The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-17 00:00:00

CHANCERY

(THIS DAY.)

HUMPHREYS V. PENSUM.

The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment this morning
in this case, which was a motion for a new trial, on the
ground of misdirection on behalf of the Learned Judge who
tried the cause, and also the striking out of the evidence the
deposition of a Mrs. Moray. The question which the issue
from the Court of Chancery was directed to try was, whether
a sum of 10,0001. was or was not the purchase money of
certain leasehold premises. The Jury, under the Learned
Judge's direction, found that it was ; and the present ap-
pilcation was for the purpose of upsetting that finding.
The Lord Chancellor was clearly of opinion the Learned
Judge had done most rightly in directing the deposition of
Mrs. Moray not to be received as evidence, and that the
Jury had come to a right conclusion ; and he therefore dis-
missed the motion for a new trial, with costs.

N THE MATTER OF THE SHREWSBURY FREE GRAMMAR

SCHOOL.

The Loan CIIANCELT.OR also gave judgment in this case,
which came before the Court a short time since, upon the
petition of the Governors of the Free Grammar School of
Shrewsbury, praying that it might be declared by the Court
that certain ecclesiastical benefices which, up to the time of
the passing of the Municipal Reform Bill were vested in the
Corporation, had by the passing of that Bill, because that
species of property which, under the direction of the Act,
should be sold, or that the petitioners might be declared
the Trustees of, in the room of the late Corporation of
Shrewsbury. By letters patent in the reign of Edward VI.
the Free Grammar School of. Shrewsbury was founded, and
certain property was given by that monarch for its
support. Subsequently Queen Elizabeth gave other
property for its support, together with the advowson
of Cherbury. It was contended that the advowson
was property held as trustees by the Corporation of Shrews-
bury, and therefore that it must be sold. The Lord
Chancellor thought the property did not come under that
denomination, and directed a reference to the Master to ap-
point new trustees in the place of the late Corporation of
Shrewsbury, it being clear in his Lordship's mind that the
petitioners ought not to be appointed.
BRITTAIN V. PARROTT.

This case came before the Court upon the motion for a
new trial, Sir F. Pollock and Mr. Sergeant Bompas
specially attending the Lord Chancellor upon it.

ROLLS'COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

WILLIAMS V. CALVERLEY.
Mr. PEMBERTON moved, on behalf of the defendant in
this case, that the injunction which had been granted ex
parte on the 18th of October last, restraining the defen-
dant from transferring or intermeddling with the sum of
1161. long annuities, standing in the names of the defen-
dant Joseph Calverley, and Charlotte, his wife, might be
dissolved with costs. The Learned Counsel stated that
the injunction had been granted upon a bill filed by the de-
fendant's wife, and William Williams, who was a solicitor,
as her next friend. The bill was supported by the affidavit
of Williams, but Mrs. Calverley did not make an affidavit.
The bill stated that previous to the marriage of the defen-
dant and his wife a settlement was executes], by which the
long annuities, and all other the personal estate of the plain-
tiff Charlotte Calverley, were to be settled on her for her
separate use ; that shortly after the marriage Mrs. Calverley
transferred the long annuities into the joint names of herself
and her husband, with the view thatthe same should vest in
and belong to the defendant in case he survived his wife, but
the fund was still to remain her sole and separate property,
and that she accordingly after such transfer, with the consent of
the defendant, received the dividends. The Bill then stated
that the plaintiff Mrs. Calverley, had absented herself from
the defendant ; but that while she continued to reside with
him,he was in the habit of absenting himself from her for
weeks together, of beating and ill using her, and otherwise
treating her with the greatest possible cruelty and disres-
pect. The Learned Counsel then stated that Mr. Williams
in the affidavit he had made had thought it necessary to ac-
count for the absence of Mrs. Celverley from her husband's
house, which was attributed by the plaintiffs solely to the
cruelty with which he had been treated by her husband. He
(Mr. P.) was sorry to say that unquestionably on one side or
the other in this case there was as great a mass of perjury as
he had ever heard of, for the parties who had made affidavits
and who positively swore to facts that came within their
own knowledge, swore diametrically opposite to each other.
He thought, however, there would be some criterion by
which the Court would be enabled to determine on which
side the truth lay ; but there was a great deal of matter
that was not properly before the Court, and which he con-
sidered had been most improperly introduced into the bill,
and Mr. Williams' affidavit in support-of it. The allega-
tions and charges in the bill and affidavit had been com-
pletely contradicted by the husband, and those contradic-
tions had been again as stoutly denied by the wife. 'What-
ever might have been the conduct of the husband, this
fact was not even attempted to be denied, that Mrs. Cal-
verly was now living in adultery, and that an action for
criminal conversation had been commenced by the husband
in the Court of Exchequer against Mr. Courtenay, her pa-
ramour.
The Learned Counsel was proceeding to read the affi-
avits when we left the Court.

