The Sun.
London, England, 1831-06-03 00:00:00

COCIIRANE V. COCHRANE.

Mr. TINNEY moved, agreeable to permission, obtained
at the rising of the Court yesterday, that this case might
stand referred to the Master to exercise his discretion on
the question, whether a reserve bidding should be put upon
the sales of the esta'es mentioned in the pleadings, and
ordered to be sold by the decree of the Court. The
estates were situated in Scotland and in the West Indies,
and belonged to the late Cochrane, of Portman-
square. He died in 1826, and by his will made
in 1824, he directed his estates to be sold by his
trustees as soon as possible, and the proceeds to be
applied in the discharge of the claims of four different
classes of legatees ; the first class (his children) having the
priority over the second class, the second over the third,
and so on. In 1829 a bill was filed by the trustees pray-
ing for a sale agreeable to the terms of the bill, no
answer was put in to that bill, but another suit was
instituted by the trustees, and they obtained a de-
cree giving them the conduct of the whole of the
affairs and liberty to sell. No sale had how-
ever, yet been made, as on an attempt to sell only
49,000/. and a fraction had been offered for one of the
Scotch estates, which had been previously valued at
50,000/. and a franction ; so with respect to another,
only 12,500/. had been offered for it, though it
had been valued at 14,000/. and a fraction.—
The frst class of legatees desired to have an immediate
sale, because, whatever might be the improvidence of a
sale, they would be sure to have their legacies paid ; but
the Learned Counsel submitted the Court would look as
carefully to the interests of the remote takers as
as to the first class of legatees, and consequently adopt that
course which would prevent the estates being parted with
at an under-value.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL and Mr. SIDEBOTIIAM
peared for the trustees, and agreed to the application. It
turned out that the trustees were residuary legatees, and
therefore it was to their interest to procure as much as
possible for the property.
Sir E. SuanEN and Mr. WAKEFIELD appeared for the
first class of legatees, and contended that the trustees had
colluded with certain other interested parties to delay the
sale as long as possible, that they might benefit thereby,
and that the children of the testator, whom he had
been most anxious to provide for, should be entirely de-
prived of their intended provision. The trustees had even
withheld the payment of the interest of the portion of those
children, though it was well known to the trustees that they
were orphan children in this country without a friend ( heing
illegitimate), and without any means whatever of procuring
the common necessaries of life, except by encumbering,
at a most ruinous rate, the interest the testator had
left them, and which they had been prevented from getting
into possession of by the improper (as he Sir E. S. said) con-
duct of the trustees in not settling them and administering
the funds. The children had been left in the most destitute
and lamentable state of distress by the course that had
been pursued—one of the young ladies had actually pe-
rished (as it had been said) from such destitution and suf-
fering. It was a case, therefore, in which it behoved the
Court to interfere to prevent a continuance of such perse-
cution, and to say that nothing should be allowed to take
place calculated in the slightest degree to delay immediate
Sales. Besides, it was to be recollected that reserve bid-
ding always had the effect of damaging and of injuring
sates.
Mr. TINNEV replied. He denied collusion on the part
of any one, or that there was any feeling except the
laudable desire of getting as much for the property as
could be realised.
The Loan CrusxcELLon. said, that though he always
disliked reserve biddings, yet he should conform to
what seemed to have been the Master of the
Rolls' wish when the case was before him
on further directions, of referring it, as prayed, to
the Master to exercise his discretion upon that
point. This was one of the cases his Lordship
observed, in which parties improperly addressed
letters to the Judge. He had received such letters, and
though he condemned the practice, yet he could not force
from his feelings the pain which certain details in those
letters occasioned. The distress and starvation to which
some parties had been reduced to and left iv. was really
deeply to be deplored. In referring the case under these
circumstances to the Master, he would not only pen the
order with his own hand, but see the Master on the subject,
had been alleged as to thciewffitii:lisie),rnth'uls:uhr‘a,:l'all
and take care to draw sufficieptly to his attention all that
reserve:swghhaeionly
:y
reinserrevfetdtsibnigd,dinfgorl instance,lnhis
ing
bidding-9, and the great doubt whether the trustees had
pa acted dod,
oi socor:.e t lays aan
value,
a ipur:paenr properly sL4:9olr,tighoi/p.tBllfe,orrpe an therefrom,
estate on (ed]
posing of property of such magnitude.
usually
sti abnyeao:tatihnes hardship re_

ROLLS COURT.
lioNouß, the Master of the Rolls, took consent
causes and petitions to-day, none of which were of any
blic interest.pu
_

VICE- CLIANCELL OR' S C OURT.
The Court was occupied the whole morning with mo-
tions of no public interest.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Their Lordships went into the special paper to-day,
but nothing of any public importance transpired up to the
time of our going to press.

WALKER D. WILION.
This was a case of false imprisonment. Mr. CLARK
appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. ARCHBOLD for the de
fendant- From the evidence produced on the part of the
plaintiff, it appeared in June last the defendanteent a broker
into her room with a distraint for rent, to the amount of
12s• due to him as her landlord. The plaintiff hap-
pened to be from home at the time the broker entered, and
on returning about eleven o'clock at night, she wished to
get into her room, but was prevented by the defendant,
and on her persisting, he called in a policeman, and gave
her in charge for creating a riot and disturbing the neigh-
bourhood. When they got to the station-house, the de-
fendant thought proper not to prefer any charge, and in
consequence the plaintiff was let go. It also appeared
that a person who lived in the room with the plaintiff was
ejected by the broker at eleven o'clock at night, with the
child of the plaintiff in her arms, and it was alleged, that
the child had died in consequence of a cold it had caught
at that time.

