The Sun.
London, England, 1833-02-25 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-crm

LEE v. FRESHFIELD
The LORD CHIEF BARON went to the Eqi
his Court this morning, before his sitting at Nis'
gave judgments. Lee v. Freshfield was the mo•
and involved a partnership question of great mi
circumstances, as far as it may be necessary to st,
these :—A gentleman of the name of Lee became
to a great extent. His estates were mortgaged to
forty thousand pounds, and he had granted redeemable life an-
nuities to an amount exceeding one hundred thousand pounds.
It was arranged to apply to the Globe Insurance-office for a
loan to relieve him from his difficulties. It was proposed that
the mortgages should be assigned to the Globe Insurance.
office ; that the annuities should be redeemed by that
office; and that they should grant other life annuities,
the effect of which, it was supposed, would be to
materially diminish the annual charge upon Mr. Lee's
property. For the purpose of conducting these transactions,
Mr. Lee employed Messrs. Kay and Freshfield to act as his
solicitors. Mr. Freshfield was himself solicitor to the Globe
Insurance.office, and in consequence it was thought proper
that the business for the firm which was intrusted to them
by Mr. Lee, should be conducted by Mr. Charles Kay. In
the course of these proceedings, which occupied from May,
l8:24, to May, 1825, very large sums of money were put into the
hands of Mr. Charles Kay ; and the question was, whether
Mr. Freshfield, the partner, was responsible for all, or for any,
and if for any, for which, of such sums ? The principle cn
which the question was to be decided, appeared to t e
this—where there was a partnership, and that partnership
onewas of em
the
plopyeedtteetros
ateratednsaicnt
tbhuastinheesssiefeosrs, aenhdinitdivwiadsuailt:
thei
regular course of that business, that money should be paid forf
the objects of the business, and that money was paid to one of
the partners, the payment in point of fact, and in substance,
was in law to be taken to be a payment to both, or to all the
partners. A material question here was, whether it was in the
regular course of the business which Kay and Freshfield under-
took to conduct that money should be paid to them ? All the
circumstances of the case led to the affirmative of this question;
and it was clear likewise that Mr. Freshfield was answerable
for all the money that had been paid to Mr. Kay in the manne
already described. It had been said that Mr. Charles Kay was net
trustworthy with respect to money, and the fact had turned out
to be so, but Mr. Freshfield knowing this, it was his duty to
have put Mr. Lee on his guard against paying money into his
hands, which he had not done. It appeared that Mr. Lee and
Mr. Charles Kay had had private transactions, and upon the
face of the account, it was doubtful whether part of the mohey
which had passed into the hands of the latter, namely, 4,0004
4,0001., 4,0001., 4,5001., and 3,5001., had been paid to him
on account of these private transactions, or on account of,
and in prosecution of, the business and r akcn to be mar aged
by his firm ? If the former turned out to be case, then
Mr. Freshfield could not be held answerable for them—if the
latter, then he must. The Master had considered that the
onus of proof in respect of this part of the case lay on Mr.
Freshfield, and that he had failed to show the sums were
paid on the private account; his Lordship was of opinion
the onus of proof lay on Mr. Lee, and therefore the cas-
would either have to go back to the Master, or be further are
gued before the Court upon this point. The parties were
allowed time to consider which course they would prefer, or if
they would choose to have an issue.