The Sun.
London, England, 1832-12-22 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY, DEC. 21.

The LORD CHANCELLOR came down to Lincoln's Inn
this morning for the purpose of delivering judgment in
several cases. On his Lordship's taking his seat a middle-
aged man, evidently labouring under mental aberration,
rushed before the bar, and i❑ a stentorian voice claimed
the protection of the Court.
The LORD CHANCELLOR inquired what he wanted?—
The applicant replied, I have to complain of the vast
number of people living in the county Kilkenny. They
will call me the son of the Earl of Ormond, and insist
upon making me High Sheriff of the county ; and they
had previously forced me into the army, and then gave
me a shilling a day for a pension ; they have taken that
from me. In every thing they abuse me.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was fearful he could not hear
so general a complaint, especially as this day was appro-
priated for other business ; he begged, however, that he
would compose himself.
The applicant, in a wild tone, exclaimed—Oh, my
Lord, they have followed me all the way from Kilkenny—
they parch my mouth with thirst—they burn me, beat
me—and they—
The LORD CHANCELLOR—My good roan, rest satisfied,
and compose yourself ; I will take care that none of them
shall do you any harm.
The unfortunate man appeared soothed by this assur-
ance, and in a few minutes left the Court, much more
composed than he entered it.

ROLLS COURT, DEC. 21.

NESBITT V. LEAKDIONTII.

This was a petition presented on the part of Mrs. Nes-
bitt, formerly Miss Macnamara, and better known to the
public as an accomplished actress, under the name of
Mordaunt, the object of which was to have the proceed-
ings in a suit called " Mortara v. Hall," stayed, and the
money paid into Court in that cause transferred into the
cause of Nesbitt v. Learmonth. The late Capt. Nesbitt,
the husband of the petitioner, became entitled, under the
will of his father, Sir John Nesbitt, to a large property,
the capital of which was estimated at 60,0001., the in-
, come producing 2,5001. per annum. Iu consequence of a
suit instituted in Scotland, Captain Nesbitt could only
obtain a limited allowance from the trustees under the
will of his father, and, being much emb trrassed, he had
sold within a month after attaining his majority the whole
of his patrimony to Mr. Learmonth, the Lord Provost of
Edinburgh, for the sum of 32,000/., receiving in part of
the purchase money the sum of 4,500/, and two bills to
the amount of about 10,2501. The object of the suit en-
titled Nesbitt v. Learmonth, was, among other things, to
set aside this transaction as a catching, unconscientious
bargain. Capt. Nesbitt attained his majority in June 1831,
land he died on the 9th September following, having by
his will given to the petitioner the interest of 15,000/.
during her life, 8,000/. to his mother during her life, with
benefit of survivorship between her and the petitioner, and
5,000/. to his sister, the Countess of Mortara. He ap-
pointed his wife, who has not yet attained her majority,
ttis residuary legatee. In January, 1832, a suit was in-
stituted by Mrs. Nesbitt, under the advice of Mr. Ford,
who had acted as solicitor and agent for her husband, for
the purpose of administering the estate of her husband.
The suit filed by the Count and Countess Mortara was
instituted under circumstances which are stated in his Ho-
nour's judgment. There was a fourth suit instituted by
a creditor named Lilly, against the executors of Captain
Nesbitt, which was afterwards abandoned, thirty-seven
creditors having come in under the decree in the suit of
Mortara v. Hall, and claimed debts to the amount of ten
thousand pounds.
His HONOUR delivered the following judgment:—It
appears by the evidence before me, that Mr. John Nesbitt,
the testator in the cause, attained his age of 21 on the
7th of June, 1831, and that previonsly to that period he
bad been extremely improvident, and was much embar-
rassed in his circumstances. His embarrassments were
well known to Mr. Ford, who was his confidential agent.
It is to be observed, that when the contract was made
in Edinburgh, Mr. Nesbitt received in part payment the
sum of 4,5001., and two hills, for sums amounting to
10,2501., in further payment of the purchase-money.
Ford applied the 4,500/, under the direction, as
it is alleged, of the testator, in payment of certain
debts of the testator, one of which was a debt to him-
self. The particulars of this application do not appear.
Mr. Ford having received and applied this sum of 4,5001.,
it was extremely improper that, in a suit expressly insti-
tuted for the administration of Mr. Nesbitt's estate, he
should not have put in his answer, although the answers of
all the other parties were put in. In the following July
Messrs.
L
Mrs. Nesbitt, not being quite satisfied with the conduct
of
fowthther
the
solicitor
Co. conducting
her
rg suit,
sothliecitois. It is said that
employed
she was dissatisfied with the conduct of Mr. Ford,
c as
because, after having advanced her stima iroin
time to time, amounting to 300/. or 400/., he then with-
held his baud, and rt•fti:tl to make any further advances.

The 0_11139 advanced to Mra. Nesbitt were certainly not
more than ought to have been advanced to ber, considering
that lady's claims upon the estate. Messrs. Lowther and
Co. having received instructions from Mrs. Nesbitt to
inquire into the nature of the suit instituted, wrote for
information to Mr. Burley, who referred them to Mr.
Ford. The correspondence on this subject continued
until the 12th of July. It is said that the Count and
Countess Mortara filed their bill because Mrs. Nesbitt had
abandoned the original suit; but I have heard nothing in
the nature of evidence to support the allegation that Mrs.
Nesbitt had abandoned her suit. On the 12th of July, the
very day on which the correspondence ceased, Mrs. N,,s-
hitt having declared that Mr. Ford should not continue
to act as her solicitor, the bill was filed by Mortara, the
answers of the executors and legatees:were put in, and on the
26th a decree for the administration of the testator's estate
—which was a very proper decree—was obtained. Looking
at all these circumstances, and having regard to the fact,
that Burley, the solicitor who filed this bill on the 12th
of July on the part of the legatees, was the solicitor who
put in the answers of the two executors in the suit, and
was connected with Ford, the other executor, who was to
render the amount—is it possible for any one who ap-
plies his attention to this subject to feel the least doubt
that Ford and Burley, being dismissed from the employ-
in,at of Mrs. Nesbitt in the first suit, bad promoted the
second suit with a view to continue in the proceedings
upon the same subject ? It is a most remarkable circum-
stance, that though they file this bill on the very day
when the correspondence ceased, they do so without ma-
king Mrs. Nesbitt a party. My opinion is, that this was a
suit collusively instituted, in consequence of Ford and Burley
being dismissed from all interference in the other suit.
The decree in that suit cannot be set aside, nor ought it
to be set aside, for it is an extremely proper one; but I
am of opinion that Mrs. Nesbitt is entitled to have the
conduct of the suit. The other suit which that lady has
instituted she will continue to prosecute, for purposes not
involved in this decree. With regard to the question of
costs, it has been said that the Count and Countess Mor-
tara are innocent parties—that Mr. Burley is a very in-
nocent party—and Mr. Ford is also, I presume, a very
innocent party. lam of opinion that all these persons
are parties to a suit collusively filed, and not for the bona
fide purpose of administering the testator's estate; and if
this petition had been so framed as to raise the question
on which the Court has felt it its duty to pronounce an
opinion, 1 should have made all these parties pay the
whole costs. But this petition has been so framed, in
point of form, that the Court cannot, consistently with
the practice, make them pay the costs of the petitioner.
I shall not, however, considering the nature of this case,
give them their costs, but make the order without giving
costs on either side.

COUR C OF KING'S BENCR, DEC. 21.