The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-07 00:00:00

TRb SON. LONDON'. F AD A.Y. MAY 1, 041

CHANCERY COURT-(THIS DAY.)

DIJ BIEL V. WU/BISON,

The arguments in this appeal, which was partly argued on
Wednesday, were resumed this morning. The appeal was
from a decree of the Master of the Rolls, which confirmed the
validity of an agreement fur a marriage contract, entered into
under the following circumstances :—ln 1826, the plaintiff, the
Baron Du Biel, married a daughter of Mr. John Poulett
Thomson, the father of Mr. Andrew Poulett 7 homson, and
the present Lord Sydenham. It appeared that some time pre-
vious to the marriage, the Baron had waited on Mr. Thomson to
obtain his consent, and arrange the marriage settlements. The
settlement was fixed at 500!. a-year, and Mr. Thomson referred
the Baron to his two suns, to whom he said he had gken fullau-
thority to settle the amount of his daughter's fortune. Ne-
gotiations consequently took place between the plaintiff and the
two sons, and it was ultimately arranged, by au agreement in
writing, that the sum of 10,0001. should be paid to the Baron
at his marriage, and that he should receive a further sum of
10,000/. on the death of Mr. Thomson. The year after the
marriage the Baroness died, leaving one child, and in the year
1837 Mr. Thomson, her father, tiled, without making any
further provision fur this child A suit was subsequently
instituted by the Baron, to compel the executors to
fulfil the contract entered into by the sons of Mr.
Thomson for the payment -of 10,0001. after his decease.
'The Master of the Rolls h. Id that there bad been such a re.
cognition of the agreement by Mr. Thomson as would satisfy
the Statute of Frauds, and therefore decreed for the plaintiff.
On the part of the appellants it was argued by Mr. Richards that
Mr. Thomson had nut given his sons any power to bind him
to the extent of securing payment of this sum after his de-
cease, but admitting the authority and its recognition there
arose the important question of the nature of the obligation,
which the executors maintained was merely voluntary, and
could be recalled at will.
Mr. A wnE ICTON addressed the Court this morning at length
on the same side.

Mr. %Vic RAM replied at great length.
The Loan CulaicEt.t.oft took time to consider his judg-
ment. —His Lordship rose at a quarter before two o'clock.

VICE-CHANCERY-(THIS DAY.)

SYDNEY V. RANGER.
In this case, which was part heard, Mr. JACOBS was heard
for the plaintiff against the petition of the defendant.
The prayer of the petition was to have a certain estate, of
which Sir Robert Sydney was the purchaser, put up to re-sale,
in order that he might be discharged from the purchase in case
the estate brought a higher price than he gave for it, and that
if the rc-sale produced less, that he should be retained as the
purchaser. It appeared the estate was originally sold in the year
1833 for 600/. to a Mr. Blackwell ; it was afterwards con-
sidered that 6001. was a rather low amount for the estate to
bring, and for the benefit of all parties it was agreed to open
the biddings. Sir Robert Sydney undertook, as Solicitor to
conduct the sale, and the estate was purchased for 6701., in the
name of a Mr. King, the real purchaser, however,being Syd-
ney. The application of the petitioner was, as stated above, on
the ground that Sir Robert Sydney, as being solicitor to the
sale, was a disqualified person to purchase the property.
Mr. JACOBS contended that as the petitioner Ranger
had admitted that at the time of the sale, he had strong sus-
picons of Sydney being the real purchaser, and that yet, while
having those suspicions and taken no means to ascertain the
truth, he confrmed the sale in the year 1838, after it had been
kept open four years, during which period it was free to any
higher bidder to come forward, the petitioner had therefore no
right to make the application. which he (Mr. Jacobs) opposed.
Sir Robert Sydney was not a voluntary purchaser, in con-
sequence of his having undertaken to open the bidilings in
character of solicitor, he was in fact, a compulsorl pur-
chaser, as no one else offered. The Learned Counsel
therefore submitted, that tinder those circumstances, and as
in the re-sale there was a clear gain to the estate, the Court
ought to refuse the application with costs.
His HONOUR postponed giving his decision.