The Sun.
London, England, 1859-11-24 00:00:00

4.\

LAW INTELLIGENCE,-(TEIS DAY.

COURT OF CIIANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor and Lords Justices.)

TWO APPEALS-INTERNATIONAL LAW-YENNING Y

LLOYD.

This was an appeal from an order of Vice-Chancellor Sir
William Page Wood, directing a sum of £5,000 to ho paid
into court to await the result of suit.

It appears that the Scottish Widows' Assurance Com-
pany, incorporated by British statute, have offices in Lon-
don and Edinburgh. An action was previously raised in
the Court of Session, Scotland, as to the same claim,
and appearance entered for the parties in that
court, and the question raised is whether the Court
of Chancery in England has a co-ordinate jurisdiction with
the Court of Session in Scotland, or a paramount or prior
jurisdiction to dispose of the questions in contention between
the parties.

At the conclusion of the arguments of counsel their lord
ships reserved judgment.

APPEIL-PINDLETON V. noon'.

Judgment on Friday.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir William Page Wood.)

PRICE V. GALVANISED IRON COMPANY.-JUDGMENT,

1 The plaintiff filed his bill for specific performance of two
indentures of leases, for 21 and 60 years, of two mines of
coal and ironstone, on the lands of Loid Dunravon, :called
Iyve Gunter, and Iyve Middle, in Glamorganshire. His
lordship refused to extend the terms of the 21 years lease to
the 60 years lease, except under new covenants and condi-
tions as to working the mines. The company continued
to work the mines for several years, and ultimately they
came into the hands of the British Bank, now represented
by their official manager and assignee. _

His Honour the Vice-Chancellor decreed specific
performance of the leases by the company with
costs granted an injunction against working
the mines contrary to the lease—settled costs to be paid
by plaintiff and defendants, and remitted to chambers to
take accounts of the expense of working the mines and
profits derived therefrom, with liberty to apply.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

'Before the Lord Chief Baron, and Barons Bramwell and

Watson.)

SWINFEN V. LORD CIIELMSFORD.-RIGIITS OF COUNSEL.
This was' an action brought by the plaintiff, Mrs.
Patience Swinfen, against the defendant, Lord Chelmsford,
under the following circumstances :—The plaintiff's hus-
band's father, Mr. Samuel Swinfen, of Swinfen Hall, in
Staffordshire, died and left a will bequeathing to her his
large estates in that county. The validity of the will
was disputed by the heir-at-law, and an issue was directed
by the Court of Chancery to try the title of the parties to
the suit. Lord Chelmsford, who was then Sir Frederick

Thesiger was retained as leading counsel for Mrs. Swin-
fen, and the case for the heir-at-law was conducted by
the then Attorney-General, Sir Alexander Cockburn,
the present Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's
Bench. The cause came on for trial at the Stafford assizes,
before Sir C. Cresswell, then one of the Justices of the Court
of Common Pleas. Two material witnesses for the plaintiff
having been cross-examined by Sir A. Cockburn on the
first day of the trial, the learned judge, on the rising of the
Court, made a private communication to Sir F. Thesiger
(Lore Chelmsford), that he had formed a bad opinion of
Mrs. Swinfen's case; and acting on this, Sir Frederic,
having conferred with the other learned counsel for the
plaintiff, urged on Mrs. Swinfen the advisability of entering
into a compromise. This she refused to do ; but on the fol-
lowing morning, immediately after the sitting of the Court,
Sir F. Thesiger, in the absence of his client, entered into a
compromise on her behalf, whereby the estates were
to go to the heir-at-law, on the condition that £l,OOO
a-year was secured to her. Mrs. Swinfen repu-
diated this act of her counsel ; and, after various
proceedings in the Court of Common Pleas and in
Chancery to enforce the agreement, the cause was again
sent down for trial, and resulted in a verdict in Mrs. Swin-
fen's favour, establishing the validity of the will. Mrs.
Swinfon then brought an action against Lord Chelmsford
for the injuries she had sustained by reason of his having
entered into the compromise on her behalf. The first count
in the declaration charged that the defendant, being the
leading counsel of the plaintiff, had wrongfully and fraudu-
lently entered into the compromise without her sanction,
and against her express direction; and the second count
charged conspiracy and collusion with the learned judge
who had tried the cause, Sir Cresswell Cresswell, to bring
about the compromise. At the trial, which t6ok place be-
fore tho Lord Chief Baron, at Guildhall, at the sittings
after last term, the learned judge held that there was no
evidence to support the second cAint, and the jury found a
verdict for the defendant. During the present term Mr.
Kennedy, on behalf of tha plaintiff, moved for a rule to set
aside the verdict, or for .a new trial, on the ground that the
verdict was against evidence, non-reception of evidence,
and misdirection. The learned counsel, in moving for the
rule, abandoned the charge of fraud against the noble de-
fendant and Sir Cresswell Cresswell, but contended that
the former had committed a legal wrong in entering into
the compromise. The Court granted a rule nisi on the
ground of misdirection, the point being whether a counsel,
who, in the exercise of his discretion, and with bone fides,
for the supposed good of his client, exceeds or departs from
his instructions, is liable to an action.

Sir F. Kelly, Mr. M. Smith, Mr. Bovill, and Mr. Ellis
now appeared to show causo against the rule ; Mr. Ken-
nedy, Mr. Denman, and Mr. M'Mahon appeared in its
support.

Sir F. Kelly was proceeding with his argument against
the rule when we wont to press.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Evans.)

IN RE LIDDLE.

This bankrupt was described as a licensed victualler,
carrying on business at the Nell Gwyn Tavern, in the
Strand, and this was a meeting for choice of assignees.
Mr. Poole appeared for the bankrupt, who came before
the Court on his own petition, showing debts, £2,000 ;
assets, uncertain; but the bankrupt in his affidavit esti•
mates the stock and furniture which will be subject to the
costs and the deprooiation on the sale of the property.
Assignees were chosen.