The Sun.
London, England, 1834-11-08 00:00:00

SETON V. BLUNT.

Sir EDWARD SUGDEN (with whom was -Mr. KINDER-
SLEY) stated that this petition sought to throw upon Sir
Charles Blunt a considerable loss, occasioned by the failure
of his agents, Cruttenden and Co., in India. Lady Seton,
his sister, was entitled for life to the income of a part of the
estate of Sir Alexander Seton, with a power of selecting the
mode of investment. Sir Charles Blunt was executor of Sir
Alexander Seton. An order of Court was obtained that
Lady Seton should elect how certain funds standing on the
security of the Bengal Government should be invested.
She elected to have the money laid out on real security in
India, and the order directed the Indian paper to be sold,
and the money laid out accordingly as the agents of Lady
Seton and Sir Charles Blunt should approve. Sir Charles
Blunt immediately sent out a power of attorney authorising
the sale and investment. The money was realised, and was
in the hands of Cruttenden and Co., who had acted impro-
perly in the transaction. But Lady Seton did not appoint
her agent for some months after, and even then his powers
did not extend to investment. Lady Seton now complained
that had she been informed immediately that Sir Charles
Blunt was sending out his power of attorney the money
would not have been lost, as it might immediately have
been invested.

His HONOUR without hearing Mr. KNIGHT and Mr.
COCKERELL decided that the insolvency was a surprise
upon all parties, and that Sir Charles Blunt was not in the
least to blame, and dismissed the petition with costs.
It was reported that Sir Edward Sugden this morning
presented Mr. Girdleston, the treasurer of the Bar library,
with a cheque for one hundred guineas towards its re-
storation.

ROLLS COURT —Nov. 7.

WHITTAKER V. ROBERTS.

Mr. WILCOX appeared in this case on behalf of the
plaintiff. He stated the facts of the case. About the
year 1794 a Miss Susannah Frederick gave to Mr. Whit-
taker, for the benefit of his daughter Miss Anne Whit-
taker, the present plaintiff, a sum of money, which she
called a lady's fortune. The plaintiff in the bill alleged
that the sum given was .5001., but this was denied by the
other side, who contended that it only amounted to between
ninety and a hundred pounds. However, both parties
agreed that some sum had been given, and also that it was
expended in the purchase of a cottage, which was con-
verted into a public-house called the George and Dragon.
Mr. Whittaker subsequently purchased some land conti-
guous to the George and Dragon, which he pulled down
and erected an entirely new building, called the New Inn.
By a memorandum written on the back of the title-deed of
the public-house, dated the Bth of July, 1794, Mr. Whit-
taker, in consideration of natural love and affection, and for
various other causes, demised to his daughter, Anne Whit-
taker, the present plaintiff, all the premises in the deed men-
tioned, her heirs and assigns for ever, for their own proper
use and benefit. Mr. Whittaker until his death, which oc-
curred in 1826, enjoyed this property, and by his will, dated the
20th of April, 1825, devised all his property in trust to Mr.
Roberts, and to Mr. J. H. Jones, to be sold for the benefit
of his creditors. The trustees, according to the terms of
the trust, contracted to sell the property so devised, and
upon Mr. Frederick Whittaker, the testator's son, produc-
ing the title deed, they for the first time became aware of
the before-mentioned memorandum. The sale was, how-
ever, completed, Miss Whittaker reserving against the pro-
ceeds of the estate the same rights that she contended she
possessed against the estate itself. The real point to be de-
cided in this case was, what was the value of the memoran-