The Sun.
London, England, 1834-11-18 00:00:00

PAGE V. BROOM..

At the rising of the Court his Lordship gave judgment
in this appeal, which was argued during last week. His
Lordship commenced by observing on the singular coinci-
dence that this cause was the first that came before him on
his acceptance of the seals of office, and after having ac-
companied him through the four years he bad presided in
that Court, it was now, if not the last, certainly among the
very last it would be his duty to decide. Before, however,
he stated what were his opinions on the matter as it now
came before him, he might notice, although perhaps from
the folly and ignorance of those who propagated such tales,
it was hardly worth notice, that it was rumoured he had,
in the case of Page and Broom, to decide a cause in which
the interests of some relatives of his own were nearly
concerned. It was hardly necessary to say the defendants,
the Messrs. Broom, were no connection of his. He be-
lieved they were very worthy and respectable carpet manu-
facturers of Kidderminster ; but their names, from which
the report had arisen, were not spelt in the same mnnner,
although idenz sonans the pronunciation was the same. In
the case as it now came before the Court, there were two
appeals from the Master of the Rolls, one by the plaintiffs
claiming to be allowed interest by rests on the sum of 4001.
a year provided by his deeds as a security for the payment
of 13,0001. expended on the re-building of Saville House, in
Leicester-square ; and the other appeal by the defendants,
complaining of rests on compound interest being allowed on
any part of the account. The Master of the Rolls having
allowed the plaintiff interests by rests on his debt of 13,0001.
refused to give rests on the security for the debt. His
Lordship fully agreed with the Master in the propriety of
this decision. With respect to the appeal of the defendants
against the method of taking the accounts by rests, his
Lordship differed from the Master of the Rolls. He had
looked into the agreements, and he saw nothing in them, no
provision or contract for taking accumulated interest upon
accumulated interest. In his opinion the accounts on the
foot of the agreement ought not to be taken with com-
pound interest, and he should therefore reverse that part of
the decree of the Court below. With respect to the first
part of his Honour's decree, that which gave interest on
the debt, he affirmed that, as he had already intimated, and
with the costs of the appeal.
His Lordship rose at a few minutes before three.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 17.

LAYFIELD V. LAYFIELD.

This was a bill filed by the brother and heir-at-law of
the testator against his father and two brothers as executors
de son tort for payment out of the personal estate of the
purchase money of an estate contracted for by the testator,
which descended on the plaintiff. In the Master's Office
the two brothers alleged the father had taken out adminis-
tration, with the will annexed, since the bill was filed, and
that before the decree was made they had paid over to him
in that character the portion of the estate received by them.
It appeared that the father, upon receiving the money,
walked away, and was not now to be found. The Master
disallowed these payments as a discharge of the defendants.
These defendants excepted to his report, and it was now
contended, on the part of the plaintiff, that an executor de
son tort cannot discharge himself from the claim of a creditor
by a payment to the legal representative after the action
commenced, and that there was plain collusitririn'this case.
His HONOUR was of opinion there was manifest fraud.
A. Court of Equity would subsist to no useful purpose if
such a transaction were allowed.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 17.

DOE DEM WETHERELL V. BIRD.

This was an action of ejectment brought to recover pos-
session of a house, situated in the road near Kensington
Palace. This house was, in 1802, leased by Mr. We-
therell to one Joseph Soilleaux for the term of sixty-one
years. By the terms of the lease no alterations of a parti-
cular kind were to be made in the walls of the building, nor
was the tenant to be at liberty to carry on the trade or bu-
siness of a butcher, brewer, baker, tavern-keeper, coffee-
house-keeper, &c., nor any offensive trade. At the trial
of the cause which occurred before Lord Denman his Lord-
ship left it to the Jury to say whether the business of a
madhouse keeper, which the defendant had begun carrying
upan the premises, was an " offensive trade " within the
meaning of the covenant so as to enable the plaintiff to re-
cover. The Jury found that it was an offensive trade, and
returned a verdict for the plaintiff. A rule had since been
obtained to set aside that verdict and enter a verdict for
the defendant or grant a new trial.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL showed cause against the rule.
Sir JAMES SCAELETT contended that there had been no
forfeiture of this lease:
The COURT took time to consider.

BAIL COURT, Nov. 17.