The Sun.
London, England, 1813-04-29 00:00:00

LAW n E PORI

t OMIT 01`;' COMMON PLEAS, Atli! L. *é:

STNtoN LEE TRUSTEE 111V6GRITiGt.

This was ait • iction brtiiight to recover the snl
of 19091. 19s. 'represented to be due tii the plain
tiff, under the following ciretunStatiees :
It appeared that Mr. Hillyer, .sotr4n-law to. Mrs.
Muggridge, having become embarrased in his cir-:
cunistancesi applied to his mother-in-law forsome
pectiniary assistance, who informed him that 'she
was unable to render.him any relief, because of
her oWn limited income, but if he would borrow
the money necessary somewhere, she would give
security that the whole shoal tbe paid by her trus-
tees after her decease. Having given this coutF.
sel, the Lady herself wrote pressingly to Mr. Lee,
the present plaintiffr to furnish her sun-in-law
with money, which was accordingly done, securi-
ty having been given by bond for repaymept of
the•principal after her decease. This was accom-
plished some tme about the_ commencement of the
preseht.,centory, during the lifetime of the Lady's
husband.: Mr. Muggridge himself died (hiring the
year 1802, end in the following year the plaintiff
became desirous to learn something concerning
the repayment of the money which he bad ad-
vanced, and wrote to Mrs. Muggridge according-
ly, in consequence of which he received the fol-
lowing letter, dated Joly 1 1 •180-1:
" DEAR Six--1 received your letters -of the 21st
of March and the 2d of July, and not having any
thing to do with the matter, has occasioned my
delay in answering them. For some tithe past
have been very poorly in my health ; am now
much better, and am going to leave this place for
a change of air. It it nut in my power to pay
the bond off-i—my time,here is short, and it will
be settled by my executors.
(Signed) MAtt•V MpoonnoE."
Before the period •of writing this letter Mr.
lii llyer had died, and Mrs. Muggridge continued
in a ,precarious state of health for several years;
and died dining the month of •April, 181 i.
Such being the eitetunstances•of the case, the
Conftsel who conducted the action refrained Irmo
insisting on the agreement contained itithis bond,
in ,sinach as its validity was questionable, having
been entered into without the concurrence of her
husband. Ile rested his case solely on the pro-.
'wise Of repayment contained in the letter written
during her widowhood, and produced a Geml4-
man of the name of Rirnes, who ~proved the au-
thenticity of the bond, and also that the letter
Which we have already mentioned was in the
hand-writing of 'Mrs. Muggridge.
Mr. SHEPattun argued fur the defendants, that
the original bond being ,altogether void by the
non-concurrence of the 'Lady's husband, it re-
mained for the plaintiff to snoW a promise made
during her widowhood, coupled With the cowl-
iteration for such promise had been made.
Even the expressions made use of in the letter on
which the action founded were extremely
dark and. doubtful. I nste.ad ut saying that .the
bond ‘vould be paid by her executors she employ-
the expression settled by het' executors, which was
a phrase ambigeotis at best, and inn ease such as
the present, altogether inconclusive ; he there-
fore submitted, that the defendants, were not liable
to pay the money .deinanned,„
The 2 ttry after a short consultation,. found a
verdict tor the plaintiff, to the amount of his de-
mand.'