The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-20 00:00:00

" TO THE RIGHT HON, LORD JOHN RUSSELL, M.P. &C.

" We, the inhabitants of the ancient and loyal borough
of Plymouth, deeply penetrated with gratitude to your
Lordship and your LordoFis ooUeagues, composing the
late memberS of her Maje:,,ty's,Ciorernment, for the ge-
nerous but abeortive attenipt made to relieve the eonnuer
cial, fiscal, and manlifacturing embarrassments of the
country, by the only kgitimate remedies, embrace 'tlt
first opportunity 'which has presented itself since that
event by your presence amongst us, tdbffer our wttrmes44
congratulations on your arrival in this neighbourhood
and .express our strongest gratitude for the noble effortt
made by your Lordshipiand. others of the late:Ministry,'
to revive commerce. and,mann Factures, to givedood and
employment to starying,;and unemployed thougands, and
to relieve the einbarrasents of the Exchequer without
the imposition of"fresh burthens.
" We view with apPrehension and distrust the pro-
ceedings of men who have, obtained power by the sacri-
fice of principle ; and we look to the restoration of an
Administration pledged to carry out to their fullest ex-
tent measures of progressive reform and improvement
—the abolition of noxious and hateful monopolies—the
thorough revision of our import duties—the equalization
of the national burthens—and the general diffusion of
knowledge, without regard to creeds or sects, as the only
weans of restoring national confidence and prosperity.
Hence we look with eager expectation to your Lord-
ship's return to office, in the dillest confidence that, al-
though those salutary measures have been for a time so
unhappily obstructed, they will, ere long, be carried
out."
Mr. I'LL. Gwa-riaN seconded it.

Mr. T. STEVENS pr6posed, as an amendment, that
after the word " Reform" should be inserted" in the elec•
tire fritftehiSe." • '

;Mr.6orirtu.thought waa sufficiently embodied in
the tneaviifigof the address.
• • Mr.-NINGWILL seconded the amendment, which was,
however, lost by a large majority.
. Mr. 'T. Grix, M.P., thought that no man was more
entitled than Lord John Russell to their gratitude. His
whole life had been devoted to the civilization of man;
kind. His views were not confined to theory7-be wished
to carry them' out practically.. He,Nre entered into a
long detail of the beneficial measures passed by the
Whigs. He thought that 'many of the late Ministers
now believe that their great fault was in not going far
enough in the revision Of, thbiniport Duties. The pre-
sent Ministry,' as now constituted, dared not bring for-
ward any measure on the'Corn4aw ; if they did, Sir
Robert Peel must turn out. 'Sir Robert's policy, how-
ever, was to wait for five months, that he might have
time to gain over the stubborn ones, such as the Duke
of Buckingham, &c. The Cabinet was now disunited.
If the Corn-laws were brought forward they must be
made an open question. He fully concurred in the ob-
ject of presenting the address, as a mark of their regard,
esteem, and gratitude.
The motion for the address was here carried by a large
majority.
Captain PiimPs moved that a Committee composed of
Mr. T. Gill, G:.Soltau, and the movers and seconders of
the resolutions, should make the necessary arrangements
to present the address, which, being duly seconded and
carried„, a vote of thanks was voted to the Mayor for his
impartial conduct in the chair, and the meeting then se-
parated peaceably, it having continued for four hours.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 19.
MITFORD V. REYNOLDS.

The arguments in this part-heard appeal were resumed
to-day, but had not concluded when the Court rose. We
have already given in detail the facts of the case. The
case will be proceeded with to-morrow (this day).

ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 19.
KING V. HAMMETT.

In this case a testator died insolvent in January,
1838, his estate amounting only to 2041.85, and a creditor
having obtained a judgment on a warrant of attorney for
1491., with interest and costs. In addition to which there
was a sum of 60/. due to the landlord for rent,
in this state of things the plaintiff, who was
a creditor for 421., made application for pay-
ment of his debt, in answer to which he was in-
formed that the estate was insolvent. Without ranking
further inquiry, or any complaint of misrepresentation;
he filed a bill on the 27th of September for the recovery
of hiS debt. On the 6th of November the solicitor of
'the defendant wrote to the solicitor of the plaintiff, ex-
pressing his surprise at his taking such an ill-judged step
after he had been advised that the estate was insolvent,
land undertaking to convince him that such was the case;
of at consequently- he must look for his costs to his own
he further stated that he should Wait a rea-
jsonoloime before putting in an answer ; and that if
pla.intiff,prneeedediafter this notice he must do it at his
peril. l'o,this letter. no answer was returned, and on
the 16th January, 1830, solicitor for the defendant wrote
again, sending a :copy of the administration account,
r by' which it appeared' that the balance in hand, after pay=
if,rent of the judgment debt was but 91/. 12s. Bd., and in-
' forrning him that testator's books were open for his in-
spection. Notwithstanding this information plafififfr
persisted in his suit, which now came on for hialards
ship's, decision.

