The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-16 00:00:00

ELLIS U. GRIFFITHS.

This suit was instituted by the plaintiff to establish
his security on an estate that had been encumbered
by a gentleman named Griffiths. Mr. Griffiths made
two mortgages to parties represented by the plaintiff,
and subsequently several other mortgage deeds were
executed by him. A suit being instituted for foreclosure,
and a dispute having arisen among the mortgagees re-
specting the priority of their claims, the matter was in
the year 1839 referred to the Master, who reported that
the mortgages of the plaintiff were entitled to the
priority. The present application was for a confirmation
of the Masters' report.
The application not being opposed, the report was
confirmed, and a decree made fur foreclosure.

RICHARDSON V. RICHARDSON.

The COURT was occupied for a considerable time to-
day in arranging the minutes of a decree in the above
suit, which was instituted by one of the executors of
Mr. Christopher Robinson, timber merchant, who died
possessed of a bonded timber yard at Limehouse, and
other real and personal property, which he devised to his
son, subject to various charges in favour of other children
and relations. After the testator's death, his son suc-
ceeded him in his business, and made various payments
on account of the bequests in his father's will,
and also sundry charges on the property left by his fa-
ther, in favour of his sister, and a gentleman named
Walker. He subsequently became bankrupt, and the
present suit was instituted by Mr. Frederick Robinson,
one of the executors, whose wife was a legatee under
the will, for the purpose of having the necessary accounts
taken. In consequence of the bankruptcy the accounts
had become very complicated, and the minutes of the
decree were too voluminous for insertion.

;,';V,WWE►,CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 15.
(Bekors,Yice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
MIOADIIHRST V. RALGUY AND ANOTHER.
In this cause, which had been heard at considerable
length before the Court in the preceding week, his
Honour gave judgement this morning.
The question to he decided was, whether the defen-
dant Hert had committed a breach of trust as to a sum
of 3,0001. Navy Five per Cent. Stock, with respect to
which he was liable to the extent of the interest of the
plaintiff as cestique trust. The stock belonged to Cathe-
rine Hert, and was, upon her marriage with the plaintiff,
vested with her brother, Mr. Hart and the defendant
Balguy, a solicitor, as trustees, upon trust, by a deed
of settlement executed on the occasion of the mar-
riage. The trustees were to permit the plaintiff,
after his marriage, to receive the interest and annual pro -
duce of the funds for his own use, during the lives of
himself and wife, and upon their death the trustees wore
to receive the same upon trust for the benefit of the
children of the marriage. In the deed of settlement
there was a clause permitting the trustees, assignees, or
their survivors, with the consent and direction of the
plaintiff and his wife, to transfer or dispose of all or any
of the stock or funds which had been vested in them, and
to invest the monies arising from such sale, &c., in the
names of the trustees, in the Parliamentary Stocks or
Public Funds of Great Britain, for the benefit of the
plaintiff, his wife, or their children. Hert had suffered
13alguy to obtain sole dominion over the trust fund,
which the latter was charged with not having applied
to the benefit of the trust. Balguy had become insol-
vent, and the co-trustee, Hert, was in consequence sued
as liable for the repayment of the fund. His Ho-
nour apprehended that the evidence of the facts
stated in the cause was not satisfactory, and that there
was a reasonable prospect of adding materially to the
information before the Court, and he therefore thought
it incumbent on him to direct further inquiries to be en-
tered into. His Honour, therefore, referred it to the
Master to inquire and report when first the plaintiff knew
or had notice that the stock was sold, and when first he
knew of the proceeds of the sale or any of them not
having been invested in conformity to the trust, and
when they had come into the possession of Balguy, and
whether the plaintiff had ever agreed thereto, with
liberty to state special circumstances.