The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-09 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 8.

HOPE INSURANCE COMPANY V. BARBER BEAUMONT,
ESQ., MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE COUNTY FIRE
OFFICE.

This was an action for libel which has not been
promulgated, and being in the incipient stage of in-
vestigation, the only question was whether the Se-
cretary of the Company or the Governor should be
the parties sued. Counsel was heard on both sides,
and the Court admitted the demurrer; consequently
the action will commence de novo.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, Nov. 8.

RUSSELL V. THURLEIN

Mr. Twiss said that this was a case of a most sin-
gular nature, and more like romance than reality. It
arose from a gross and fraudulent suppression of a
deed. Mis. Russell, the plaintiff, was the wife of
John Russell, and the mother of Emma Broad-
hurst. The plaintiff had lived in the family of Mr.
Burge, an eminent optician in Piccadilly, and when
she was about to be married her friends thought it
expedient that some money of which she was pos-
sessed should be settled upon her. The plaintiff
was at this time in possession of 1,5001., Navy Five
per Cents., and it was resolved that 1,0001. should
be transferred to Mat thew Burge for her benefit, and
after her death for the benefit of her daughter, the
interest to be paid to the plaintiff for her life, and in
case of her death it was to go towards the mainte-
nance and education of the plaintiff's daughter till she
would have attained the age of 21, or till she should
be married; and if the daughter should die un-
married the fund should be transferred to such per-
son as the plaintiff should appoint. Mr. Burge lived
but a very short period after the deed had been
signed. his death took place in 1819, at a house
he had near Tunbridge. He left Mrs. Barge his
sole executrix and residuary legatee, and by his will
Mrs. Burge came into possession of very consider-
able property, and amongst the rest several thousand
pounds Navy Five per Cent. Stock, including the
1,0001. received from Mrs. Russell. After the
death of Mr. Burge it was in vain the plaintiff at-
tempted to obtain anything from Mrs. Burge. The
deed was not forthcoming, and the plaintiff was
obliged to receive 251. a-year from Mrs. Burge, doled
out by way of favour to the plaintiff, who was Mrs.
Burge's niece. In 1823 the widow Burge was
married to Mr. Stephen Turley, the defendant, and
transferred all her property to him, except 1,260/.
Three and a Half per Cent. Navy Stock. During
the marriage of Mrs. Burge the 251. was regu-
larly forthcoming, but the deed was not as yet forth-
coming. In January, 1832, Mrs. Talley died,
and then in a most extraordinary manner the
deed made its appearance from the hands of a
person of the name of Allen. The mode by
which the deed came into Allen's hands would
be best explained in his own words as stated in his
examination. Allen said he was shopman to Mr.
Burge for several years, and was with him at Tun-
bridge at the time of his death. The day after Mr.
Burge's death Allen and Mrs. Burge came up to
London, bringing Mr. Burge's keys with them, and
in one of the boxes in Mr. Burge's room he (the
deponent) found the deed. Mrs. Burge was in the
room with him when he discovered the deed. Allen
proved the handwriting of Mr. Burge to the deed.
As soon as Mrs. Burge saw the deed she imme-
diately observed, " Why, he has signed it, but it is
not witnessed." She then told Allen she had sent
the servant out, and she had made a fire for roasting
in the kitchen, and told him to take the deed and
burn it. Allen prepared to do so, and wrapped the
deed up in some brown paper, and went into the
kitchen, where he was followed by Mrs. Burge.
Allen then threw the brown paper in which the
deed was wrapped into the fire, but secreted the
deed itself. Mrs. Burge then stirred the fire, and
said, " Now lam happy." The deed remained in
the possession of Mr. Allen till the death of Mrs.
Burge, when he delivered the deed to Mrs. Russell.
The deed was now produced; it was executed by
most respectable professional men, the solicitors to
the Admiralty; it was signed by Mr. Burge; and
all these facts being established, the plaintiff was
clearly entitled to a decree.
Lord LYNDHURST—The trust deed is under the
hand and seal of Mr. Burge, and he admits that the
money was intrusted to him for particular purposes.
Wbat answer Is there to this, for it does not appear
to admit of any ?
Mr. TRESLOYE, for the defendant, admitted that
the case was a very singular one; but whatever
fraud there might be, the defendant, Mr. Turley,
knew nothing of it. Although the deed was signed
there was no date, no witness ; it was, in fact, an
imperfect deed. The doctrine of this Court was,
that if a deed got out of the hands of a party with-
out his consent the Court could not deal with it,

His LORDSHIP Was quite satisfied that- the money

ought to be restored to the plaintiff, deducting, how-
ever, as it was reasonable, the annual payment of
251. made to the plaintiff. He felt bound to express
his strong disapprobation of the conduct of Allen in
keeping the deed so long concealed, but this was not
enough to disprove his evidence.

INSOLVENT COURT, Nov. 8.

(Before Mr. Commissiuner Bow Ex.)
The Court sat at 10 o'clock. This was a rema-
net slay.

Charles Montron, a solicitor, came up to be heard
upon his petition. The insolvent had no counsel.
He was opposed by Mr. C. Cook, of the firm of
Cook and Hunter, solicitors, of New Inn, and also
by Mr. T. Smith, and Mr. H. Dixon.
Charles Cook examined by the Learned Com-
missioner—His debt was 20/. advanced to the in-
solvent by him on a note of hand. At the time the
20/. was advanced Mr. Cook and his partner were
solicitors for a Mr. Thurnaway, who had placed 'n
their hands 60/. to effect an arrangement with his
creditors. The insolvent called upon him (Cook),
and said that he wished to bring an action against
the Sheriff of Middlesex for an illegal levy, but he
had not the means of taking the cause into Court.
Mr. Cook lent him 20/. out of the money he had
received from Mr. Thurnaway, for which the in-
solvent had given him a written engagement to pay
the money on the 12th of November, independent
of the promissory note. The insolvent, besides
giving two documentary proofs of the debt, pledged
his word of honour as a gentleman and as an honest
man that he would pay him the 201. before the pe-
riod stated in the note of hand, in the event of his
obtaining a verdict against the Sheriff of Middlesex.
The Learned Counsel—There can be no doubt of
the debt, and upon the note-of-hand and the written
agreement Mr. Cook had a right to claim his debt
of the insolvent.

Mr. Cdok—l have no wish whatever to press
for a sentence against the insolvent. I merely wish
ro have the debt admitted, and, if the Court would
consent to it, to become assignee.
The insolvent was ordered to be discharged.

POLICE IN I'ELLIGENCE.

G UILDHALL.

Alfred Elliot, a lad, was brought before Sir C.
MARSHALL yesterday, charged with stealing about
6!. in ca ,49d some tools and other articles of the
value of about 31. more, the property of his master,
Mr. Mead, a shoemaker in Shaftesbury-place, Al-
dersgate-street.

The prisoner, who did not deny his guilt, was
committed for trial.
MARLBORO UGH- STREET.

At this office, during the last few days, there has
been a most extraordinary diminution in business.
Independent of eight or nine charges of drukenness
nothing has occurred within the last three days,
al!hough the C division includes the extensive pa-
rishes of St. James, Westminster, and St. George,
Hanover-square, with that of St. Anne, and a por-
tion of St. Martin's. In the experience of the oldest
person in the establishment there never was such an
extraordinary decrease in crime.