance, and cited numerous cues in
support of his argument. —Mr. James Anderson followed on
the same side.
The Lord Chancellor, after conferring with the other lords
present, said they all agreed that it was not necessary to hear
the learned counsel for the respondents, as they were clearly
of opinion that the guarantee given by the father's bond was
in the nature of an advance to the son ; and the son, in fact,
had the benefit of it with his firm. The advance was in
form made fur the use of the whole partnership, but it would
not have been made at all if the eat had not been connected
with the firm. The von was in credit with the firm to the
extent of the bond, and in that sense he received the benefit
of it. The judgment of the oourt below was well founded,
and must be affirmed, with costs.—Lord Brougham and Lord
Campbell expressed their concurrence with the Lord Chan-
cellor, and the interlocutors were affirmed.
Another appeal was then opened, but as no progress was
made in it, we reserve notice of it till further heard, this day.

EQUITY COURTS.
Delors the Muter of the Rolls.
HILLS P. NASII.—ADMISSIBILITT OP ENID/WPC—The
plaintiff's, who carried on business as cornfactors in Cornhill,
filed this bill against the executors of Mr. Thomas Nash, for
a contribution to losses sustained by a speculation in
English corn, in which it MSS alleged Thomas Nash had, in
April, 1840, joined the plaintiffs and three other persons of
the names of Carpenter, Wedd, and Sheppard. The agree-
ment between the parties was verbal, and the terms were
alleged to be that they should respectively participate in the
profits and losses in the proportions in which, at that time,
they respectively held foreign corn. The proportion of
Nash was alleged to be 1-18th, and a loss of 18,0001. and
upwards having arisen on the transactions, which were prin-
cipally conducted by the plaintiffs and Carpenter, this suit
was instituted to recover this proportion of contribution
from Nash's estate. It appeared that a settlement had been
come to between Carpenter and the plaintiffs, by arbitration,
and it was stated that Sheppard had paid his share, and that
Wedd was insolvent, and had been released by the plain.
tiffs. The contract was denied by Nash's executors, and the
plaintiffs offered the evidence of their co-adventurers Wedd
and Sheppard, who were defendants, and had been exa-
mined by them to prove it. An objection was taken to the
admissibility of the evidence, on the ground that Wedd and
Sheppard were interested and incompetent witnesses.—
Meslira. Kindersley, Daniel, end Smythe supported the ob.
jection. Meows. Turner and Piggott, for the plaintiff., in-
sisted that the evidence was admissible at law, and upon the
. .

same principles in this court also.
The Muter of the Rolls said that, if this was a demand
against one of several partners by a stranger, the evidence
of a eo-partner to prove the partnership would be admis-
sible at law ; and it appeared to him that the same rale
might be applied in equity, and that the fact of the plain-
tiffs being partners made no difference. He accordingly
admitted the evidence, and, considering that it established
the fact of the contract as against Nub's executors, he di-
rected the accounts necessary .for the relief asked for by
the bill.