The Sun.
London, England, 1854-11-09 00:00:00

BIM V. PREST.

Mr. Rolt and Mr. Webb, for he plaintiff, stated that
the object of this suit was to set aside a settlement made
by a very aged lady on the ground that it was obtained
from her without any proper explanation of the effect
of it.

The Vice-Chancellor said be observed that the parties
who took an interest as cestui que trusts under the settle-
ment impeached were not made parties to the bill.
Could be proceed in their absence ?
Mr. bolt said the trustees, who were made defend.
ants, took a beneficial interest, and were therefore inte-
rested in sustaining the settlement. The cestui (jug trusts
amounted to 47 in number, and to insist upon their
all being made parties would, in fact, be a denial of
justice. Under the Chancery Amendment Act 15 and
16 Vict., chap. 87, sec. 42, rule 9, the trustees wero
competent to represent the estate, subject to the dis-
cretion of the ewirt in ordering any other persons to
be made parties.
The Vice•Chancellor—You charge these trustees with
fraud in obtaining th,s settlement. Can the court be
satisfied with leaving the defence of the matter in their
bands I Some of the parties certainly ought to appear.
It is not like the case where everything turns upon the
legal construction of a document.
Mr. Webb—A bill was originally filed making all the
cestui que trusts parties, but it wiis found/almost impos-
sible to proceed with it, and when the Chancery Amend-
ment Act was passed, the plaintiff dismissed that bill
with costs to take advantage of the rule.
Mr. Rolt—Will your Uonour se:ect some person to
represent the cestui que trusts ?
The Vice-Chancellor said he should prefer an infant
who was not ono of the next of kin. That would throw
upon the cowaiel ths 011114 of conaidoriag wlnthor spy

fresh evidence ought to be taken, as well as of support.
ing the case.
This course was ultimately adopted, and the case
stood over.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
ATKINSON V. SHABP.-SLANDER.

This was an action for slander, tried before Mr. Baron
Platt, at the York assizes, in which the plaintiff had re-
ceived 40s. damages.
Mr. Overend now moved for a new trial •n two
grounds. The declaration set forth and complained that
the defendant had said to the plaintiff, " Thou art a
d-d rogue and a thief. Thon'st got John Cowling's
brass." Ti which the only plea was not guilty. The jury,
before arriving at their verdict, asked the learned judge
what sum would carry costs, and he replied "405.,"
upon which they at once found for that amount. It was
now submitted under these circumstances that the defen-
dant was entitled to a new trial ; first, on the ground
that the learned judge ought to have explained to the
jury the law of felony as applicable to a case of " find-
ing," for it might be that the plaintiff might have found
property and might be told that he had kept it without
imputing felony ; and, secondly, because the inquiry of
the jury as to costs ought not to have been answered.
They ought to have assesQi-d the damages regardless of
costs, and but for the reply of the learned judge they would
not have given more than nominal damages.
The Court thought there was not sufficient ground
for disturbing the verdict. Most judges declined an-
swering such inquiries from the jury, but it was dis-
cretionary on their part. It would not afford ground
for a new trial that the judge had answered the jury on
a question of law. As regarded the second point, it was
left to the jury to say which of the two versions they be-
lieved, that of the plaintiff or defendant, and it was pro-
perly so left ; therefore the rule must be refused.
Rule refused accordingly.

CONSISTORY COURT.
(Before Dr. Lushington.)
HARRADEN V. HAERADEN.
This was a divorce snit, promoted by the wife aping'
he husband, by reason of adultery.
There being no defence, the facts were not gone into.
The court pronounced for the divorce.
GONZALEZ V. GONZALEZ.

This was a suit for separation, instituted by the wife
against the husband, on the ground of cruelty and
adultery.
There was no appearance for the husband.
The learned judge pronounced for the divorce, and
eondernned the husband in costs.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Fonblanque.)

IN B LAMBOURN.

Mr. Linklater, for the assignees, offered no opposi
tion, but recommended the bankrupt for an immediate
certificate, on account of his attention to the estate since
his bankruptcy.
Mr. Lawrance, for the bankrupt, called attention to
the large amount of property given up, and to the time
(ten months) which had elapsed since the bankruptcy.
His Honour granted a second•class certificate.
IN RR RICHARDSON.

F. G. Richardson, timber-merchant, of Limehouse,
applied for his certificate.
Mr. Murray, for the assignees, called attention to the
large preponderance of expenses and losses over profits.
Mr. Harvey, on behalf of the bankrupt, attributed
the failure to the large amount of bad debts ; but for this
the expenditure would have been within the profits.
The books had been well kept, and the bankrupt's con-
duct since the failure had been very praiseworthy.
His Honour said the expediture had certainly been
enormous ; there was no other charge against the bank-
rupt. As there were other very meritorious features in
the case, he would grant an immediate certificate of the
second class.