The Sun.
London, England, 1822-07-26 00:00:00

TOOSEY V. BASKET'''.

The plaintiff in this case was residing in Hindostan in 1818,
when he received intelligence that the late Madame Storace had
bequeathed a legacy of 50,0001. between him and his brothers
and sisters. Upon receiving this information, he proceeded to
the island of Sumatra, for .the purpose of communicating upon
the subject with his father (since dead), who had been for some
time living at Bencoolen. Upon his arrival here, however, he
learned that his father a short time previously sailed for England,
leaving his affairs in the island to the management of the defend-
ant, who acted as his agent. The plaintiff remained at Bencoolen
for about fifteen months, and left it in the month of February,
1820. In May, 1821. he became of age. During his stay at Ben-
coolen, he was supplied with necessaries, and money to pro-
Cure necessaries, by the defendant ; to whom, previously to his
departure, he gave a bill on his brother William for 5001.,
another for 7251. (both of which the brother refused to accept),
and his bond for 3,207 dollars, or 801]. 15s. sterling. The de-
fendant having commenced proceedings at law against the
plaintiff upon these securities, the latter filed a bill in this
Court, in which he stated that the whole amount of the money
which he had received from the defendant was 4501., in con,
sideration of which the bill for 5001. had been given, and was
since paid; that the bill for 7251. was given to the defendant at
his own suggestion, upon stating that a balance to. that amount
was due to him by the plaintiff's father, on whom tilt. plaintiff
had expressed it to be the determination of his brothers, sisters,
and himself, to settle an annuity ; and which bill was given on the
express condition that he( the plaintiff') was not to be held respon-
sible for its amount or any part of it, in the event of its not meet-
ing the concurrence of his brothers and sisters ; and lastly, that
he had put his signature to the bond for 3,207 dollars without
knowing what it was, up the defendant's requiring some se-
curity for such money as he had advanced to him over and
above the amount of the bill for 5001. Under these circum-
stances, therefore, the bill prayed for the interposition of this
Court to relieve him (the-plaintiff) from the proceedings at law.
The defendant being resident at Bencoolen; an ex-parte mo-
tion, on behalf of the plaintiff, was made befor the Vice-Chan-
cellor for an order for service of the subpcena upon Mr. Miller,
the defendant's attorney at law. The application, however,
was refused by his Honour, upon the ground that the plaintiff
had nothing to do but to
_plead his infancy. In consequence of
this refusal on the part of his Honour,
Mr. WET HERE LL to-day made the same application to the
Lord Chancellor.
His Lonnsilf r was of opinion, that it was very possible the
plaintiff might not wish to plead infancy, thinking that he had
more honourable grounds of defence—such, for instance, as the
condition upon which he had passed the bill for 7251., or his
having received no consideration tbr the bond—he ought not to
be tied down to the necessity of pleading his minority. His
Lordship, therefore, was pleased to grant the application.
At two o'clock his Lordship rose, fur the purpose of attend-
ing the Recorder's Report. ,