The Sun.
London, England, 1833-03-12 00:00:00

ROLLS COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

FENNER v. TAYLOR.

His Honour, the MASTER of the ROLLS, gave judgment
in this case, on which a petition had been presented by Mr.
and Mrs. Fenner, for the purpose of having transferred consi-
derable sums of stock, to which Mrs. Fenner became entitled,
on the death of her mother. It appeared, that some time after
the marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Fenner, the former, at an inter-
view with the defendant, signed an agreement, agreeing that
one half of the property to which his wife was entitled
should be secured to herself. Sir. William Grant
was, on a previous application, of opinion that the
agreement did not constitute a settlement which would give
any benefit to the children of the marriage, and ordered, Mrs.
Fenner consenting in court, the payment of 3,0001. to the hus-
band. On the hearing of another petition for the transfer of
other sums, that decision of Sir W. Grant's had not been stated
to the Court, and his Honour had given judgment, refusing to
grant the prayer of the petition. That decision had come, by
appeal, before the present Lord Chancellor, who was of opinion,
there being the prior decision by Sir W. Grant, that Mrs. Fenner
was at liberty under the agreement to give the property to her
husband, that that Court had taken a wrong view of the case.
These facts had been stated to the Court on the hearing of the
present petition, and his Honour had observed, that whatever
his own opinion might be, he should certainly follow the judg.
ment of the present Lord Chancellor, and prevent the husband
from taking the property. HisHonour still adhered to that opinion,
but thought itnecessary to state the reason onwhich he proceeded.
In the view the Court took of the case, if it was called upon to
execute the agreement, it would direct a settlement in the
usual form, and consequently the children of the marriage
would be entitled to a benefit under it, it appearing to his
Honour that the settlement was not a voluntary one, as it had
been considered by the present Lord Chancellor and Sir William
Grant, for the agreement would amount to a purchase, by the
husband, of the wife's equity in her fortune. His Honour had
looked into the cases upon the subject, and had found in the
case of " The Executors of Lord Hereford v. Lady Hereford,"
that it had been expressly laid down that, under such circum.
stances, the husband was the purchaser of the equity of the
wife. But, whatever his Honour's own opinion might be, he
would not act against the opinion of the present Lord Chan-
cellor, and would therefore permit the husband, the wife con-
senting, to receive the fund.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.-(THIS DAY.)

David'Sullivan was placed at the bar, chargedwith embezzling
the sum of Ids. 6d., the property of his master, Mr. Todd, an
ironmonger, in Bermondsey. The prisoner was a clerk in the
employ of Mr. Todd, and was accustomed to receive money on
his account In January last, the bills were sent into the cus-
tomers, and among others, one to Dr. Moyer, of St. James's-
place, amounting to 'Ss. 6d. Dr. Moyer, being a very punctual
man, Mr. Todd was surprised when he asked Sullivan whether
lie had received the money, to be answered in the negative. He
repeatedly asked him about it, when he said that he had called
for it, but Dr. Moyer was out of town. His master afterwards
found out that Sullivan had received and given a receipt for the
money, and on his being taken to Hatton-garden on a similar
charge he confessed that he had received it.

The prisoner only called witnesses as to his character.

The jury found the prisoner Guilty.—To be transported for
seven years.

FASHIONABLE INTELLIGENCE.