The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-13 00:00:00

SMITH V. BIGGS.

In this case, which was an appeal from the Court below,
a bill was filed to compel John Biggs the elder, John
Biggs the younger, Mrs. Elizabeth Biggs, and Mrs. Ho-
neywell to deliver certain bills of exchange and Rock As-
surance shares which they had received from Thomas
Chandler Biggs (who shortly afterwards became a bank-
rupt) nominally as a security for a debt alleged to be due
to his brother, William Biggs, the late husband of Eliza-
beth Biggs, and to his sister, Mrs. Honeywell, but which
were charged in the bill to have been really banded over by
collusion and for the purpose of defeating the claims of the
creditors of Thomas Chandler Biggs. His Lirdship seldom
recollected a cese in which the circumstantial evidence
more strongly bore out a charge, not of fraudulent prefe-
rence, but of having secreted with a fraudulent intent;
and he should therefore affirm the decree of the Vice-
Chanceflor with costs, as against Mrs. Elizabeth Riggs
and Mrs. Honeywell. With respect to John Biggs, sen.
and junior, he thought the case tailed. They did not
seem to have any guilty knowledge of the tracsaction,
although they were made the depositaries of the property.
His Lordship therefore dismissed the bill as ag tin,t
them, but without giving any direction as to costs.

VICE•CHANCERY COURT, FEB. 28.

lIVNGATE V. GASCOIGNE.

In this case tlie;iic;;asfiledWythe plaintiff, claiming
to be entitled to large and valuable estates in the county
of York, in possession of the defendant, for the recovery
of which he had brought upwards of 40 ejectments ; and
the prayer of the bill was, that the defendant might be
restrained ftoin setting up at the trial of those ejectments
any outstanding terms, and also that he might be ordered
to make a full disclosure and discovery of all the title deeds
in his possession relating to the property in question. The
case bas been several times before the public, no less than
three trials at law having taken place, in two of which
the defendant was successful ; and also several proceedings
in this Court. The defendant having succeeded at law,
the cause now came on regularly for hearing. The
plaintiff, who is a lieutenant in his Majesty's navy on half
pay, claimed to be entitled t,i the property in question as
the heir male of William Hungate, under certain settle-
ments of 1662 and 1682, and also as heir at law, ex parte
materna, of Sir Thomas Gaseoigne, who died seised of
the property.
Sir EDWARD SUDDEN, with whom was Mr. KINDERS-
LEV, shortly addressed the Court on behalf of the pl,intitr,
contending that he was entitled, as heir male of William
Hungate, to the property under the limitations of the set-
tlement in question, provided those limitations had not
been barred; and that if they were barred, then that he was
he r general of the family, unless it could be shown that the
defendant claimed under seine valid instrument, which he
contended he could not.

Mr. KINDERSLEY followed on the same side, and read
several extracts from registers, for the purpose of proving
the pedigree of the plaintiff.
Sir WM. HORNE, with whom was Mr. KNIGHT and
Mr. MoNilo, appeared fur the defendant. Tee learned
counsel, in addressing the court, said, that God forbid the
time should ever arrive when the doors of that court
should not be open to the poor man as well as to the rich ;
but he was sure that the experience of his Honour would
convince him, that nothing was more dangerous to the
just rights of mankind and the security of property, than
that a poor man should be brought forward to litigate a
case where it was quite clear that he could not have airy
honest conviction of the truth of his case, and where he
was either the arch-conspirator, or had suffered himself
to be made an instrument in the hands of others. The
defendant, in the present case, was a gentleman of high
station in the county of York, and had been in possession
of the property in question for a long series of years, and
he (Sir Wm. Horne) cou!d not but consider the present
claim to he a conspiracy to wrench, if possible, that IT,-
perry from his hinds. It was quite unnecessary for Mtn
to enter into all the details of the case, it being clear,
from the deed of 1'727, that had been discovered,
in which the deed of 1713 was recited, and also
from the will of the Paid William Hungate, dated
in 1706, and proved in 1720, under whom the plaintiff
n'aitned that he died a bachelor, there being no mention

in the will of either wife or child, hut the residue of his I
property being left to his two nephews, Fields and Wil-
liam Hungate; and upon that point, independent of many
others, he was content to leave the case in the hands of
the court. There was no doubt that the plaintiff had de-
scended from a William Hungate, and that that William
Hungate died in 1719, but that could not be the William
Hungate in the pedigree of the defendant, because he (Sir
William Horne) was prepared to show that that William
Hungate died in 1710.
Mr. KINDERSLICY observed, that that might be easily
done by cutting off the tail of the figure nine.
Sir WILLIAM HORNE said he should not be satisfied
with cutting off the tail of the nine, but it was his inten•
ttin to cut off the plaintiff's head. The learned counsel
then went on to show at some length the proof of the death
of William Hungate, who died at Louvain at the time he
had mentioned; and stated, that if his Honour would look
to the signature of the will, and compare it with the deed
to which he had adverted, he hesitated not to say, the
court would feel perfectly convinced of the fallacious na-
ture of the plaintiff's claim. The learned counsel then
proceeded at some length to comment upon the singular
and extraordinary nature of the bill which prayed every
species of discovery. The learned counsel concluded a
long and excellent speech by expressing his most confident
conviction that the Court would dismiss the bill with
costs, it being clearly a suit instituted for the purpose, if
possible, of obtaining a sum of money from the defendant,
for the purpose of purchasing his peace.
Mr. MoNact read several parts of the evidence on behalf
of the defendant, in the course of which he was inter-
rupted by
His HONOUR, who asked Sir E !ward Sugden if it was
necessary to carry the case further ?
Sir EDWARD SU6DIIN observed, that if his Honour had
formed a deliberate opinion upon the subject, it was his
duty to bow to the decision of the Court.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR—Indeed, Sir Edward, I have.
I feel as persuaded upon it as upon any fact that ever came
before me. Taking it for granted, that you
prove the fact of the death of Wm. Huugate at Louvaine,
at the time you state, which I don't think very material,
for in the will of that William, which was made in
1706, and which was proved in 1720 by Wm. Hungate,
power being reserved to Francis, he has named as his
executors that William and Francis, which is consistent
with the statement of the plaintiff, that they were brothers
of Philip ; and although you find him making mention of
them afterwards, there is no mention whatever of those
relations, either wife or child, whom, according to the
plaintiff's own statement, would be the persons, of all
others, found in the will, if he had any title. And it is
also further to be observed, in corroboration of what I
have stated, that the signature to the deed of 1705, and
the other deed, are the same as the sign iture to the will.
Mr. KNIGHT—Then our evidence will be entered as
read, and the bill dismissed with costs.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR—Yes; I think it as clear a
case as I ever saw.
[The report of this case was omitted at the time it was
argued, entirely through inadvertence.]