The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-09 00:00:00

LEWIS V SMITH.

The LORD CHANCELLOR then delivered a judgment
in this case, which was argued before him on the
10th of November, 1848. His Lordship affirmed the
decision of the Court below on three of the points
raised, and decreed that the defendant should pay the
costs of the appeal.

ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 8.
DUGDALE V. DUGDALE.
Lord LANGDALE delivered judgment in this case.
The testator, on the 17th of December, 1839, made
his will, by which he devised to the plaintiff, William
Stafford Dugdale, 2,0001, to be divided amongst his
next of kin, paternal and maternal. The parties were
unable to discover who were the next of kin, and
prayed for a reference to the Master to ascertain
them. The amount of the fund was now, with inte-
rest, 2,563/. 3s. 4d. The Master found that Charles
Bald win was the only next of kin on the maternal side.
The present petition was for the costs of establishing
the respective claims of the parties to the fund, and
the question was, whether the next of kin were en-
titled to any costs for making out their title. The
fund could not have been distributed without its being
ascertained who were the next of kin. He (Lord
Langdale) thought that the estate was liable to the
costs of the inquiry, and the money for that purpose
must be raised.

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 8.
(Before Sir L. SHADWELL•)
SAWYER V MILLS.

In this case a gentleman named Mills devised certain
real property at Egham, in Surrey, to three trustees
(his son,) upon trust to sell and invest the proceeds
in stock, arid accumulate the dividends until the
youngest chill of his deceased daughter attained 21,
and then to divide the whole among the children, not
exceeding 2 3001., and should it exceed that sum, the
surplus to such as his sons as should be then living.
The estate was not sold, and the suit was instituted,
the bill stating that the trustees were accountable for
the rents, and ;Jetting forth an equitable mortgage of
the plaintiff's share, and on other property to his aunt,
Mercy Sawyer (now dead), for 2,7001., and another
for 1001. to one Cutler, on which Mercy Sawyer's
executors made a claim. The bill stated that the
plaintiff had a claim against Mercy SAwyer exceeding
her mortgage in amount, which was, therefere, only
the consideration of the mortgage, as would appear
on accounts taken, and if it did so appear, that it
should be delivered up. The bill was filed against
the trustees and the other parties interested, charging
breach of trust in not having sold, for a sale, and to
take the accounts of the mortgages as well as the
estate. The youngest child of the testator's daughter
had attained 21, and the trustees were ready to divide
the 2,300/. under the will; but, as the plaintiff's share
was mortgaged, and that mortgage questioned, a
motion was now made on behalf of all the defendants
(except Cutler) to dismiss the bill against all the de-
fendants except Mercy Sawyer's representatives, such
defendants offering to pay the costs up to and includ-
ing this application, and to pay the plaintiff's share
into court.

➢ir. Craig appeared in support of the motion ; Mr.
Stuart and Mr. Toulmin, contra; Mr. Bethell ap-
peared for other parties.
The VicE-CHANCELLOR said that it was the simplest
thing possible; there was a dispute, and, if the
plaintiff were to pay the defendants what they
asked, there would be no question ; but that was
not the case. lle did not understand that there
was any intention of paying Cutler, and therefore it
was a mere experiment. The motion must be refused
with costs.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 8.
BELL, PUBLIC OFFICER, V. WELCH.
This action, which was brought by the plaintiff, a
public officer of the National Provincial Bank of
England, against the defendant, upon a guarantee
bond, was tried at the last sittings in London, before
the Lord Chief Justice, when a verdict was found
for the plaintiff for 1,0001.
Mr. Sergeant CuANNELL moved, with the leave of
the Learned Judge, for a rule to show cause why a
nonsuit should not be entered, or why the damages
should not be reduced by 1791. 10s., or why judg-
ment should not be arrested. It appeared that a Mr.
Pinney, jun., got an advance of 1,0001. from the
branch bank at Blandford, where he kept an account,
upon giving a guarantee for the repayment of it,
signed by the defendant and another person. The ver-
dict was not denied, and one of the grounds urged on
behalf of the present application had reference to the
indistinct nature of the guarantee. Upon the point of
reducing the damages, it was contended by the
Learned Counsel that they should be reduced by
1791., the amount paid into the bank by Pinney
subsequently to the sum secured by the guarantee
becoming due.

The COURT granted a rule.
MASTER V. BARRETTI.

This action was tried before the Lord Chief Justice,
in Middlesex, when a verdict was returned for 701.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES moved, with the leave of the
Learned Judge, for a rule to enter a verdict
for the defendant. This was an action in as-
sumpsit upon a promissory note for 651, drawn
by the defendant, and made payable to his
own order. The note was as follows:—" Three
months after date I promise to pay to my own order
the sum of 651.—J. A. Barretti." Under the writing,
in the body of the note, was written " payable at
Messrs. Walter and Pebber's," and on the back of it

the endorsement "J. A. BArretti." The note was
paid away in a gambling transaction. The main
points relied upon in making the motion were that
the declaration was wrong in describing the note as
payable generally, when it was only payable at
Messrs. Walter and Pebber's, and that as the note
was paid on a gambling account the transaction was
illegal.
The COURT, however, refused to grant the rule.
SMITH V. HAMILTON.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES also applied in this case,
which was tried before the Lord Chief Baron in
London, and in which a verdict was found for the
defendant, for a rule to show cause why there should
not be a new trial. The motion was made on