The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-12 00:00:00

THE SUN, _LONDON, TUESDAY VATENING. NOVEMBER 12, 1844.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY—Nov. 11.

The Lord Chancellor took his seat in his Court to-
day, at a quarter before eleven o'clock, for the pur-
pose of hearing appeals.

MATTHEWS V. MUSE.
The further arguments in this case, which were
partly heard on Friday and Saturday, were resumed
and concluded to-day. The case came before the
court upon appeal from the court below, which had
ordered the defendant to make good the value of a
number of Exchequer-bills, which he had, as a trustee,
left in the hands of bankers, who converted them to
their own use, and afterwards became bankrupts. The
defendant was also ordered to pay the costs. The
facts of the case may be thus shortly stated :—A tes-
tator, of the name of Matthews, by his will appointed
the defendant a trustee of considerable estates in Suf
folk, with directions to dispose of them in a reasonable
time, and, at the termination of a beneficial interest in
the fund, which was to be enjoyed by his widow, to
divide it among his younger children, of whom the
plaintiff was one. The testator died in 1834, and the
defendant sold a portion of the estates, and placed the
purchase-money, for a time, in the hands of
Messrs. Oakes, as his bankers ; he, however, shortly
afterwards, for greater security, placed the money,
which amounted to 7,500/., in the hands of the Messrs.
Wakefield, the bill-brokers and bankers, in Broad
street, London. Negotiations were going on, with the
concurrence of the widow of the testator, for paying
the money out on mortgage, and in the meantime he
gave Messrs. Wakefield instructions to invest it i:i
the purchase of Exchequer-bills. The bills were pur-
chased, but the Messrs. Wakefield became bankrupts
in April, 1841, and it turned out that they had felo-
niously sold the bills afterwards, and converted the
produce to their own use, subjecting themselves to
the provisions of the 7th and Bth Geo. IV., chap. 59,
for the fraud. The money being therefore lost, the
Master of the Rolls held the defendant to be re-
sponsible, on the ground that he had transferred to
other persons the confidence reposed in him, and that
having parted with the custody of the money, he must
replace it, and pay all the costs.
Mr. Bethell and a gentleman behind the bar ap-
peared for the appellant, and Mr. J. Russell and Mr.
Chandless supported the judgment of the Court below.
The arguments having concluded to-day,
The LORD CHANCELLOR postponed giving judg-
ment till he had had an opportunity of looking into
the papers and the authorities that had been cited.

Tlen Court did not rise till nearly four o'cloelr:

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 11.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR Of ENGLAND.)
HUXTABLE V. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

The arguments in this part-heard case were re-
sumed and concluded to-day. The case came before
the Court upon demurrers put in to the bill by the
defendants, Messrs. Magniac and Co., and Messrs.
Baring, Brothers, for want of equity as against them,
they having been made, by the plaintiff, defendants to
the suit, upon allegations that they were the autho-
rised agents of the State of Illinois in this country.
The plaintiff, who is a married woman, by the pre-
sent bill sought payment through the defendants, as
such agents, of a debt which she alleged to be due
to her for principal and interest, accruing in
respect to certain bonds of the State of
Illinois, which she had been induced, before she
married, by John Wright, of the late banking firm of
Messrs. Wright and Co., with whom she kept a bank-
ing account, and before the bankruptcy of that firm,
to purchase, and that at a time when Messrs.lVright
and Co. were the accredited agents of the State of
Illinois in this country, for the sale of the bonds
of that State. The plaintiff by her bill further al-
leged that the state of Illinois, through its agents,
Messrs. Magniac and Co., proved a large debt against
the estate of Wright and Co. in respect of the bonds
of the State entrusted to them for sale in this country,
and that a sum of 15,0001. was then standing to the
credit of the State of Illinois in the Court of Bank-
ruptcy, the amount of dividend already declared upon
the debt due to the State of Illinois. To obtain pay-
ment of her debt out of that fund, the plaintiff filed
this bill against the State of Illinois, making the
defendants, Messrs. Magniac and Co., and Messrs.
Baring, Brothers, as the alleged agents of the State on
this country, defendants to the suit, for that purpose,
and praying by the bill that the State of Illinois and
the defendants, as its agents, should be restrained
from receiving the fund from the Court of Bank-
ruptcy without first satisfying thereout her demand.
Upon the conclusion of the arguments,
The VICE-CHANCELLOR gave judgment, allowing
all the demurrers, with costs, but giving the plaintiff
liberty to amend her bill.