The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-05 00:00:00

VANDELEUR V. BLAGRAVE.

This case came before the Court upon a petition of re-
hearing, presented by Mr. Blagrave against the decree of
the Master of the Rolls. According to the statements of
counsel, in the year 1833 a Bill was filed by the plaintiff,
Major Vandeleur, for the purpose of setting aside a
deed of release of an annuity, which the plaintiff alleged
had been improperly obtained from him by the agent of
Mrs. Blagrave, by a person named Charles Cooksey
Yates. It appeared that in November, 1827, Mrs. Bla-
grave, who resided in Bristol, was desirous of borrowing
a large sum of money. Mrs. Blagrave was entitled to
considerable property, and among other things to an
annuity of 8001. a-year, secured upon certain estates in
Berkshire. Mr. Charles Cooksey Yates who had been
long known to Major Vandeleur, was introduced to Mrs.
Blagrave, and he informed her that the plaintiff
would be willing to advance her the sum of
2,500/. by way of annuity. Both parties com-
mitted the matter to Mr. Yates, and Mrs. Bla-
grave, with the approbation of her son, agreed to
grant to the plaintiff, Major Vandeleur, an annuity of
500/. a year, in consideration of the advance of 2,5001.,
and that annuity was to be secured by an assurance, to
be effected upon the life of Mrs. Blagrave, for 2,800/.,
she paying the premium out of the annuity. That pre-
mium amounted to 520/.., leaving 1801. to be paid to the
plaintiff as interest for the 2,5001. advanced by him. The
security for the annuity was of the ordinary descrip-
tion—a deed of annuity and a warrant to enter up judg-
ment. Judgment was duly entered up, and the annuity
regularly paid for some years. Atter the lapse of some
time, Yates informed the plaintiff that Mrs. Blagrave,
having received some large sum of money, was desirous
of repurchasing the annuity. For that purpose Yates
left Bristol, and went to the estate of the plaintiff, near
Limerick, in order to arrange the repurchase. At the
interview which took place between the plaintiff and
Yates, Sir David Roche was preseut, and upon his asking
Yates whether he was prepared then to pay the money,
he stated that he was not, that he should be in a condition
to do so shortly, as Mrs. Blagrave would sell out
of the funds as soon as they rose a little, Yates assuring
the plaintiff that if he would leave the matter with him
all would be right. Upon this understanding, the plain-
tiff signed the deed of release, which Yates took with
him to Bristol. Some time elapsed, and the money not
being forthcoming, Yates was written to, and he then
stated, that Mrs. Blagrave had changed her mind, and
that she should continue to pay the annuity, Yates still
holding the deed of release. Ultimately it was disco•
vered that Yates had been misleading Mrs. Blagrave,
that he had retained the money that was to re-purchase
the annuity, and had been paying it himself. Some
time afterwards Yates absconded, and died abroad,
having at his death the possession of the
deed of release. The son of Mrs. Blagrave administered
to the effects of Yates, and they became possessed of the
deed of release, the delivery up of which to b cancelled
was the object for which the bill was filed. The Master
of the Rolls, upon the ease coming before him, decreed
in favour of the plaintiff, and from that decree the pre-
sent petition of re-hearing was presented to the Court.
Mr. Bethell, Mr. Romilly, and Mr. Nevinson appeared
in support of the decision of the Court below, and
Mr. Tinney, Mr. Jas. Russell, and Mr. Tripp' were
counsel for Mrs. Blagrave.
The arguments were not concluded shortly after two
o'clock, when his Lordship rose to attend the House of
Lords, to prorogue Parliament.

ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 4.
HARGRAVE V. lIARGRAVE.

Lord LANGDALE, on coming to this cause on the list,
said that he had determined to grant a new trial, a
resolution to which he had come after considerable deli-
beration. He had been in communication with the Chief
Justice upon the subject, who had entertained consider-
able doubt on the trial, but that doubt, however, to a
considerable extent, had been removed.
His LORDSHIP then ordered the cause to stand over
till the first day of Trinity term.
The Court rose at eleven o'clock.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT, Nov. 4.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor of ENGLAND.)
VARTY V. DUNCAN.

His Honour, the Vice-Chancellor of England was oc-
cupied the whole morning with the further arguments in
this part-heard motion for a new trial of the issue
directed by the Court.—(We gave a short statement of
the facts when the motion was opened yesterday.)
His HoNotra, at the conclusion of the argument, gave
judgment, granting a new trial of the issue on the
ground that material facts had not been brought
before the attention of the jury.
The COURT then heard cause petitions none of which
were of any interest.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. WIGRAM.)
POLTER V. SA.UNDERS.--JUDGMENT.