On the part of the defendant it was shown tbit,al-

though the distress was made, no person was expelled
mom the plaintiff's room, and the plaintiff was given in
oharge to the policeman for her violent conduct, and not
''tom any disposition to keep her out of her room. She
‘vas discharged at the nation-bou.e, only on her promising
tat to make any more noise.
The Learned JuDGE summed up at great length, and
she Jury, after a short consu'tation, returned a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damazes, one farthing.
The defendant's Counsel applied to his Lordship to cer.
tify, as the object of the action was clearly to put money
uto the pocket of the attorney for the plaintiff.
Mr. CLARK, in reply, said that the attorney had
tfforded every opportunity to settle the matter without
coming into Court.

We did nut understand the Learned Judge to accede to
the request of Mr. Archbold.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
The Court was occupied in hearing motions the whole
morning, which were totally without any public interest.
_ _ _ _ _

PALACE COURT.
PARRY V. GIBBONS.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
from the defendant, Edward Baines Gibbons, Esq the sum
iif 6/. 6s. 31 for meat, drink, and necessaries provided
fir a Mr. Winhain and others, at the instance of the said
defendant.

Mr. CHAMBERS, in stating the case to the Jury, said
that the plaintiff, John Parry, was a poor labouring man
with a wife and two children, and in the year 1830 held
the situation of carman in the respectable house of Messrs.
Bonnevy and Co., the wine merchants, Cooper's-row,
Crutcbed-friars. The plaintiff, Mr. Gibbons, at that
priod had the management of the business. In the month
of March, in that year, Mr. Gibbons entered into the
holy state of matrimony, and had previous to his nuptials
taken a large house in Manor-street, Chelsea, which had
been uninhabited for the preceding five years, conse-
quently, as might be expected, it was in a very filthy and
(lamp condition. The defendant, in order that his in-
tended residence should be swept, garnished, and brought
into a state of comfort and cleanliness fit for the reception
of his intended bride, engaged the plaintiff and his wife to
take care of the premises, and to prepare the rooms by the
time he should bring home his wife. The plaintiff was
then residing with his family in lodgings in Jewry-
street, Al(!gate, which, at the instigation of the defendant,
he left, and went to take care of his house in Manor-
street ; they found the house in a very dirty state, and
wretchedly damp, and there being twelve rooms, a sister
of the plaintiff and a lad were employed with the know-
ledge of the defendant to assist, and there being no articles
for use in the place, brooms, brushes, flannels, dusters,
soap, candles, &c. &c. were provided at the instance of
the defendant from the tradesmen in the neighbourhood.
A painter named Whinham was sint by the defendant to
paint the interior of the house, and whilst there the
plaintiff supplied him, and those persons about the
house, with meals every day, in order that no
delay might take place in preparing for the re•
ception of the new bride. The defendant after the
marriage ceremony set off with his wife into the country,
where the honey-moon was spent, and on the 9th July the
new married couple returned to their town residence, in
Manor-street, which was in apple-pie order for their re-
' ception. The defendant had not taken possession many
days before he discharged the plaintiff and his wife, in the
middle of the week, and without being able to provide a
lodging. Application had been made to him several
times for payment, but no settlement could be obtained,
therefore the present proceedings were instituted. The
Learned Counsel then called Mary Morgan, who proved
that herself and the plaintiff's wife cleaned the house
from top to bottom, and had likewise kept fires
in every room. She had boarded there, and was supplied
her meals by the plaintiff. The defendant came once to
the house whilst she was there, and desired the plaintiff's
wife to have further help if she wanted it. A little boy
was therefore employed to fetch water, &c. ; he also had
his meals there.

Whinham (who had been subpoenaed by the de-
fendant) was examined, and said that he had been engaged
by the defendant to paint the house, but no understanding
took place between them respecting his meals. It was
true he had occasionally been supplied with his meals
by Mrs. Parry, for which he thought he (witness) was
liable, and not Mr. Gibbons. The charge of 31. for meat
and drink for his use was quite exorbitant ; he only had
his meals occasionally ; he hail been in the house thirty
days, and had not had his meals there half the time.
Mr. CARSON addressed the Jury for the defendant and
contended that his client was not liable, inasmuch as no
agreement had been made between the parties, to supply
any of the servants with food. He had given permission
to the plaintiff and his family to reside rent free in his
house, whilst he was in the country, upon an understand-
ing that the wife should clean the place, and upon no other
understanding whatever.
The Learned JUDGE summed up, and
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages
Si. 15s. 6d.

SIIIPPING INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY.)

FROM LLOYD'S.

DEAL, JUNE 2.—Wind moderate.—Arrived and sailed
for the river, the Castle Huntley, Drummond, from
China.

PORTSMOUTH, JUNE 2. —Wind variable.—Sailed the
William Glen, Anderson, for Van Diemen's Land.
PLYMOUTH, JUNE I.—Wind E.—Arrived the Con-
cord, Lee, from Riga.

DUNDEE, MAY 3l.—Arrived the Mary, AlDonald;
from Liebau.

LEITH, MAY 31...—Arrived the Dorothy, Turnbull,
from PiHuh

STANDGATE CREEK, MAY 29.—Arrived the Diana,
Holmes, from Constantinople.

The Glory, from Pernambuco to Liverpool, was spoken
with the l6th ult. by the Malabar, arrived at Liverpool.
The Ardwell. -, from Trinidad, is supposed to be
arrived off Kinsale.