£3 15
0 0
4 5
4 15
5 15
2 2

£4 0
0 0
4 10
4 15
6 0
2 0

27 0
27 0
...270
.. 26 6

.. 21 0
22 0
.. 21 6

9th section of the 6,h of Anne, which ,nrct:,d that no other
partnership, other than the Bank of England, should bor-
row, take up, or owe upon their bills or notes payable on
demand, or in less than six months from the borrowing.
To put an end to the evil that then existed, viz., to prevent
other partnerships from coming into the market and engag-
ing in this mob. of dealing, was the object of the enactment
in the 6th of Anne, which was repealed in the subsequent
Acts, but the transaction at present in question was clearly
a transaction of a different nature and description, and wasi
not in any way prohibited by the statutes. To show the
mode in which the Government dealt by the 7th and Bth of
Will. 111. c. 31, it was provided that it shall and may be
lawful for his Majesty, or the officers of his Majesty's
Exchequer, from time to time to borrow, or take up upon
their own receipts, any sum or sums of money, from any
person or persons, native or foreign, willing to lend the
same upon the credit of their bills, to be made payable on
d2mand, with interest not exceeding the rate of 3d per cent.
per diem. This was the Government mode of dealing—they
borrowed, took up, and owed money upon their own bills, Ex,
chequer bills as they were called, which were payable on. dt-
mand, and were delivered on the payment of their arnoutv.; as
a security for the same amount, and these Exchequer V;ls did
hen form, as they still do form, a very large par. t of the

circulating medium of the country. By the sa,ne statute,
sec. 32, the Governor and Company of the National Lana
Bank were authorised to borrow money upon their bills,
and by the 25th sec. the bills so delivered were to be issued
by the Corporation under their common seal, and were
payable o❑ demand to the borrower, who was entitled to,

proceed by action against the said Company for the amount
of the said bills. The same mode was adopted with re-
gard to the Bank of England. By the sth and 6 ch. of
William and Mary, by which the Bank of Engl-,,nd was
first established, by sections 25, 27, and 28, ;,he mode
t) be adopted was in substane:d this :—The Bank was
to b.) at liberty to issue bill°. to the amount of 1,200,0001,,
and these bills were 4,0 be given to persons of whom
money to the tame amount should be borrowed, and
the Bank of England was at liberty to borrow money,
and to give these bills as security. Section 27 gave them
an opportunity still to deal in bills of exchange, and he re-
Led upon this to show that when bills of exchange were
tueant, they were specifically described. When, they came
to the 28th section, which referred to the bills given as se-
curity, the words " bills of exchange " weret not added, and
it was therefore clear that the Act refev:red exclusively to
bills under seal, which were issued as security for the mo-
ney borrowed. These securities were called bank post
bills, and he contended that it was the issue of these
bills,and not of bills of exchange, which was prohi-
bited by the 6th of Anne and the subsequent acts.
Ho contended that. the bill of exchange in question was
riot a bill within the meaning of these Acts, and that these
Acts were all meant to meet a specific evil which was the
issuing of paper, in the shape of promissory note, either with
or without seal. The Attorney-General then proceeded
to refer to the different Acts of Parliament, and had not
concluded when our reporter left.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice PARKE and a
Common Jury.
WRIGHT V. NEWTON.

This was an action brought against the defendant, who
is a solicitor, for negligence in attending to the interests of
the plaintiff, his client, in the disposal of a sum of 2001.
upon a mortgage security of certain houses which proved
to be valueless, and of which the defendant was cognizant
at the time of negotiating the loan.
It appeared in evidence on the part of the plaint'ff, that
the defendant had acted for the plaintiff for many years in
the capacity of her solicitor, and that he had possessed much
of her confidence. In the year 1833 the defendant called
upon Mrs. Wright, and proposed that she should lend
to a Mr. Holton a sum of two hundred pounds, tak-
ing as a security for its repayment a mortgage upon
certain houses, eighteen in number, situated at Cambridge-
heath, Hackney. Of these, at the time of the negotiation,
Holton was in possession of only six, the remaining twelve
he proposed to purchase, but had no means of paying the
purchase money, 1601., other than what might be obtained
by means of the mortgage. This was with the full know-
ledge of the defendant, and of the remaining 401., he took
for law expenses 391. 10s. 6d, to his own share. The
plaintiff also took as a further security a warrant of attorney
against the mortgagers, Messrs. Holton and Jones, who
were represented by the defendant to be in a flourishing
line of business, whereas he must have known the fact to
be otherwise. Mr. Newton stated that the security was
perfectly solvent, and upon the faith of that representatioft
the plaintiff advanced the sum required, but after the first
year she received no interest for her money. The valuf3
of the leasehold was very trifling, and the mortgaKers
became bankrupt.
Mr. ERLE, for the defendant, submitted that the., proof
did not substantiate the allegation in the declaration. It
was then stated that the money was advanced on the
mortgage only, whereas the evidence went to show that
it was given as well on the security afforded by the war-
rant of attorney as upon that contained 'in the mortgags•
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD, for the -plaintiff, hoped, if it
were necessary, the Learned Juke would allow him to
amend on the record.
Mr. Justice PARKE said he would permit him to do so.
Mr. ERLE addressed the Jury for the defendant. Ver-
dict for the plaintiff, 2001. damages.
EX