The Sun.
London, England, 1830-06-21 00:00:00

SCOTT AND WIFE V. WELLESLEY.

Mr. DENMA N applied for a rule to slim cause why the
plaintiff's attorney should not pay a sum of 341., and also
deliver up to another attorney, appointed by Mr. Scott, to
conduct this action, all papers, writings, &c. in his pos-
session belonging to the plaintiff. The grounds on which
he made this application were as follows :—An attorney
(whose name did not transpire) undertook to bring ate
action against Mr. Long Wellesley at the suits of Mr. and
Mrs. Scott, to recover compensation in damages for a ma-
licious arrest and false imprisonment, for this purpose be
was furnished with a number of papers. The cause wee
appointed for trial on Wednesday the 4th of June, but o 0
the application of Mr. Attorney-General postponed until the
Saturday fo'lowing. On the Friday this attorney, who bail
undertaken to bring the action without delay, to the sufr
prise and astonishment of the plaintiffs, turned round on&
said he could proceed no further unless supplied with'
money, which he must know was out of the plaintiffs!'
power; tbe consequence was, when the case was called on,.
on the Saturday, the pl tintiffi were not prepared to go to,
trial, and were therefore obliged to withdraw the record-
The expences attending that proceeding, which amounted
to 341., of course fell upon the plaintiffs, unless the Court
interfered and fixed them upon the attorney who had
broken his engagement.
Mr. Justice PAttxt—When did he give the plaintiffs
notice that lie could not proceed further without maul
being supplied ?
Mr. DENMAN—OnIy the day before the case was fixed
for trial, that was the first time he had ever in the slightest
manner intimated that he could not proceed without mo-
ney ; and their Lordships were aware that if an attorney
undertook to conduct a cause and bring it to trial without
receiving any money, and by such means he obtained pos-
session of papers and documents, he was bound to go ont
or, in default thereof, to pay all coats attendant upon his
bre lking his engagement.

Mr. Justice PARXE-I think that is open to some qua-
lification ; subsequent circumstances, perhaps, may justify
his not proceeding.

Lord TENTERDEN—I think, Mr. Denman, you aret
entitled to a rule to shetv cause.

Rule Nisi granted.
IN THE MATTEIt OF HUTCHINSON.

This case came before the Court under the following
circumstances :—A female named Griffiths was left *
legacy by a gentleman in Yorkshire of 5001. It so hap,-
Pened that the testator, before his death, became a bank-
rupt; he did not, however, alter or cancel his will during
his lifetime, and his estates some years after his death
paid a dividend that entitled his executors to receive more
than 5001. A question arose how that sum was to be dis-
posed of, during which Mrs. Griffiths and her husband
made frequent applications to Mr. Hutchinson, as an at-
torney, for advice. The result of those applications was,
that Mr. Hutchinson purchased the interest of Mrs. Grif-
fiths in the legacy of 5001. for the sum of 151. and it
was discovered shortly after he had made this agreement,
that he (Mr. Hutchinson)ihad realised the full amount of the
legacy. An application was in consequence made to this
Court to compel him to cancel the agreement, and give
up the proceeds of the legacy to Mrs. Griffiths. The
Court directed a reference to the Master, who reported
that he found that::Mr. Hutchinson ought to refund the
sum of 357/. 151. 3d., and that he was entitled to retain
92/. 41. 9d. for law expencea, and 501., to which he
might be liable for another legacy, named in the will, as
he himself had administered to it.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Mr. DENMAN, and Mr.
COMYN this day contended that this subject could only be
properly de•ilt with in a Court of Equity, as Mr. Hut-
chinson was liable to have many claims made upon him,
but that lie was quite willing to put the 500/. in the
funds and to pay the interest to Mr. and Mrs. Griffiths
until all claims were decided. Besides the Master had
reported that there was another legacy of 1501. in exactly '
the same situation as that of Griffiths.

Mr. GruaNrir, in support of the Master's report, spoke
in strong terms of the conduct of Mr. Hutchinson in the
transaction.

Their Lordships consulted, after which Lord TENTER.'
DEN said the Court ordered Mr. Hutchinson to pay over
to Mrs. Griffiths the suns of 2271.—t0 invest the sum of
150/. in the funds, and if no claim was established within
two years to pay over that sum also to the plaintiff at the
expiration of that period, and likewise to pay the costs of
this proceeding. His Lordship added that the burthen of
proof as to whether or not there were any other claimants
under the will, lay with Mr. Hutchinson and net with the
plaintiff.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
rzwuuss V. BUCKINGHAM.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of 1381.,
the value of a quantity of paper supplied by the plaintiff,
a paper merchant, to the defendant, the late proprietor of
several newspapers. The cause was tried before the
Lord Chief Justice at the late sittings at Guildhall, when
a verdict was returned for the plaintiff.
On a former day Mr. Serjeant WILDE obtained a rule
to show cause why this verdict should not be set aside,
and A new trial had, on the ground that it was contrary
to evidence.

Mr. Serjeant TADDT now showed cause against the
rule. The only question involved was one of credit. It
appeared that the orders had been given for the
paper by a person named -William Leaver, whom
the Learned Comm! contended had bee a clearly proved at
the trial to have acted in the capacity of confidential agent
to the defendant. It had been satisfactorily proved, that in