The Sun.
London, England, 1807-12-17 00:00:00

moil uerogato
so td himself.

mac

L) more

the purchaser of tileetztploYtit's eState: however,
there did not in fad exist any such rule. If there-
lore Mr,„Mowbray, had {lone his' duty-in this case,
there was not a precedent in that Cerurt that could
authorise his Lordship to cut down this deed. The--
bill, however, contended, that he was not only land-
steward, butagent it the sale. It was easy to sea
that much more mischief would arise in permitting
a person who was agent at,..a sale. to become the puy
chaser, than he who was the land-steward ; yet his
Lordship did not recollt4' any instance when the
Court had set aside such a sale. Unless, therefore,
it:could be made out in ci,iciehec; thut Mr. Mowbray
bad froth. the .first' adolged 'a system of fraud, for
the final purpose of purchaSing the estate, and that
the sale by auction, and subsequent transaaions,
were a part 'of that system,. the conveyance 'could
not be vitiated: The tags of the .CaSe were clear ;
for if anybody at.the. sale. had 'chosen, to bid above.
t 2,0001.. for . the estate, Mr. Mowbray would not.
have had it. Under all the circumstances, it appear-
ed to his Lordship Mr. Mowbray bad. .thed honest-
ly and fairly, and had not violated any duty as laud-
steward or agent ; he was accordingly of opinion that
the Decree of the Master of the Rolls, dismissing the!
bill with costs, should be atlirme..d.

Lor4t.LENaottoyou observed, in addressing. the
Jury, tlititkvliateft'eet the apology of the Defend-
ant Might have upon the judgwent he was after-
wards to receive, when he'shoold be brought beline
the:Court, was not for the 'jury or his Lordship
to anticipate; their oPinions:were to be formed upon
the information as it was presented to them upon the
evidence: it contained a libel mot derogatory of the
respe6tatile body of per,on; who were sting as Cen-
sors ; anti the words einployed were'in themselves
scandalous, imputing to them a most disgraceful cod-
du6l, as acting with partiality in the discharge of the
duty which had been reposed in their handh.. They
were said, MO, in the presenceof persons who were
themsthes:abOnt to be examined before that Court,
and whO'were'WfalitAg in an adjoining- apartment.—
This was not 41 for the :Defendant afterwards
wrote letterS'to several_ persons, in which he reviled
every one of the Censors in terms of :a most scan-
dalous nature; besides which, there was . a paper di-
re6ted,-: in an envelope, to Dr. Hervey, containing
, his attestation defiled in the way exhibited to the
Jury, and which must excite the abhorrence and
disgust of almost every individual in. society. The
words of the libel were prcived, and they• were eon-
, *mpttious and defamatory, which was sufficient to
maintain the information. The letters given in evi-
dence were also li*llous upon ever) p&son to w horn
they were addressed ; and the Jury had no other du-
ty to discharge than to find if it were :he fact, that
the Defendant had written and published these libels.
The Jury immediately returned a rerdicqVGuilill.

DRUMMER V: THE CORPORATION CHIPPENRAM.

This cause came MI to be further argued-on the
Plaintiff's bill.. The bill „sought to reinstate the
Plaintiff in the office of school;master of the free-
School of the borough of,Chippenham, which situa-
tion he hat enjoyed for 15 years, and charged the
Defendants with dismissing him from that office
without uny just cause, but merely because he had
voted at a late election contrary. to the wishes of the
majority of that body. Some ofthe Defendant 4 by
their answer, a's the body-corporate,
.stated that the
Plaintiff had been, dismissed or account of his age
and intfrmitieS, and for no other reasoo. Other De-
lendants demurred to the bill in: their individual ea,
pacity, saying, asthe bill sought tocharge them with
combination, for which; if the allegations were true,
they were liable to be 44.090, ::they were not
bound. to answer.
n Sir AuTua . r and Mr. HORNE were heard
in -support of the demurrer, and Sir &,Romi.LLY in
repjy;.
The Loan 01NcELLost postponed judgment sill
Friday, but observed, if demurrers ‘v ere to be allow-
ed because the bill -charged the party with combina-
tion, the doors of that Hall might as welt be awed
for ever fornine 'out of ten bilis in that Court
charged the Defendants with combining and COLIfe•
derating,

COURT OF CHANCERY. Dac. ts.

