The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-26 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGEN:722.--(THIS DAY)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir John Stuart.)
JUDGMENT-OGILVIE V. JEAFFRESON.

His Honour the Vice Chancellor said—ln this case the
Court must decide which of several interested parties ought
to bear the loss resulting from a gross fraud practised on
the plaintiff by his solicitor. The plaintiff; under a false
statement, was induced to sign an assignment of the mort-
gage of his property, alleging that it was a lease of hi, lease-
hold property required to be granted by him. By this
fraudulent contrivance he executed a deed by which he
conveyed the whole of the property which he held in
mor►gage. He now claims this property which has been
fraudulently conveyed away from him and afterwards sold
to the defendant by the gross fraud practised on him by his
own solicitor (Hughes). The defendants claim the pro-
perty as purchasers for valuable consideration without
notice. The question raised was upon which of the parties
the loss should fall. The defendant alleged that it was the
duty of the plaintiff to know the state of his own titles, and
not to execute assignments that he did not understand, and
must bear the loss. The plaintiff contended that it was the
duty of the defendants, before they made the pur-
chase, to examine the state of the titles, and if they
had done so they would have discovered the
fraud practised on the plaintiff, and that the convey-
ance of the property to them was a fraudulent conveyance.
His Honour, after referring to the decision of Lord
Brougham, in the case of Kennedy and Green ; Lord St.
Leonard, in Merrywether 7 Drury ; Sir John Leech, in
Kennedy and Brown; Austin and Shield—Blackburn ;
Giffard and Lane, and Holwell and Lane—Lord Eldon ;
and particularly the evidence of Catherine Jones, who dis-
claimed all interest in the property conveyed to the de-
fendants—came to the conclusion that the deed of April,
1856, was fraudulently obtained from the plaintiff, and
ordered the four deeds by which the defendants hold his
property to be delivered up to be cancelled. Catherine Jones
to have her costs, and each party bears his own costs—no
costs on either side.

POLICE INTELLIGEIVCE-(THIS DAY.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

DARING ROBBERY OF A MERCHANT'S WATCH.—Emma
Drinkwater and William Cole were charged before Mr.
Tyrwhitt with stealing a gold watch of the value of £6, the
property of M. Jean Alexandre Suisse, a French merchant,
staying at 28, Panton •street, Haymarket.
The prosecutor (who gave his evidence through Mr.
Albert, the interpreter) said that about 12 the previous
night the female came up to him and he several times pushed
her away. The last time he did so he felt his watch "go
from his pocket, and seizing her hands found that the watch
was in one of them, and with her other hand she detached
the watch, breaking the chain. The man then crossed from
the other side of the street and seized one of the female's
arms, as he at first supposed to assist him (prosecutor)
but he immediately started off, and he had no doubt with
his watch, which was of the value of /6, and bore his name.
The prisoners put several questions to the prosecutor,
but at length gave in, saying it was no use.

Austin, 318 A, proved picking up the watch at the spot
where the male prisoner was stopped.

Sergeant Silverton said if a remand were granted he
should be able to prove a conviction against the prisoners.
The prisoners said they would plead guilty, and were
committed for four months each.

The prisoners seemed very much pleased at the decision,
the male prisoner having expressed his fear that it would
be " transportation this time,"