The Sun.
London, England, 1825-07-13 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JULY 12.
DE EF,AVVOIR V. RHODES.
Mr. HQR)."E resumed his a:gni:lent- He had already sliewn
that Mr. Rhodes's contract was vitiated by the intervention of
Mr. Tebbutt; he would now prove that Mr. Rhodes and Mr.
Tebbutt acted jointly. The lease was executed on a sudden,
whilst Mr. P. De Beauvoir was in a dying state. This lease was
not conformable to the agreement. 'The clause respecting the
underleases was objected to by M. Rhodes, end the agree-
ment was altered What authority had Mr. Rhodes to alter
the agreement ? He was to have taken it for better or worse.
It was alleged that Mr. De Beauvoir's consent had been ob-
tained ; this was not the fact. .1.r4 hag. been done behind ilia
. back. Thus it'appeared, that Mr;Tebbutt suggested to Mr.
Rhodes his offers, and the letters -he was to write ; then Teb-'
butt was to manage the affair. Mr. Rhodes afterwards wished
.to get quit of the incumbrance. A bond was drawn up ; .the
sons of Tebbutt were obligees, as well as the father ; but Mr.
Tebbutt,, sen., icsisted npon coainenaation if it was not in his
name alone: Six' compensation was of course to.be paid by
Mr. De Beauvoir.

The Lora) CIIANCEI.X.OR—The lease covenants that the
underleases shall be prepared by Mr. Tebbutt, his executors
and administrators, (a singular clause), or by a member of
the family. There is another point very material. The
lease recites that dive had been an agreement for a lease from
Mr. De Beauvoir to John Tebbutt, which the latter. gives up
to Mr. Rhodes. Thia must be true. or false; if true,: what
right had Mr. Tebbutt to relinquish the agreement without Mr.
De Beauvoir'sconcurrence ? It false, why does it appear in the
lease?

Mr. HEALD stated, that Mr. Tebbutt had just put in an
affidavit explaining that circumstance.
Mr. HonNE, read and commented upon this affidavit, which
he considered to be unsatisfactory. The Learned Gentleman
then proceeded to contend that the lease was an improvident
one—that Messrs. Rhodes and Tebbutt were in league—and
that the measures had evidently been concerted.
The LORD, CHANCELLOR inquired whether Mr. De Beau-
voir had been acquainted with the notice given by the Regent's
Canal Company of their intention to build wharfs on its banks,
if the proprietors of the laud did not ?
Mr.HORNE replied in the negative, and observed that it
was a remarkable fact, that the notice was coevo.l with the com-
mencement of what he had termed. the management of the
defendants. " •

Mr. PEPYs pointed out a passage in the pleadings, which
stated that Mr. de Beauvoir had been informed.
Mr. HORNE read the correspondence which took place im-
mediately after the notice, which contained no allusion to it;
and as no personal communication had taken place between
the parties, he (Mr. Horne) was warranted, notwithstanding
what had been stated in the answer, in saying that Mr. De
Beauvoir was not informed. Hr. Home was then proceeding
to the question relating to the mischief occasioned by the in-
junction, when

The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that the present case
was one of those which raised considerable difficulties on ac-
count of the same person having been attorney for two parties.
It was necessary that the Court should lay down a principle in
this important case for the government of similar ones. Mr.
Tebbutt was bound by his peculiar situation to communi-
cate every word which passed between himself and Mr. Rhodes
to Mr. De Beauvoir, and every word which passed between
himself and Mr. De Beauvoir to Mr. Rhodes ; but how far
his omitting to do so affected the contract was a question. • His
Lordship had no difficulty in saying, that if, when Mr. Teb-
hutt recommended Mr. Rhodes to increase his offer a little,
and to tell him the extent to which he might go in his inter-
view. with Mr. De Beauvoir, Mr. Rhodes had done so, and
Mr. Tebbutt had withheld this from Mr. De Beauvoir, the
contract would have. been affected thereby. The difficulties
arising out of such a conflicting office as Mr. Tebbutt had
undertaken were so many, that an honest person who had em-
ployed the attorney of the party he negotiated with, might,
from that circumstance alone, be brought into this Court.
Mr. HORNE protested against the circumstance of Mr. Teb-
butt's so acting, important Its it was, being made the only
ground of this case. Ile insisted that there was collusion
among the parties defendant; the bargain was improvident__
the management was obvious. As to the.rnischiel of The in-
junction, that could not be alleged now ; his Lordship had
been possessed of all the evidence which ~his
be adduced,
and Mr.. Rhodes could not make his case better than it stood
at present, which he (Mr. Home) confidently trusted Would
warrant the Colin when it pronounced its final judgment in
the cause, in taking the same view of the transaction as he did:
Mr PEMBERTON followed on the same side.' He argued
on the question propounded by his Lordship respecting the in-
jury accruing to a party through a solicitor acting for two clients.
He !thew of no case in point, but analogy supplied instances : as
in the case of fraud ; and also in cases where the Court was call-
cd upon to compel the execution of contracts entered into under
similar circumstances to the present.
The -I.orm CHANCELLOR—Fraud is very strong ground.
A person who employs an attorney trusts to that attorney's
judgment at his own peril. Suppose an attorney should be ever
so foolish (if there be a foolish attorney in the profession) in his
proceedings ; provided there be no mala Alp, I doubt whether
you have a remedy.

