The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-21 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY, March 19.

ARCHER. V. HUDSON.
The arguments in this part-heard appeal from the decision
of the Master of the Rolls were resumed and concluded to-
day. The bill was filed by Thomas Archer and Frances, his
wife, formerly Miss Ksndrsw, against G. Hudson and Wm.
Scawin, the registered officers of the York Union Bank, and
Christopher Daniel, the uncle of the plaintiff, Mrs. Archer, to
restrain proceedings at law on the part of the bank, on a pro-
raissory note for 5001. in which Mrs. Archer before her mar-
riage had joined as surety with her uncle,Christopher Daniel,
in giving to the bank as a security for his balance with the
bank. Miss Kendrew had lost her father at three years of
age, and her mother at nine, and being entitled to certain real
and personal estate, which was in the hands of trustee, she
was put to school, and there continued until the age of 17
years, passing her holidays with her uncle and aunt Daniel.
After that period she altogether resided with her uncle until
her marriage in 1841, having attained the age of 21 ye era
November, 1837, and her uncle was paid for her maintenance
out of the income of her property. Mr. Daniel, some time
in December, 1837, bad overdrawn his account with the
bank, of which one Mr. Hauxwell was the manager, to the
amount of 701. Daniel and Hauxwell and their families ware
en intimate terms, and Daniel applied to Hauxwell to allow
him to overdraw his account to the extent of 5001. Haux-
well required security, and Daniel proposed that his niece,
Miss Kendrew, should join with him in giving a promiseery
note to that amount. Daniel afterwards told Hauxwell
that his niece was willing to join in the note, which was
drawn up by Hauxwell, and in the first week of January,
1838, taken by him to the house of Daniel, where he and
his niece gamed it. The bank, some time in the month of
December, 1841, shortly after the marriage of Mrs. Archer,
without any communication with her, placed the amount of
the note to the credit of Daniel, who in 1843 took the benefit
of the Insolvent Act. Upon the evidence which was given
in support of these circumstances, the Master of the Rolls,
who heard the eause, decided, that as against the plaintiff,
Mils. Archer, the note of 5001. was void, ab initio, harilig
been obtained by the undue influence of a party standing in
loco wends towards her ; and that on another ground the
transaction could net be supported as sought by the bank.
The note had been given by Daniel and his niece as his surety,
by way of a guarantee for any floating balance to be due from
time to time by Daniel ; the bank was not justified, without
his niece's consent, in placing the amount of the note to the
credit of Daniel, and that such an act was a violation of the
original contract; and the Master of the Rolls restrained the
bank by perpetual injunction, from ailing the plaintiffs on the
uste. It was from the whole of this decree that the de-
fendants, who represented the bank, appealed.
The Loan CHAXCIALLOR postponed his judgment.
DAGGETT V. MEUX.
The arguments in this part-heard case, also an appeal
from the decision of the Master of the Rolls, were concluded
to-day, and
The LORD CHANCILLOR gave judgment, dismissing the
appeal with costs.

SECONDARIES COURT, March 20.
There was only one case in the list, which was for work
done, it was undefended, but the witnesses not being in at-
tendance the case stood over till one o'clock. It was not of
the slighest interest.