The Sun.
London, England, 1832-11-19 00:00:00

ROBERTSON V. COX AND OTHERS.

This suit was instituted for the purpose of invali-
dating a sale of certain freehold and leasehold pro-
perty belonging to the infant plaintiffs, made by
Cox, the trustee and executor to Keppell, the come-
dian, pending the proceedings for the administration
of assets, and to set aside two mortgages which had
been effected on the premises by Bankes and May-
hew. two of the other defendants. The testator
made his will in 1823, and devised to Cox, his sole
executor and trustee, all his freehold, copyhold, and
leasehold estates, together with his personalty, in
trust to invest the annual proceeds on security, arid
apply the rents and profits towards the maintenance
and education of the plaintiffs until the youngest
should attain 21, and then to sell such parts as
should be undisposed of under a discretionary
power of sale, which was given to the trustee,
provided it could be beneficially exercised during
the minority. Cox having entered into posses-
sion, mismanaged the estates, sold part of the free-
holds, applied the moneys to his own use, and con-
ducted himself in general most detrimentally to the
interests of his cestui que trust. A bill was there-
upon filed against him, charging that he had impro-
perly sold the premises and appropriated the pro-
ceeds, praying fot an injunction to restrain the sale
of the residue, and also for the appointment of a
new trustee. No sooner, however, had that suit
been instituted, than Cox entered into a negotiation
to sell other parts of the property to Keppell, one of
the defendants to the present supplemental bill, for
a sum of 9901., to be paid by instalments. It
was alleged that this sale had been merely
pretended arid collusive, and that in fact no
pecuniary consideration had been given for the con-
veyance. The other defendants, Bankes and May-
hew, claimed as mortgagees on the premises, having
advanced money to Keppell, in order, it was said,
to enable him to complete the purchase. The
object of the present bill was to set aside the con-
veyance, and to discharge the estates of the mort-
gages, on 'the ground that the conveyance to Kep-
pell, adequate consideration not being proved, had
been made pendente lite, within his knowledge, and
therefore with legal notice to those who claimed de-
rivatively through him as mortgagees. The conduct
of the defendant Cox was considered on all hand.•
highly dishonourable; in fact, upon his own answer,
he admitted himself to have been guilty of the
grossest fraud both upon the plaintiffs and the de-
fendants.
His HONOUR did not think the facts of the case
admitted of any doubt. The evidence of one of the
witnesses clearly proved that Keppell had acted
collusively with Cox, at all events with notice of
the proceedings instituted before the sale. He shoufd,

thorsfore, re.tionvey ali such interest as he now re.
tained in the property, and pay the costs of the
suit as far as they had been occasioned for the pur-
pose of avoiding the alienation by Cox. With re r.
-
spect to the other defendants, Bankes and Mayhew,
the question depended on the rule of fispe*lls.
Looking at the nature of this suit, and the frame of-
the bill, the Court was of opinion that the aliena-
tion by Cox pendente lite was an alienation which
should not work prejudice to the plaintiffs in the suit.
As it was, however, a considerable hardship to the
defendants, who claimed as mortgagees, the Court
directed that they should pay no costs.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 17.

WILLIAMS V. JONES.

This was an action by the plaintiff against the
defendant for representing the receipts and profits
of a public-house to be much larger than they really
were, whereby the plaintiff had been induced to
purchase it at a sum considerably beyond its value.
The Jury having found a verdict for the plaintiff—
damages 1,0121. ss.
Mr. Sergeant SPANKIE at the commencement of
the term obtained a rule to show cause why the
verdict should not be set aside, on the ground that
the damages were excessive.

Mr. Sergeant WILDE and Mr. Serjeant STORKS
to-day showed cause, and contended that under all
the circumstances of the case (which had been al-
ready reported) the damages were not excessive.
Mr. sergeant SPANKIE and Mr. Sergeant JONES,
on the other side, were heard in reply.
The COURT considered that the damages were
not excessive, so as to call for their interference, and
therefore discharged the rule.

MELHUISH V. RAWDON AND ANOTHER.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Mr.
Melhuish, of the firm of Messrs. Gore and Co.,
against the defendants as the drawers of a bill of
exchange for .599/. on Messrs. Guamorins and Co.,
of Rio de Janeiro, at 61 days' sight. The plaintiff
purchased the bill in the market on speculation, and
no eligible opportunity of disposing of it having
presented itself, he kept it locked up in his desk
for four months and 21 days after the expiration of
the 61 days. In the mean time the drawer failed.
Upon the trial of the cause before Lord Chief Jus-
tice Tindal, in the London sittings of the last term,
a great deal of conflicting evidence was adduced as
to what was the usage upon this subject in the mer-
cantile world. The Jury found a verdict for the
plaintiff.

Mr. Sergeant TADDY having obtained a rule on
a former day in this term, calling on the plaintiff to
show cause why the verdict should not be set aside
and a new trial had,

Mr. Sergeant WILDE now showed cause against
the rule. Bills of this description were sent into
the market for sale, and were purchased on specula-
tion ; it would be absurd, therefore, to say that the
purchaser must send them forward at a time when
the rate of exchange is so low as to be opposed to
the interests of the purchaser, and so defeat the ob-
ject for which they were brought into circulation.
ff the bill in this case had been sent into the market
by the plaintiff, it was clear that the question would
not have arisen ; and the defendant's liability could
not be varied by the circumstance of the plaintiff
having kept the bill locked up in his own possession.
Mr. Sergeant TADDY and Mr. Sergeant AN-
DREWS, in reply, argued that the circumstances
affecting the drawer's interest were very much va-
ried in consequence of the bill having been kept
locked up, because if it had been sent into the
market they would have been aware of the bill be-
ing still in existence and unpaid, and therefore might
have taken measures to secure its payment : wheeling,
by its having been kept locked up in private all this
while, they would naturally have concluded that it
had long since been paid.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE felt no difficulty in
the case; but still, as it was an important one, he
should wish to submit his notes of the trial more mi-
nutely to the consideration of his Learned Brothers
before the Court pronounced its judgment.—Judg-
ment deferred.

In the course of the morning Lord Sydney went
through the form of suffering a recovery.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 17.

I