ANDREWS AND OTHERS U. MOWBRAY AND CASTLE.
This case (seeTne SUN, 2Gth of November) came
on this morning for final judgment ; and bcing . a
question of considerable importance to land:stew-
ards or• agents, we:think it necessary to revert to
the general charges in the Plaintia bill.
By the bill it appeared, that the Plaintiffs were
the children and heirs-at-law of the late Mr. An-
drews, of Scropley, , iii Northumberland, ,and be-,
came jointly atid severally possessed of an estate in
that enmity, by the devise of their father, in the
Year 1794, the rents and profits then amotniting to
3491. per annum. A person of the name of Hop.:
ner acted at that time as manager and steward of
the estate ; but his, coudu& not giving satisfaelioe,
Mr. Mowbray was recommended as a person of
great
skill and knowledge in agricultural atriirs : he
was accordingly 311)01111CA steward, and CW1611110.1
to aat as such till he became the 'purchaser of the
estate,t His appointment took place without any
written agreement or stipulated salary, and soon
after he raised the value of the hinds from 3491:: tei
pool. per annum: The estate was afterwards put
up to intak), under dirediOn of the Plaintiff's; but . . _ . .
. . • ,
there being no bidder beyond 11,0003. and the , ' ' . Artmstieno i). CH#RPOR.
Plaintiffs being unwilling to' part with it under
1 r.;,0001. it was bought in, and Mr. Mowbray . Nfr. Serie at V UGit gated, that his Client (to
after- speak the plain AtUntll)ANwas a , crimp, and the De-
wards purchased it by private contrael On t 1,1501.1 fendaut was the .master, of a :public-house, called
Mr. Castle, the other Defendant, had been the re- the Three Vmeis: ~ H g,h wHe theut that. this sign as
ceiyer of the rents, and, as 'a, professional man, i'ery applicable to the Defendant, and that the Jury
'transacted all the law-husiness relating thereto.— would !Molt that in craft and cunning he resembled
The bill, therefore,arnon,g other things, 'charged the
those animals which hr.rvid as the sign of Ms pub-
Defendant Mowbray with concealing the real 'value : lie-eo„„.••
'Thu Plaintill' had deposited with him a'
of the estate, and othei-advantageous circumstahces:,,cons iitevabln
number of promissory notes, to the
relating to it, at. the time of the sale; with having ' ,value of about
.5001. He was probably' aware, that
-
used undue influence with the parties, fOr the pur- posesof becoming( the purchaser himself at an under-' it would' be :alinost impossible for the Plaintiff' to
pram the exact number and amount of ihose.notes,
value, knowing °the estate to be an improvable One,'
' as•appeared by his raising the value to nearly doubles: and therefore refused to return them. He could
' however prove,- that a demand had been made, ant,
' Flikin after he Made the purchase. The bill, there.
f• that theeDelendant had acknowledged that he hadfare, ore, prayed against Mowbray, to set aside the con-
notes.of nendy the:Value stated. - The Plaintiff was
voyance, as obtaieed by fraud, and prayed costs therefore driven ~to his 'action lot trover, and he
against th ?. Defendant Castle as having been Officially eopd to
engaged bi the Plaintiffs, and yet. having combined. recover' at •le.asrtheetniount of what the
Defendant confesSed he.h.ad of his.' -.
With the o:her Defendant -in obtaining for' hint Alija' 'The Witnesserte that were" brought to prove this-
, Mate. ' -' • ' • ' case stated, thatttlie I'lintiff .had lodged for two or
The. cause came on originally to be heard, before three yeareen fherhoust76l theLDefendant, where
his Honour the MASTUR of the Roees, I who, after I he wn* in the habit Orbringingthe sailors whom he
•
bearing both parties, and maturely Considering-the had :crimped ; thayin the . month of July.last the
ease;-dismissed the bill with costs. It thenlcaMe on Plaintiff and Defendant had, at diff'erettt times, very
again to be hex'd before the LORD.CHA-NcELLoll," at . highavords ; that:the Defendant. said, that he wished'
the time before mentioned, fitton an appeal from thu the of her would leave his house, to which- the
Mmesen's &tree; and the important question'for ' plaintiff auswere4, lie would with pleasure, if the
the Court was, whether, under such circum stances,' . Deteo,dant, would restore. him ihis properly. •Thci
and according to the principles:of law and equity; a i."6.fe4clant ;replied, the( •.the notes . were with !list
land-steward or ageni.could become the purch&,er wire,- aud that the. Pl:Multi might have them when
.
Of his etnployer's cstitte. i " h,owl-eased i owl (kit some, tirne.,Att or the Plaintiff
