The Sun.
London, England, 1856-11-06 00:00:00

EVE.:I) G, NOVEMBER 6 1856

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lard Chancellor.)
BERNAUD V. EiIINTER.

This was an appeaf from the decision of Vice Chan-
cellor Stuart. It was sought to set aside a decree, by
which his Honour directed that certain deeds should be
delivered up and cancelled. Those deeds had been ob-
tained from Mr. Lyde, by his solicitor Mr. Hunter, and
they relieved him front an acknowledged debt of some
amount, aod they were cancelled on belief of the Court
that they had been obtained by improper representations
and undue influence exercised over the mind of his
client.

The decree was supported by Mr. Wigraw, and Mr.
Schoenberg ; Mr. Bacon, and Mr. Southgate appeared
for Hunter in t-upport of the appeal.
Tile further arguments in this case occupied the Court
,the whole of the morning.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
(Beforo Sir R. T. Kinjer3hy.)

THE PRINCE OF WALES ASSURANCE COMPANY Y. TRUE-

LOCK.

The defendant, it will be recollected, brought actions
against the company for the recovery of 11,000/., the
value of some policies granted by the company to him
on the life of a Mr. Jodderell, decemed. The company
defended the actions, as they believed that it ►would be
possible for them to show that Truelock had conspired
with another party to defraud them by making
false reporta,,ions as to the health and habits
of Mr. Jodderell when the application WAS first made
to the company to effect the policies. It was re-
presented that Mr. Jodderell was a man of good
health and temperate habits, but the contrary was the
fact. Upon the trial of the first action, which was
broughtefor the recovery of 7,0001., Mr. Braid, who was
the only person whose testimony could prove the fraud,
was not forthcoming, and judgment was given
against the company. The second action, for the
recovery of 4,0091. upon two policies for 2,0001.,
came on for trial a few days afterwards. Mr.
Braid, who, it was alleged, was kept out of the way by
Truelock, was again absent, and judgment was given
for 'the 4,000/. The company then filed this bill in
Chancery for the purpose of restraining execution for
the recovery of the amount. The case came on lor
hearing previously to the vacation, before his Honour,
upon a demurrer, which was allowed on the ground
that it was open to the company either to have applied
to the court for a postponement of the trial, in conse-
quence of the absence of Braid, or to have applied for a
new trial. The co►npany then appealed against the decision
to the Lords Justices who took the same viewof the case ;
but one of them (Lord Justice Bruce) thought the com-
pany should be allowed to amend their bill, if that was
possible. The company did so, and since the case was
heard upon demurrer they had ascertained that Mr.
Truelock had admitted that he was only entitled to half
the 11,0001., and was merely a trustee for Mr. Braid
with regard to the other half. They also stated that
during the interval the 11,0001. had been paid into court
by the company, and they prayed that it m:ght be dealt
with as justice required.

Mr. Bailey and Mr. Simpson appeared for the de-
murrer, and contended that the company had not shown
a case strong enough for the interference of the Court.
Mr. Glasse, Mr. Freeman, and Mr. Hastings opposed
the demurrer.

His Honour allowed the demurrer, as he was of opi•
nion that the amendments made in the bill had not
strengthened the ground of appeal for relief to a court
of equity.