The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-01 00:00:00

ROLLS COURT-(TH)S DAY.)

TYLER, V. TTLER.—JUDGMENT.
The MASTER, of the ROLLS' gave judgment in this case.
The bill alleged that Messrs. Blunt, Ray, and Blunt, being
solicitors of '1 homes Billcliff Tyler, and also of Samuel Bax •
ter ; and being creditors of Baxter to a large amount, and
connected with him in his building transactions, being involved
in his embarrassments and liable for the payment of debts
which he owed to other persons, did, for the pur-
pose of procuring payment of the debts due
to themselves, and for the purpose of relieving
themselves from their liabilities to other persons for Baxter,
knowingly prevaile.l upon Thomas Bilcliffe Tyler, who was
trustee for the plaintiff, to violate his trust and lend 6,0001.
trust money to Baxter, in order that, as Baxter's agents, they
might receive the amount and apply the same for their own
benefit in satisfaction of the debt due to themselves,
and of the debts for which they were liable to other
persons; and it was charged that this loan and
subsequent dealing with the money were not only
breaches of trust to which Blunt, Ray, and Blunt were
parties, but were direct frauds against the persons entitled to
the Trust Fund. If the facts were as alleged his Lordship
conceived the plaintiffs would be entitled to the relief they
prayed; but it appeared to him that in the commencement
of the transaction Blunt, Ray, and Blunt, had no know-
ledge of the trust, and that although they were the solicitors
of,T. B. Tyler, the trustee, yet that they never advised
him as to the powers under the trust deeds, nor suggested to
him the propriety or expediency of the loan. The allega-
tions that Blunt, Ray, and Blunt were connected with Baxter
in his building speculations, or pecuniary concerns, were
wholly unsupported by evidence, and they had reason to be-
lieve that the trustee acted either upon his own judgment,
or upon ether advice. Solicitors who knowingly lent
themselves to such a transaction as this for their own be-
nefit, ought to be considered as partakers in the breach of trust,
but then the case must be clearly and distinctly made our, and
not founded upon uncertain and untrue inferences. Blunt,
Ray, and Blunt, had, by their own acts, exposed them-
selves to this investigation, which did not a; pear to his Lord-
ship to have been unreasonably instituted, but the charge against
them was nut substantial, and they were not answerable
to the plaintiffs for the breach of trust committed in 1825 by
the unauthorised investment of the trust moneys then made.
It did not, therefore, appear to his Lordship that they
were chargeable with the loss occasioned by the de-
terioration of the value of the house in Upper Gros-
venor-street, and the bill against them must be dismissed.
But although the plaintiff had not made out his case,
anti the ( irect allegation of fraud was, in his Lordship's opinion,
altogether unfounded, and ought not to have been ma 'e, yet
seeing the mode in which there gentlemen had involved their
own personal interest in the transaction, the investigation of
their conduct had been reasonably made, and although the
bill against them must be dismissed, it must be so without
costs.

BARTON V. ALEXANDER.
The demurrer in this case was allowed.

BONSER V. COX.

Tl.is ease was next proceeded with, but the arguments were
not concluded when we went to press.
[Mr. Pemberton was absent to-day_as well as on Saturday,
in consequence of the dangerous illness of a near relative.]