His Hortoun delivered judgment this morning in this
case. The defendant claimed possession and beneficial
title to certain lands in Byfield, in the county of North-
ampton, subject to a mortgage settlement made on the
marriage of General Samuel Saunders, for securing the
sum of 5001. and interest. A contract for the sale of
these lands was entered into for the sum of 9451., which
contract was subsequently broken off in consequence
of Saunders being unable to produce a covenant
for the production of certain title deeds. Saunders
afterwards wrote to his solicitor, proposing that he
should set Mr. Polter's mind at rest with respect to title,
as Mr. Poker was entitled to purchase. A long corres-
pondence ensued. The present bill was filed to compel
Saunders to perform his contract or agreement with
Pulter for the sale of the premises. His Honour de-
creed for the specific performance of the contract, and
that defendant (Saunders) should pay the plaintiff his
costs.
The Court rose at three o'clock.

COURT OF QUEEN'S I3RNCH, Nov. 4.
,Sittings in Banco, before Lord DENMAN, Mr. Justice
COLERIDGE, Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN, and Mr. Justice
ERLE.)

HOBSON AND OTHERS V. GARDNER.

Mr. KNOWLES, Q.C., moved for a rule to show cause
why the verdict obtained in this case should not be set
aside and a new trial had, on the ground that the verdict
was against the evidence, and also on the ground of mis-
direction on the part of the Learned Judge who tried the
case. The case was tried before Mr. Justice Cresswell
at the last Liverpool assizes, when a verdict was returned
for the plaintiff. The action was brought to recover the
sum of 2,270/. The first count set forth that the money
was due to the plaintiffs as assignees of a bankrupt
named Pierce, fur money had and received by the de-
fendant for his use before Pierce's bankruptcy; the
second, for money due to the assignees of Pierce, which
was received by the defendant after his bankruptcy; and
there was a third count, in which the plaintiffs sued as
the assignees of Pierce and Howman. The leading plea
was one of non assumpsit. The plaintiff sued as the
assignee of Pierce, against whom there was a separate
fiat, and also as the assignee of Pierce and
llowman, who were in partnership together
as merchants in Manchester, but only as
far as they were jointly concerned only 3001.
were due. They had only been in partnership
for a short time, Pierce having entered into partnership
with Howman on the 22d of October, 1844, and were in
the habit of selling goods to Messrs. Gardner and Co.,
of New York, and occasionally in the habit of making,-
consignments to the same firm for sale, Messrs. Gardner
frequently advancing money upon them. The consign-
ments were always made in the name of Pierce, still
they were partnership transactions, and he (Mr.
Knowles) only mentioned the fact, because accounts
wez e kept in both names, the actual sale transactions
beizig in the name of the firm, and the consignments in
the name of Pierce. The house in New York had an
agent in Manchester named Gardner, who, however, was
not: a partner in the firm, the fact being borne out by the I
baiiikrupts, who were examined on the question at the trial.
and one of his objections to the trial at this part of the
case was that Gardner was only an agent, but the
Lear ned Judge was of opinion that he must be taken as
a principal, and there was some circumstances in the
case which favoured this view. 700/. was paid on ac-
counut of goods supplied in 1844, but it was alleged that
3001- was improperly substracted,,and that that amount
was due to the firm. The larger amount, however,
arceie out of certain share transactions by Pierce, with
whioh Howman it appeared had nothing whatever to
do. 'These transactions took place solely between Pierce
and ardner. Pierce transacted a great deal of business
in shares in the autumn of last year, in fact he believed
the sa -ne might be said with considerable truth of every
one ill ing in Manchester during that period. Gardner
was in the possession of more money than Pierce, and
they e ntered into an arrangement to transact business in
sham Is together, Gardner acting as the broker. Gard-
ner b aught largely for Pierce, and paid the money
for blitn, taking, however, the precaution to protect him-
self vig :ainst loss, by retaining the shares in his hands,
selliz ig them, however, whenever Pierce wished him to
do so. He had a general authority to sell these shares,
when. -the market was in a favourable state ; and there
was also an understanding that in those transactions
there should always be a margin in Gardner's favour,
in or di e. that he might thus be protected against what-
ever fluctuations might take place in the value of the
sham Is. On the 30th of September Pierce wanted some
mom y , and in order to obtain it he gave Gardner bills
of ea etange to the amount of 2,5001., in the name of
Pier,.* and Howman, and scrip in the North Staffordshire
Rail va y, and received 1,900/. on account of them.
He g it an acknowledgement to the effect that he had I
recei !d 420 scrip shares in the North Staff irdshire as
a see ;u: :ity for the payments at maturity of Messrs. Pierce
and H owman's acceptances, at sixty days from this date,
the .30 th September, for 2,5001., and agreeing to return
the sce •ip when the acceptances were paid, or sell them at
's request, with power to hold sufficient of the
pro, me ds to indemnify himself any loss on the bills
whi ch he might continue to hold. It was urged at the
trig 1 ti iat these transaction did not go into the general
ace )ui it, and that Mr. Gardner had not the power to sell
the as to protect himself against any deficiency
in tb e general account, and that they were only
plac:et 1 in his hands to corer the sum of 2,500/.,
if see, 422/. was due on them, that being the difference
bet- we, el the price at the time they were deposited and
the tin se they were sold. as they fell in the market. The
bills. -se ere paid, and the shares, it was contended, became
ies Railway were also deposited with Gardner on
the sr aperty of Pierce. Shares in the Glasgow and
Duch