The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-21 00:00:00

ALLIRET V. ALLFREY--JUDGMENT.

His Lompassm gave judgment this morning in this case,
which was argued before him a short time since upon ap-
peal from the decision of the Master of the Rolls. During
the argaments we gave, at considerable length, the facts of
the case, and also the principal points in the arguments of
counsel, and it will, therefore, be only necessary now shortly
to recapitulate the facts of the case. The bill was filed by
William-Allfrey, against the executors of his uncle, Edward
Allfrey, to re-open accounts that had been settled and signed
in May, 1825. William Allfrey, was one of the children and
next of kin of George Allfrey, a wine merchant, in Essex,
who died in 1802, possessed of certain lands held on borough
English. He died intestate, his widow renounced ad-
ministration, and it was taken out by the uncle, who
became sole manager of the property, both real and
personal, and dealt with it as he thought fit.
The plaintiff, who is a barrister, attained the age of 21 in
September, 1823, and on the 7th of May, 1825, be wrote in
the books of his uncle a memorandum to the effect that "he
had satisfactorily investigated the accounts of his father, and
confirmed the then stated balance due to him of 171. 125."
This balance was afterwards received, but in 1841 he had
occasion to examine the accounts furnished by his uncle,
and he then discovered in them errors of such a nature as to
afford conclusive proof of the intentional misrepresentation
and fraud. In 1843 he filed the present bill for a declaration
that the alleged settlement of account was invalid, and ask-
ing that accounts might be taken of the personal estate of
the late George Allfrey possessed by Edward Allfrey, and of
the application thereof, and that it might be ascertained
what balances were in his hands at the end of every half-
year after the expiration of the first year, and that his estate
might be charged with interest on such balances, and with
any sums of stock that might have been purchased with
such balances. The defendants, in their answer, relied on
the settlement of the account and the time that had been
suffered to elapse before the plaintif made his complaint,
and they contended that, as he was a practising member
of the profession, he must be presumed to have fully
known the extent of his rights at the time
he signed the memorandum in his uncle's books.
The cause was heard before the Master of the Rolls, and his
Lordship being satisfied that there were numerous and appa-
rently fraudulent errors in the accounts, declared that the
plaintiff could not be held bound by the memorandum, and
being of opinion that the uncle stood in loco parentis to the
plaintiff, his nephew, his Lordship sent a reference to the
Master to take the accounts as prayed. The executors ap-
pealed ' from this decree, and upon that appeal the Lord
Chancellor now gave judgment. His Lordship, after going
at some length into the case, stated his clear opinion to be
that the Master of the Rolls had come to a right conclusion,
and ordered the appeal to be dismissed with costs.

BItANDMOILL V. THE LONDON AND NORTE•WESTEIIII BAIL-

VAT COMPANY.
The further arguments in this part-heard appeal motion
occupied his Lordship the remainder of the morning. The
Vice-Chancellor of England had granted an injunction
in this case, to restrain the defendants from continuing to
make an embankment, or from altering the levels of Hill-
street and Navigation-street, Birmingham, to a greater ex-
tent than that laid down in the original plan. The plaintiff's
house is at the corner of Hill-street and Navigation-street,
and the complaint was that the company, at the requisition
of the Paving Commissioners of Birmingham, had altered
the levels of their works, and carried the embankment fur-
ther than they originally proposed, and further than WAS
warranted by the plans of the Stour Valley Railway Com-
pany, which the defendants had purchased. The Vice-
Chancellor considered the company bound by the plan, and
refusing to lend assistance to the coercive powers of the
paving board ; his Honour granted the injunction, which it
was now sought to set aside.
Mr. BETNELL, with whom was Mr. Speed, opened the
appeal motion on Saturday, contending that the 16th section

of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act empowered the
Company to make the alterattitin in their plan, provided there
i was no deviation.
,Ir. STUART, with whom was Mr. Craig, supported the
order of the Court below, and submitted that if such a con-
struction was given to the section of the Act as had been
contended for on the other side, it would take away all the
power given in the 14th section.
The arguments of Mr. Craig, following Mr. Stuart, omit,-
pied the Court the whole morning.