Irk

Mr. li.-indersley appeared for the plaintiff, .atid hrr.
Pemberton for the defendant.
The MASTER of the ROLLS said he thought the pro,
sedition of this ease must be extremely regretted by the.
plaintiff, and by those who advised him. lle found at.
the end of the suit that he had acquired no information
that had not been given to him at the beginning, and
without having in the least increased his interest, secu-
rity, or property. No doubt if a creditor's suit was
properly instituted for the purpose of realizing the assets,
and when they were realized it was found that they
were not sufficient to pay the specialty, although the
plaintiff might obtain nothing for himself, yet the costs
he had incurred in the proper prosecution of the suit for
the benefit of others would be awarded to him. But
was this case of that nature ? Was it properly instituted?
Was it properly prosecuted ? With respect to the mat-
ter of right, there was no doubt whatever of the right of
every creditor to have an account of the estate of a person
indebted to him ; but did it follow from this that when he
did this rashly, without regard to his own interest, or
that of others, he should be reimbursed all the costs he
might have incurred ? lie was not aware of any such
rule as this. There might be a case in which, for want
of information, it might not be known what was
-necessary to be done before the answer, and when
the suit IA as further proseCuted, it appeared the
answer was correct ; even in that case, though
he knew nothing of it when the answer came in,
he would (not be entitled to costs. With respect to the
specialty debt in this case, it was not denied by the de-
fendant that the finding of the Master was correct. It
was no way in question. Before the institution of this
suit, and after the answer was, put in, the plaintiff had
not only a statement of account, but knew what the
result was. He had an offer of the inspection of the
books, but he did not find that this offer was
accepted. The investigation that might have
been made, was not made, and therefore his opinion was,
that a person who ,went on under these circumstances,
went on not only.at the risk of no costs, but at the peril
of costs to pay. ThiLarasexactly.what the plaintiff did.
It was loandvltlant•the' an wer was in all respects correct;
•
and if there were no principle recognised, he should
think it right, on this occasion, to *take care that justice
should be -dotie IYr'had, therefore, no hesitation in
dismissing the suit •ivith costs.
CHANNELL V. MARTIN.

Mr. CHANDLESS stated that this case came again be-
fora the Gotta upon' exceptions to the Master's re-
port. The bill was filed on the Gth of December, 1827,
by parties interested in the remainder of the funds
arising from the sale of a freehold estate, which, in the
year 1784, was devised by Samuel Gordon to four trus-
tees, for the purpose of sale, with directions to invest
the p.rOceel's arising' from such sale, and to pay thereon
certain' dividends to Elirsbetli-P-alife—and her husband
for' their lives, with remainder, under which the plaintiff
b'eaame interested. The trustees, instead of selling the
estate to the best purchaser, sold it to one of themselves,
in 1784, far 9801., and that shortly after the purchaser
bought the life interest of the parties entitled to
the dividend. The parties interested in remainder
being 'unborn, no. inquiry was then made into
the. cirCitmstances.of t,he gale, but issue had subsequently
come into existence,: and had attained the age of 21
yrs,
.and having 4ap. inquiries, 14. d found that the
estate .wits sold int 414,snanner stated. In the meantime
thti riurch40..,ai,pd,,,,,„,,a the estate became vested in Mr.
Satnnel ;1.. E. Aijartin, aril the bill was fikd for the pur-
pose of havingt, the sale
,set :The case was
heard eTolut ...Leach in' '1:8p1, who decreed
that the vtqllof.i,ho testator oughi, to be established, and
the trusts performed;and that the sale of the estate to
Thomas Martin, the trustee, was void,. and must be set
a, side, but without prejudice to the right of the defendant,
Samuel J. E. Afartm, is against the defendants, Paines,
in r,sspect of their life interests. It was then ordered to
be r,sferred to the Master, to inquire whether the
saleable' condition of the estate was improved to
any, ;tier svliat extent in pecuniary value, not taking into
account any alteration since the sale in the value of land,
and with k Ither directions. When the matter came before
the Master- be threw on. the defendant the onus of prov-
ing, the am mint of expenditure, and twenty•five Aida-
7,itss were ;ilea „upon the subject, when the Mas-
ter , having come to tieJ conclusion that he could
report that :iny improvement had taken place
to nsequence,pf defend:ales expenditure, directed the
inqi !try to be proceeded is ith in another. manner; and.
i
tavi,rig found what the estate was sold for in 1;794, and
'wits t was its value at the present time, he , deducted
the amount arising from the increased value: 'of
land!, and decided that the balance
s Shoot
u ,
dti:•he
odwefteontdhae eentlardar3, andunlesslaidout,mad
e his was the. .exact-
il s the
report
cordi'; igly. To this report exceptions were taken
22d Nov. 1836,, at 1-
and
w h p plaintiff
n r
were . argued on the usiterwas i
the courntci,
• o.de-
clared that the. course pursued by the Master
red. And that Ole defendant ought to have given positive
eeidc..m:e of his expenditure, and of the increased value.
From this decision' defendant appealed to the late Lord
Waster to review his report. The
Chancellor, by: vrhtlll.l,4 was confirmed, and the matter
reftiaed beck ,to, the

3-4;rl'kre