The Sun.
London, England, 1834-02-25 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY, FEB. 24.

His LORDSHIP gave judgment in the following cases :

HUNTER V. ATKINS.

His LORDSHIP said this case had excited considerable
interest, not so much from the importance of the stake,
which was in.ignificant, as from the character of a party
being, to a certain degree, implicated in its result. A
Court of Justice could not set aside a gift from Admiral
Hunter to Alderman Atkins because it would be generous
and meretorious in the Admiral to snake such a gift, but a
Court of Justice could decide whether or no there had
been fraud exercised for such a gift, and whether or no an
undue influence had beer exercised to cause such a dispo-
sition of the Admiral's property. Unless some such cir-
cumstance were shown to make it apparent that fraud or
undue influence had been exercised, the gift would stand
good and unimpeachable. He thought the rule, as appli-
cable to the present case, could not be laid down more
c mprehensively than in the following manner :—That
when a person benefitted another in whom lie placed the
greatest reliance and confidence, and when in so doing he
disregarded more intimate and nearer connections, limits
ought to he drawn between the probable feelings of kind-
ness and undue influence. His Lordship then proceeded
to allude to the facts involved in the present case. That
Admiral Hunter had to a certain degree placed confidence
in Alderman Atkins, who had been his navy agent and
banker for nearly forty years, and had most probably con-
sulted hm on his money affairs, was undeniable. Besides,
the Admiral and Alderman Atkins had been shipmates,
and he thought it was not remarkable for the veteran sea--
man to have entertained feelings of kindness and friendship
towards the Alderman when the circumstance which he
had just named opened a source of kindness and friendship
at once legitimate and pure. He now approached to the
fact which in itself formed the subject of the present suit,
with these points established from the correspondence,
viz., that the Admiral always expressed an intention to
benefit Alderman Atkins, and that he had, to promote
economy, carefully concealed the state of his affairs, and
the disposal of a part of his property to the Alderman,
from his wife. He awn referred to the allegations of the
bill, which alleged that the Admiral was subject to fits of
temporary delus on ; that he was, fr, m extreme age, in_
capable of managing his own affcirs; and that, in July,
1832, the period of the execution of the deed of trust,
the Admiral was labouring under a fit of such mental
delusion. His Lordship at great length then com-
mented on the evidence adduced on both sides in sup-
port and against these allegations, which evidence he
did not think could invalidate the present transaction.
The bill must therefore be dismissed, but not with costs,
although imputations of a most grave nature had been
cast on the defendant Alderman Atkins's conduct. The
reason why he did not dismiss the bill with costs was, that
the defendant hail, after the Admiral's death, acted iropro-
pei ly in not immediately giving the particulars sought by
the Admiral's widow. The character of the Alderman re-
mained untarnished.
The appeal was therefore dismissed.

MORGAN V. HOWELL.
His LORDSHIP, after recapitulating the facts of the case,
dismissed the appeal wits costs.

818 KETT V. lIIBBEAT.

His I..,,RDSHIP said that the application in this case was
against a Master's report, who, it was contended by one
party, bad made an improper settlement for a ward who
had married a solicitor's clerk without the consent of the
Court. His Lordship referred to different vises which
were similar to the present, and he was of opinion, on their
authority, that the settlement was an improper one, as it
took from the ward in every event the disposal of her pro•

perty. He thought that the settlement should be drawn
up to the following effect, viz., that the ward might die
pose by will of ber property, and in case of her dying
without issue to her next of kin: and in the event of her
present husband predeceasing her, and she marrying again,
that the children of both marriages should have like sums
settled on them on their mother's decease. The costs of
the present application were to be paid by the husband.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FEB. 24.

MORGAN AND OTHERS V. BRUDRETH, GENT.

--.. _..
In this.• rase, which was not concluded yesterday when
our reporter left the Court, the jury found a verdict for
the plaintiff.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FEB. 24.

(Sittings at Guildhall at Nisi Prius.)
TYLDEN V. KINGSLAND.

This was :in action brought by the plaintiff, who is
Victr of Molash, in Kent, to recover from the defendant,
a farmer, the sum of 51. ss. for tithes.

The defendant had agreed to a composition for his tithes
of Is. 6d. per acre for arahle land, and 4s. for pasture.
On the audit in November last he paid the composition of
14/. 15s. 10d. ; on the following audit he paid 10/., and
promised to pay the balance, 51., besides 10s. for wood,
&c., which he subsequently refused to do. The present
action was brought for the recovery of it. The plaintiff
proved the composition, and the promise to pay by the
defendant. The defendant not only denied not having
promised to pay, but also contended that on payment being
demanded he informed his collector that if the plaintiff
would not take the 101. as a composition he would oblige
him to take his tithes in kind. Several farmers from
Kent proved the composition was by far too high.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 51. ss.