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

THE LORDS AND THE PAPER TAX.

Mr. TITUS SALT presented a petition from a public
meeting held at Bedford, praying the house to maintain
its privilege in respect to taxation.

MILITIA BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
GAS (METROPOLIS) BILL.
This bill, with some amendments, went through com-
mittee.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION, &c., BILL.
The committee on this bill was resumed.
On clause 22,
Mr. AYRTON considered this clause unnecessary, and
that it should be struck out. It recognised a principle, the
practical effect of which was, that if a person was rich and
gave money, he was entitled to receive a contribution out
of the public fund.
Sir G. LEWIS said that the clause was merely permis-
sive, and he could not understand what injustice it could
inflict.

The clause was then agreed to, as were clauses 23 to 28
inclusive.
On clause 29,
Mr. PULLER moved the following resolution, which
was agreed to :--i‘ Every such lease for 21 years shall, on
the application of the lessee, and on payment of a propor-
tion of the accustomed fine, be extendible to the said 11th
day of October, 1884, and a like extension, at the accus-
tomed rate of fine, shall, either for or irrespectively of the
purposes of sale, purchase, or exchange, be allowed in the
case of any lease for lives, the extent and value of which
shall be computed by arbitrators, in default of an agree-
ment between the parties to be less than the extent and
value of a term ending on the said 11th day of October,
1884."

The clause as amended and clause 3 were adopted.
On clause 2,

Mr. INGRAM moved the-following additiofial provision,
which was agreed to :—" That whenever any Ecclesiasti-
cal Corporation or the Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall
decline to enter into a treaty with a lessee for either the
sale of the reversion or the purchase of the term of or in
lands held by such lessee, it shall nevertheless be lawful
for such lessee, at any time before the expiration of the
said lease, to require that his estate and interest therein
shall be purchased by the Ecclesiastical Corporation or the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners, as the case may be, so de-
clining to treat as aforesaid, and that the value of such
estate and interest shall be ascertained by such methods and
with such extension of the unexpired term on his said lease
as are by this Act provided in respect of other leaseholds."
Mr. B. CARTER then moved the following amend-
ment :—"At end of clause 32, add, 'and where such lease
shall relate to building ground, it shall be lawful for the
arbitrator or arbitrators or umpire, as the case may be,
simply to find the gross sum to be paid for such sale or en-
franchisement, in such manner as he or they may deem
just ; provided also, that regard shall be had to any con-
sideration given to the lessee by this account of the long
continued practice of renewal."

Sir J. GRAHAM considered this question was so im-
portant that it should be postponed until the report had
been brought up, and he deprecated anything like party
legislation in reference to the subject.

Sir G. LEWIS said that before adopting the principle of
arbitration in refer.-nce to church property, they should
provide for the selection of an arbitrator, so as not to leave
the question to chance. He thought that that appoint-
ment might be vested in the Home Secretary or some other
responsible officer of the Crown.
Some discussion followed.

Sir G. LE WIS said he was prepared to accept the
amendment, but when the report was brought up he would
insert a clause limiting the arbitration to house property.
The amendment was adopted, and the clause with the
amendments was agreed to.

Clauses 33 to 43' inclusive were agreed to, and clauses
44, 45, and 46 were omitted.

LAW INTELLIGENOE.-(T1118 DAY),

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir John Stuart.)
JUDGMEXT-OGILVIE V. JEA.ITRESON.

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 hit. 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
mortgage. 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 10043 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.