The Sun.
London, England, 1808-12-17 00:00:00

should make restitution.' If thn Plaintiff h4cOn-
teinpiateo it, 'sue nti tyt, by a, small amendment,
have madc the.rtcord coMpetent to that relief, which
would have given the Defendant an opportunity of
absweriNg w:th more industry. "The Defendant had
answered, that he tuoerstoud and believed the Plait;i;
tiff, was privy to the. deed of settlement.being given
up. If she wa3 not, 'why did not sne call upon the"
Defendant to perform and at,t upon his trust, when
she was turned out of doors 'in 180 Although he
ham :;iven up the deed, it would have put him on.'
the alert, and it he-did not recover the' deed, he
might have secured so much of her husband's pro
perty,- before he became insolvent, as to have se= •
cured her interest. There was something suspi-'
cions, as although the property was sold in 1800,
ye:l the bill was not filed until 1806 ; why let six•
years Oa* ? The Learned Counsel ako contended,
that the assignees-Of the Plaintiffs husband ought to
hive been Made parties to the cause, "as it Was ,Verily
behevediby.the Defendant, that there were assets-of
the bankrupt's in their, hands. He concluded, by
observing, from the view he had taken of the case,
he did not think the record Would justify such a
decree as that given by the Master of the Rolls ;
he therefore trusted that his 'Lordship would set it

aside. , _ •
Sir SAMUEL ROsmi,y, Counsel for the Plaintiff,
contended that the decree of 'his Honodr was strictly
in conformity, with the' record. That the bill prayed
for general . relief, and the decree gave that. The
Defendant adMitted, by his answer, that he ht-id
given up the deed of settlement, btit thtit he .con-
ceived it was with the privity of the Plaintiff; that
question had been sent. to the Aister to inquire
into, and he had reported that it o.as not- with her
knowledge then surely the Plaintiff had a right- to
suffer for his :iwn.negleet ; he had every opportu-
nity of inquiring from the -Plaintiff herself. •It was
his duty to 'have guarded her interest, and to have
watched that there was no nutdue infloence made use
et towards her, if she even 'had consented to give op
the deed of :settlement. The Defendant was a So-
licitor of -that COurt, aiij could not be ignorant of
what was his duty, He 'could- not perceive bow
it could be made to appear,' that the assignees were
necessary parties to this cause ; if they had assets
of the bankrupt's in their hands, the Defendant
might recuvt-r them, , but the Plaintiff could not.
His Honour the Master of the- Rolls- considered
all th due attention, before he came
tiS iot-t, and -be ,rusted the Court would see
no rea,on his decree should be altered.

Mr. HART replied. •
Tilt: LORD CHANCELLOR observed, was 'of
opinion that. his Honour had given a correct decree.
It was admitted- that the deed-. was lodged in the
hands of the Defendant, the trustee, and-he had,
given it lip to Dodds; this was such a piece of-neg-
ligence, there could be no excuse for if. It-was his
duty to-. have seen what use he made of if; but, this'
be:also-nedected. -He was not made a trustee to
betray- the ~rOperty of the wife, but.to protekt- it 5.
instead at which he gave
,the hUsband the:effe&nal-
means of, seliircg the premises. It, was not for hum
to say, that the Defendant; as the trustee, might re-
cover against the purchaser: lie was fully "of opi-
nion there was enough on the-record to entitle the
to a decree. Whether the assignees might
or ought not to be parties, it was not in point of form,
in the power of the DAenditnt to bring that qUestion
then forward; but, in his opinion, they ought not.
He therefore confirmed the decree of his Honour
the Master of the Rolls. -.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, D. i 6,

MAWMAN' V. GILLETT.

This' was an action brought to recover the value
of the paper furnished by the Piaintiff to the a.l-
- tor. the purpose of printing the Travels of
AnarcSarsis, and another work, which paper had
been destroyed in the fire which some time ago con-
sinned Mr. Gillett's premises. This was 'the third
trial upon the same ground. The first action was
brought upon the custom of the trade, by which it
was contended by the' Plaintiff the Defendant was
liable. Both parties had then come unprepared, in •
consequence of which a second trial had been 'order-
ed by the Court. The question of usage, whether,
by the general course of the trade, the Printer ought
to have insured the goods he bad in trust from the
Bookseller • was there fully considered, and upon
the whale tire Jury found that it was not the general
usage for the PrMter to ifistrre the goods Ist trust,
and on that
.ground gave the verdict _ for the De-
fendant—stating it, however, Ong the Defendant
was liable upon an implied agreement. The present
Wiwi was brought upon this agreement. •
A Mr. Wilkie, who was a partner with Maw-
man in this work, deposed, that on the occasion of
'Hamilton's fire, Gillett had declared; that all -the
Booksellers who dedlt with him were safe, as he was
fully insured. Patterson, -an apprentice of Ma‘V-
man, and Newby, a clerk to the Plaintiff, proved,
a conversation to the same area, between Mawman
and Gillett, in the shop of the former, from ,Which
it wa's intended •to draw the inference, that 'by the
particular mode in which the Defendant dealt with I.
his customers, he considered himself as responSilile.
To support this argument as to the usual' mode of
dealing praelised by the Defendant, a clerk of 'the.
Plicenix Fire OtEc-e was called, who read -some in,
surances trout the year 1790 to 1802; effeoed by
Gillett, in which goods iii trust .were specified.!--
Bonsor, a Stationer, and Hamilton, the Printer, were
also called, who deposed to the best of their belief,
that, soon after the fire the Defendant •had read to
them from a memorandum-book an item of goods
tnl trust, insured in the Imperial Fire Office.—
This was the suns of the material evidence fur the
Plaintiff. 2,