The Court rose before Mr. Pemberton finished.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JULY 12.
WIGNELL V. WIGNELL.

His HoNoun-gave judgment in this case to-day. A bill
was tiled-by the plaintiff, praying that he, as the personal re:
presentative of Sarah Wignell deceased, might be declared en.
titled to a certain sum of 1,0001. with interest. Sarah Wignell,
being tenant in tail of the estate of her late husband, Thomas
Wignell, who died without issue, paid off a mortgage fbr the
above sum, with which it had been incumbered, and of which
she took an assignment. She died without suffering a recovery,
and the question was, whether the mortgage so paid off did or
did not constitute a part of her personal estate. Now, when a
tenant in tail in possession paid off a mortgage, and declared no
intention that it should continue for the benefit of his personal
estate, the charge ceased : but it must be considered, that in
the present case, the tenant in tail intended that it should con-
tinue part of her personal property. When Sarah Wignell be-
came tenant in tail in possession, this charge then subsisting was
part of hei personal property ; and not having afterwards de-
clared any intention that it should so continue, he (the Vice-
Chancellor).was of opinion that this sum of 1,0001. formed part
of her personal estate, and that the plaintiff was therefore en-
titled to what he prayed for.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY .
.11tfore the Lord chief Justice ABBOTT and a Sinicial Jury.

GALLOWAY V. ROBINSON AND ANOTHER.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is an engi-
neer in Smithfield, to recover of the defendants, who are nianu-
thcturers of fancy articles in Bunhill-row, the sdm of 3541,
being the remainder of the price of a steam-engine, kind. the
machinery attached thereto, which he had set up b;., theiT. de
sire upon their premises. It appeared from the evidence ex-
'amined in the coarse of the cause, that in the month of Fe-
bruary, 1824, a contract was made between the plaintiff' and:
the defendants, by which the plaintiff covenanted that in • con-,
sideration of 300/. to he paid to him by the defendants, he.
would erect upon their premises within 30 days a condensing
stearn-engineof 3-horses power. After the contract had been
executed, the defendants wished some additions to tie made
to the Steam-engine, and in consequence the time nrigi—•
nally fixed for die completion of the contract was 'extended
for ten days longer. At the conclusion of that time; the
tiff-was prepared to erect the steam-engine ;. but owiqg,to
the' defendants not having got ready the hrick-work,, was
obliged to phstpone it to a further day. .On the Bth of 'May:,
the machinery was set up, and shortly afterwards a complaint:,
was made by the defendants that it worked so ill as to be al- ,
most useless. The plaintiff sent his son -and.two of his Work...
men to see whether this complaint was just : and these .intlivi;
duals, after making some alterations for the purpose of ad-,
justing the different parts of the steam-engine, left it at the
end of some d-.lvs in a complete and scientific state. Theile-
frndants, howeer, were still dissatisfied with it, and in eonse-
quence called in Sir. Donkin, Mr. Lloyd, and Professor
millington, to examine it. On their declaring that it was in
several parts defective, and that it wanted °adjustment inothOo,
the defendants gave notice to the plhintiff that they wirald' riot
'accept it, and desired him to remove it from-their prerilises.......7
The plaintiff refused to do so,- and brought- his action tto
cover such part of the price of the engine as remained unpaid
at the present moment. The grAt in,the;•Fase
whether at the, time the-plaintiff's tridaleft. :the 45,ngibo it
.was in a complete and efhcient state ; and a variety ot. Lvi-H
dence was examined on the one side, to prove that the ton.-