The Sun.
London, England, 1835-05-06 00:00:00

ROLLS COURT.

GOODYEAR V. ROBINSON.
In this , case a testatrix of the name of Wood, by her
will devised all her real and personal property to the de-
fendant, Robinson, and as to the one-fourth part thereof,
in trust, to place out the same on interest for the use of
the plaintiff Goodyear for his life, with the remainder for
his issue. Mr. Robinson realised the property, the one-
fourth part of which amounted to 7881. 10s., and invested
2001. in the funds. The remainder he placed without se-
curity in the hands of an attorney named Bonner, through
whose insolvency it was lost. A bill was consequently filed
by the plaintiff (who was a shepherd) and his children,
against the trustee, Robinson, to have the sum in question
replaced, which it was contended had been lost through his
negligence.

BICKERSTZTE appeared fnr the plaintiff.
Mr. PEMBERTON for the defendant contended that his
client had placed the sum in question in the hands of Bon-
ner, at the express desire of the plaintiff.
His Honour the MASTER of the ROLLS, in the hope the
parties would come to some arrangement, should not at
present decide the case. If the defendant stood upon his
extreme right, and insisted on having the bill dismissed
with costs as against the father he (the Master of the
Rolls) should certainly not deprive the children of their
right of filing another bill.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.

ELLIS V. WILLIAMSON.

This case has occupied the Court for several days past,
and was concluded this afternoon. The suit related to a
brewery which was carried on at Stockwell, in Surrey, by
three brothers of the name of Ellis, in co-partnership. On
the 10th of November, 1828, the partnership accounts were
taken, upon which it appeared that 7,7001. had been paid
for the freehold of the brewery, and that the partnership
was indebted to Charles Ellis, one of the partners, to the
amount of 9,0001 ; whereupon an agreement of that date
was entered into, that the freehold of the brewery should
be considered as the separate property of Charles Ellis, for
which the partnership should pay him, as landlord, a rent
of 4001. a-year, and that his debt should be thus reduced
to 1,3001. His Honour, after stating these facts, said he
should refer it to the Master to take the partnership ac-
counts up to that date, without disturbing any settled ac-
counts, except those of January preceding, which had, in
fact, been incorporated in the agreement which was the main
subject of the suit. The cause was, however, concluded as
to Williamson, by giving him his full costs.

MOORE V USHER.

Mr. JAMES, on the part of the plaintiff, moved for an
injunction to restrain the defendant, Mrs. Usher, from pro-
ceeding to trial in an action she had brought against the
plaintiff, for the recovery-of a sum of five hundred pounds,
deposited in his hands, the greater part of which was claimed
by Mr. Lake, a solicitor of the Court. The circumstances
under which this interpleader bill was filed were these
Mr. Granby Ca/craft applied to Mr. Lake to act as his.
solicitor in obtaining an Act of Parliament for his divorce
from Mrs. Calcraft, the late Miss Love. Mr. Lake was
unwilling to undertake this office without some better secu-
rity, than Mr. Calcraft's, for costs. In consequence, Mrs.
Sarah Love, the mother of Mrs. Calcraft, agreed to deposit
five hundred pounds in the hands of Mr. Moore, of Bond-
street, as a security for Mr. Lake's costs. Mr. Lake pro-
secuted the bill of divorce, which was ultimately thrown
out in the House of Lords. Mrs. Sarah Love afterwards
applied to another solicitor, Mr. Sermon, to commence si-
milar proceedings on the part of Mrs. Calcraft, and referred
him to. Mr. Moore for payment. Mr. Sermon commenced
the usual proceedings, which, after an expense of sixty
pounds, were at length abandoned. Mr. Moore then ap-
plied to Mr. Sermon and Mr. Lake for their bills of costs.
The 60/. due to Mr. Sermon was at once discharged ; but
Mr. Lake's bill, being to a very large amount, had not yet
been completed and furnished. In the meantime Mrs. Sarah
'Love died, and Mrs. Usher, who was her sister, having
taken out administration to her, demanded the whole 500/.
from Mr. Moore. Mr. Lake, of course, insisted upon Mr.
Moore's retaining the 4401. still in his bands, on account of
his bill of costs, which would exceed that amount. As
Mrs. Usher had commenced proceedings at law, Mr.
Moore had no alternative but to apply to the Court to
compel the parties to settle the differences here. He had
already obtained the common injunction, and had paid the
440/. into Court. The object of the present motion was to
restrain Mrs. Usher from proceeding to trial in her action.
His HoNoua dismissed the motion with was.