The Sun.
London, England, 1833-12-18 00:00:00

KING OP SPAIN V. liiENDIZABEL.

Sir E Stiormsr moved in this case, on behalf of Mr.
Machado, that the estoppal upon a sum of 81,0001.
Exchequer bills, with accumulations since 1826, might
be withdrawn, and that that gentleman might have liberty
to take the money out of Court. The transactions which
gave rise to this and various other suits originated in a
treaty, as is well known to the public, between France
and Spain. The late King of Spain claimed this money
as belonging to him on behalf of his subjects. Disputes
arose between the Government of Spain and their accredited
agents which led to a great course of litigation in this
country. In the course of the proceedings Mr. Mendizabel
arrested Machado one night at the Opera for 80,0001., the
amount which had been delivered to him by the treasurer
of the Government of Spain, upon a dealing as he consi-
dered which entitled him as against all the world to retain
that money. Unwilling to ask his friends to put in bail
for him to so enormous a❑ amount as would have been
required, he deposited the money itself in lieu of bail,
which the Court directed to remain in the Accountant
General's hands until after the trial, which had lately
taken place, was over, or until further order. Upon the trial
a short time ago in the Court of Common Pleas, to which
the defence then set up was, first that no consideration had
been given for the bills, and next that there had been no
acceptance of them by the Government of Spain, Mr.
Machado proved his case, and obtained a verdict. A new
trial was subsequently moved for, in which the King of
Spain failed, and the result was the present application,
that the Court would he pleased to order the return of
the money to the proprietor. The Learned Counsel
having stated these points of the case, proceeded at great
length to enter into a detail of all the circumstances
attending the rel itive situations of the parties and their
respective claims as regarded the funds in question.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY

PHIL

Ine reading of the evidence on the part
in thil case, the facts of which we stated shortly yesterday,
occupied his Honour the whole morning.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

JUDGMENT-HULME V. lIULIHE.

In this case, which we reported yesterday, and in which
the bill was filed for the purpose of charging the defen-
dants with a breach of trust, his Honour pronounced
judgment this morning. The question arose under a
marriage settlement, of which the defendant (Mr. St fford),
and another individual, since dead, were appointed trus-
tees. The sum of 5001. was invested in their joint names
in the purchase of 8611. Bank Stock, for the benefit of
the wife for life ; after her decease, for the benefit of the
husband for his life ; and, after the death of both, for the
equal benefit of the issue of the marriage. The plaintiffs
in this suit were the children thus interested in remainder,
who sought to make the trustees liable for a fraud and
breach of trust, which had been committed. The mar-
riage settlement, it appeared, contained a proviso,
that if any of the trustees refused, or became in-
competent, to act, the husband and wife should then
have the power of nominating others to perform
the duties of the trust. Mr. Stafford was one
of the original trustees, and his coadjutor declining to
act he also became anxious to divest himself, and accord-
ingly appointed as trustee a person named Powell, an ig-
norant man, a sailor just come home from sea, in his
stead. The funds being transferred into his name,
Powell the day after his appointment was prevailed on to
sell out the Stock and hand it over to the husband, who
bad since become insolvent. The first question was whe-
ther Stafford, the original trustee, had fully and com-
pletely, and properly divested himself of the trust by the
appointment of Powell. In case the trustees refused to
act, the deed gave power to appoint new trustees, and the
inten•ion evidently was to continue the same protection to
the trust funds ; but could it for a moment be considered
that Stafford had done his duty or had properly discharged
himself of the settlement, by vesting the whole responsi-
bility in Powell, an ignorant man, in place of two
new trustees, for whose appointment the deed clearly
provided ? There could be no doubt that the intention
in having Powell appointed was to enable the husband to
get possession of the trust property; Mr. Stafford most
probably unwittingly had been made a party to the fraud,
but the interests of the cestui que trusts have thereby been
effectually defeated ; he must be held liable jointly with
Powell, who had, perhaps also unknowingly, been rendered
the instrument of that breach of trust. The case was
extremely bard on them no doubt; and it was much to be
regretted that persons took upon themselves trust,
without considering that they thereby imposed on
themselves most important duties, which required
the greatest caution and vigilance. It would be
extremely proper that no trustee should do any
act without the direction of some competent legal adviser;
for his own part, he (the Master of the Rolls) never ex-
ecuted arty trust instrument without having, in the first
instance, submitted it to some eminent conveyancer.
Mr. PEMBERTON observed it was a very prudent course.
His Honour then granted the relief prayed by the bill,
as far as related to the trust funds, against Stafford and
Powell, together with the costs of the suit.
KING'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)

Sittings at Guildhall before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
and a Common Jury.)
MATTHEWS V. SHARPE AND ANOTHER.

This was an action to recover a compensation in da-
mages from the defendants for assaulting and falsely im-
prisoning the plaintiff.
Mr. WILLIAMS stated the case for the plaintiff, whom
be stated to be a very poor man, the defendant was tax •ga-
therer, and had had occasion to call several times on the
plaintiff for taxes which he owed to the amount of 71. The
plaintiff tendered him 41. 10s. in part payment, but the
defendant refused to receive it, and a few days afterwards
he called wiila another person, who proved to he a con-
stable, seized the plaintiff by the collar, took him away
and lodged him in the station_house. Upon the plaintiff
demanding by what authority be was so treated, the
defendant held up the constable's staff, saying, D Here
it is." The plaintiff was under that restraint for
five hours, and it was for that unwarrantable
deprivation of liberty that the present action was
brought. There could be no pretext for taking
the plaintiff into custody, because there was sufficient
property on the premises to pay the taxes that were due.
The LORD CariEr Jumer here observed that he knew
of no Act of Parliament which would justify a tax ga-
therer in seizing a party so summarily far arrears of taxes.
Some discussion then took place, in the course of which
it was stated by the plaintiff's counsel that he would
be satisfied with very moderate damages.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages 20/.