in pre .614"")g judgment the-Loan CHANCRL"' b'rooght. hi,, adiou of
,traer; and arrested the De«,
eon obserVed;.thet the bill, from the beginniug•tri t fend.ittit f0c,44-,01,
„, , . ;: •..' .
the end, "r:bated-„Mr. MoNbray with einstrivin
._ g,L
~
,Mr..Serjeant_ ei,N37l'oNii.on the part of the De-
front the year, t 705, when he first bec:inie concern..-' e.:.'. 1
( 4.4iciatit, undertoug to 'convince the Jury that this
ed, with this est.tte„.to.become finally the ptirchai.,er : _Was one of , the inc.l,t ill.-fOtibdCd, malicious,. and
'of it ; :old, tar.
,I.ttotiit that end, willtpaict.:4og. the ~, wiel;ed attions-,which Ii id come before his Lordship°
real values of it, and coetrivitig to ,bring it to-a sale; • dui ing the eonrse of -the present sittings. The remit.
.
with entering ititu a combiteition, by ineans.of the . truth of the case,was this•:----The Plaintiff, who; had:
agent (Mr. castle), to Jake: horn this fatuity, for, i lodged two or.. three years
,at the Defendants bouse,
10,0001. an estate which was represented to t)e. owed .him a very considerable sum of money, and!
worth ,from 1.5.t0 1 t 3; car Y 0,0001.,
It would have ' as a security for tlie payment of it, deposited in. his
been the duty of his Honour the MASTER. of. the ' kuids a rensiderable number of pvoinissorypotes
Roees to have given the relief: prayed by thebill, from sailors, which was probably.a very inadequate
had the gross fraud alleged .agillllSt the Delendaets security,for the debt.- Not only the Plaintiff, "but.
been proved; but there being no.evidence of such, i his Attorney; had: requesterPthe Defendant to keep..
fraud, .he.tlit•missed the bill with costs. His. Lor- these notes' as a security i and yet, after this; they
ship said, he felt he was dischargieg a most anxious_ II screed upon him a notice ' to.give up those notes,
and painful duty itt-this case, as in the former part 1 and:in about three min'etes after leaving the notice,
of Ida life he had been acqoainted with.: these Geu-, arrested him, and held him to bait.' .
tleMen, who were justly stated to have been, until 1 •
Sir Jamits MA'Nsult:;.l) said, tots was 0 horrible
the filing •of this bill, both Men oe.irreproachable — . •
and he.hoped the Counsel Would. mention it
eltafActer; hot hisdutysheuld be firmly and.balet-, abuse, - —- _
to the Court of Common vices next' I erm, It was
iy chs4arged. " Thdldestion," said his.Lordsliipb, .
that there!
llb- • • I with necessary that there should t., some ru e. respea
now befOre the Court, is not only whether, ,if the
.. .
of trover. It hind been .khown that a
charees of fraud were .mado out in evidence, it is t? clarions
~, • tinier. It , , , .
~
such' a fraud, as. would vitiate the deed of CODVeyf 'arrested a man tor .50 0001 which he
I laintift has
~..,, , . .
. ciii,„ to swear was the value 'of a deed detatned,
mice.., but else wbether Mr. Mowbray, as the at. e Pleased. .. • . . . . ,
land,sieWard of the Plaintiffs, and their agent at the, from bun; and in tn e present instance the Defendant
led foe -1...
201 Ind held IQ bdthin double.
time of the Sale,. crAild 'become: the pruchaser of had been alic'',:. ' ' ,
thi4 estate." His Lord Ship, adverting 'to the circurn- that artier nt, for ft p 5 aril Of. wo I.'soiy licit:
I - .1 at.
~ , s, that
stances,atteuding:the sale, there was tin eve were.,perriaps,not worth five shillings„ .. : .
• , llie Vs 'messes for the Defendant'se pletely con
deece to itppute fraud.or intentional concealment to ln ... . -
the conduit, of bilowbray; and with respell tt) the
firmed statement of Mr. Serjeant CLAYTON ..•
other Tiestion, whether It land-steward could tie this Sir: JAM 0s MANSEIIII.D.did not think there was any
piircilasta
of an estittes lie could not bud any pti.,!:.e. contrariety of evidence.to submit.to the Jury. The.
dent in the, prattice of the Court of E(tnity. Defendant nii,lit have said, as the,Witnesses for the
to vitiate for sttch a cause the deed of convey,inee„ Plaintiff swore,
.6` Yott may have your notes when.
—Still . h'es Lordship thought it would have bee') you pleise,", and xet it could not be interred-from
more prudent if
,Courts of Flinty: had dealt more thit„ that he meant to give them back,, Witbout
particularly with this species ot case; and he thought being paid -the debt for the security of Which _they.
it would be Much better should the rule be laid-: Were tlepesited,,.., , -
.. down, that 'no agent or lend-steward should become' I.*.he piAkujg Was ewer/40(4

COURT OF COMMON ['LEAS, DEC. ts.

SITTINGS. AT GUILDHALL, BEFORS Sig JAMES

OIANSFIRLD, CHIEL, JUSTICE.