The Sun.
London, England, 1838-03-12 00:00:00

YOUGHALL.

The Committee met at eleven o'clock, when the cross-examination of
Mr. Smith was resumed by Mr. ANDREWS. The witness, in the most
Positive manner, contradicted the statements of Mr. Parker ; and in his
re-examination by Mr. POLLOCK, explained some apparent inconsistency
of his answers to Mr. Andrews.
The evidence was then commented on at great length by Mr. Ax-
ogaWs, who contended that there were collateral statements made by
Mr. Smith, which confirmed the direct evidence of Mr. Parker, whilst
they overthrew his own.
The room was then cleared, and, on the re-admission of Counsel
and Agents, the Chairman announced that the Committee had retained
Laaders's vote. The decision certainly excited surprise, although there
can be but one opinion that the Committee has throughout evinced the
utmost impartiality.
The Sitting Member was left still in a minority of one.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

V•NDELEUR V. BLAGRAYE.

The arguments in this motion, commenced on Saturday, were this
morning concluded, and
Lord LANGDALE gave Judgment. Whatever might be the ultimate
decision of the Court, one or two innocent parties would suffer by the
fraud which had been committed. The transactions in question corn_
rnenced in the year 1827, when Mrs. Blagrave, in consideration
of the sum of 2,7001., agreed to grant an annuity of 500/. to
the plaintiff. Out of that sum of 500/., a policy of insurance
was to be effected on the life of Mrs. Blagrave, in the sum of
2,800/. Mrs. Blagrave had been induced to enter into this transac-
ti°n, in consequence of the difficulty she had in recovering large sums
of money due to her, to the amount of 40,000/. She employed as het
agent a Mr. Yates. Mr. Yates acted as her agent, in some respects
at least under the controul of the son of Mrs. Blagrave, Mr.
Anthony Blagrave. In the month of May, 1830, expectations were
entertained thftt the sum of 40,000/. would be paid. Those
expectations were afterwards realized; but, before they were realised,
a notice, in May, 1830, was given to the plaintiff that the annuity would
he re-purchased. On the 31st July, 1830, the parties who owed the
40,000/. paid it, with interest, amounting to 1,000/., to Mr. Yates, who
Paid the whole 41,0001, by the order of Mrs. Blagrave, into Stukcy's
Bank, to the account of Mr. Anthony Blagrave. On the 11th August,
1830, Mr. A. Blagrave gave a check for 11,496/. 3s. part of the 41,000/.
to Mr. Yates. By the act of one agent, therefore, this money got into
the hands of another agent, but for which particular purpose that sum of
money was paid was in controyery between the parties. The plaintiff
afterwards, on the persuasion of Yates, executed an indenture, which
l'as a re_assignment of the annuity, and placed it in the hands
of Yates. but there was no receipt on the back of it for the
avnetn:t of the purchase-money. It was stated that Mr. Yates
delivered up the deed, but what afterwards took place remains in
great doubi. After that time Mr. Yates deceived both parties,
rePresenting to Mrs. Blagrave, on the one hand, that the policy
t 1 being kept up as her account, on the other hand, treating
with
the plaintiff as if the annuity was still subsisting, end as if the
policy was being kept up on his account. His Lordship thought he
should not do right if he were now to express an opinion on the facts as they
appeared upon the evidence, as it was likely when the case came to be
finally decided, these facts would be greatly altered. He, however,
thought the fund in dispute ought not to be allowed to remain in the
h
I,p
ands of the parties. The policy of insurance, however, must be kept
out of the annuity of 5001., and the remainder brought into Court.
At the same time it was extremely doubtful who would be ultimately
entitled.