The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-03-24 00:00:00

CANT ELI. t. WARD.

The plaintiffs in this case were Mr. Hugh Campbell, Mrs.
Sophia Campbell, and their children ; the defendants, Messrs.
Edwa-d Ward, Thos., Philip, Francis, and Hutchinson Barber,
Cheslyn, and Locket. The principal facts that formed the grounds
of the litigation were these:—Mr. Barber, senior, was partner in
the property of certain extensive collieries; he married, and after
the l.irth of some children became a widower. After the lapse of
some time. he determined to enter the matrimonial state again ; or,
as his Lordship expressed it, " to become partner in another con-
cern:" but lest he possibly might be induced, after his second
marriage, to take any step injurious to the interests of the children
by his deceased wife, he executed a deed of trust, conveying • cer-
tain portion of his property in the collieries to his daughter Sophia
Barber, and appointed his son Thomas Barber, Richard Cheslyn,
and when., trustees. Mr. Cheslyn, unwilling to execute the trust,
trans,Crred it to a legal gentleman, Mr. Edward Ward. This
transter was subsequently confirmed by Mr. Thomas Barber, by
means of a deed rel. a‘ing Mr. Cheslyn from the obligation of exe-
cuting his share of the trust. One of the conditions of the original
trust deed was, tlutt Mr. Thorne' Barber n:ight, after be should
have arrived at age, purchase that portion of the collieries belong-
ing to his sisters, at a valuation made by a disinterested person ;
and if he should not have purchased it bcfore the termination of
live years aftcr he should be twenty-one years old, :hen the other
trustees should be cr.abkd to sell it for the benefit of the infants.
Mr. Barber. senior, died; Miss Sophia Barber married the plain.
till, Mr. Hugh t ampbell ; her share of the conceits was valued
and sold by the trustees for 2.ht.'01.; the plaintiff: subsequently
filed a bill against the trustees, charging them with neglect of thew
trust duties, and with fraudulent conduct in the sale of the collie-
ries, and requiring to be released from the obligations of the afore-
said contract of sale. executed by the plaintiffs under such peculiar
circumstances. The case came on originally before the %rice-Chan-
cellor, who made a decree, deflating the sale and the contracts
made by the plaintiff, connected with it, to be null and void. The
defendants appealed from that decision to the Lord Chancellor,
who, in the enurse of pronouncing his judgment, stated his opi-
nion, that tile conduct of the trustees, as far as related to Mrs.
Sophia Campbell and her children, was not only a breach of trust,
but a continued .‘ ries of breaches of trusts from beginning to end.
Mr. Cheslyn could not release himself from the duty of trustee.
In reference to this. his Lordship would remark, that Its had lived
too long in that tow, not to know that many honest men under-
took trust &vies, without intending to address themselves to the
discharge of those duties. It may be useful for such persons to
knew, that they must execute the tasks they have undertaken, or
suffer the consequences. As to the sale of the property, be con-
sidered it to be vary improperly made, inasmuch as Mr. Hugh
Campbell, when assenting to it, was kept in such a state of igno-
ranee of the value of the property, that he could not be considered
capable of exercising his judgment on it; he was not in reality •
free agent. The plaintiffs have proved that that property, which
they were induced to sell for 2,1001., was in reality worth 70,0001.
The defendants gave no evidence of the value. There was another
impropriety, which was calling in a person to value the property who
was 'partner in the general concern, and was eager to purchaseCtimp-
hell's share in it. Another objectionable circumstance was, that a
large quantity of this property had been bought by Mr. Cheslyn,
the former trustee of this property. His Lordship could not con-
sider the sale of the property valid, as tar as regarded the interests
of Mrs. Sophia Campbell and her children ; and in relation to Mr.
Hugh Campbell also, he must declare the sale void. His Honour
the Vice-Chancellor had, in his Lotdship's opinion, nude a just
decree in the case, and the plaintiffs were entitled to the full benefit
of that decree. As to the responsibility of the trustees for their
conduct in the affair, his Lordship would give his opinion on it on
Thursday.
Decree confirmed.

LENT ANSIZES.

SUSSEX ASSIZES, Hoasu•st, )!.►acn 22.

The Lent Assizes for this county commenced here to-day, be.l
fore the LORD CHIRF BARON, in the Crown Court arid the
Honourable Mr. JWitICC BEST, on the Civil bide. The gaol ca-
lendez is rather heavy for this county ; it contains the names of
forty-four prisoners. On the Civil side there is an entry of ten
causti.

CIVIL SIDE.
BENNETT V. CATTY); AND ANOTHER.

This was an action on the case against milks,for irtOlawfully and
deceitfully returning to the plaintiff a quantity of inferior flour, as
the produce of wheat which had been sent by him to their mill to
be ground.
Air. MARRYATT and Mr. CHITTY were for the plaintiff; and
Mr. GURNEY for the defendants.

It was proved that the plaintiff; a fanner, was in the habit of
sending corn to the defendant's mill to be ground : he had ire.
quently occasion to complain that the quality of the flour returned
to him was inferior to what he had a right to expect as the produce
of his corn. On the occasion which gave rise to the present action,
be took precauuons to detect what he suspected to be the result of
design ; and accordingly he obtained decisive evidence that a fraud
had been practised upon him.
It was admitted, on crows-examination of the plaintiff's Witness,
that the parcel of wheat in question had begun to grow before it
was sent to the defendant's mill. The fraud of which the plain.
tiff complained, was stated to be one of not unfrequent occurrence.
Before the plaintiff's ease closed, Mr. GURNEY interposed, sad,
admitted that the defendants must submit to a verdict against
them. The transaction of which the plaintiff' complained arose
from mistake, in delivering to him other flour than that which was
the produce of hie own corn. He had agreed with the plaintiff's
Counsel that a verdict should be entered for l Oh
_ . . . .

The Jury were directed to find a verdict fur the plaintiff—da-
mages I

SANDMAN V. MARSHALL.
This was an action on the we for the negligent conduct of the
defendant's servant in driving a waggon, whereby a gig, in which
the plaintiff was riding, was upset, broken, and his person injured.
Mr. ADOLPHUS and Mr. PLATT conducted the plaintiff's case,
and Mr. MAIIYATT and Me. COURTHOPt the defendant's.
The plaintiff was upwardisid 00 years of age, and on the 10th
September, 1621, he was riding with his wife in a small one-horse
chaise, between Little Hampton and Fening, a hen he met two
carts of the defendant's, driven by the servant of the latter. The
carts were on the wrong side of the road, and in endea►ouring to
escape the danger which impended in pulsing, the gig was upset
and smashed to pieces, and one of the wheels of the nearest cart
went over the fleshy part of the plaintiff's left arm. He was taken
l up in a helpless state and carried to the nearest house, and notwitb-
standing his advanced age, speedily recovered. For this injury the
I action was brought. The gig cost 61. or 71. in repairing, and the
surgeon's bill came to 275.
Witnesses were examined on both sides as to the cause of the
accident, and on the result.
The Jury, under the Learned Judge's directions, found their
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 201.