The Sun.
London, England, 1828-04-15 00:00:00

Ter.tY i

and ti, q,
gad • '74beth
slgter
• •
tha
oth tt
Hamer defendesa
he:)! and ti
Ihe„;lictit.thi

1,000/. dwas
Prove
dati-:
,Mr to
endant
•
Into a
"f'aPgectable
lion
stances e on the
as dai
low • :1114
did pure t
I riot de_ n
'1" beca,„"ll
gentlegentlemana
k
'(:c•c" r"datf
((u r.ty, tool
tam
and Tit
ve and
'Plied for

---
..___ _ --
3 DAY.) LAW INTELLIGENCE.--(THIS DAY.)
- , COURT OF CHANCERY.
legiment The LORD CHANCELLOR resumed his Sittings to-
!Iville, to yin Lincoln's-Inn-Hall. Three cases stood in
8 appeal paper for judgment, and which he dis-
main. . - ised of. In the first
, s,sitr.__.
nONNOR V. MORTON,
Passed, The question was brought before the Court upon
• - appeal
the. 27th. . from the. judgment of Sir Thos Plumer,
appeal
Master of the Rolls, and regarded the validity
:?ebruary an ;
1,.-- as, s'Pnlent, wade by a husband of his wife'sin-
iurgh, for
'est Ins'gment,
a certain fund. The opinion of his Lord-
d his Mtt hip Was, that when a husband assigned an interest
f the descrip
~. s . tion mentioned in the pleadings of this
—Arrived • a„ni,se, he, 'agreed to do every thing in his power to
i"e that assignment effectual, but that that
areement
Tired the would only extend to acts which
6- Was enabled to do ; that, however, a
ah, --, oshaud had no power to give effect to a convey-
ance of such an interest, unless circumstances so
tin.
the Con- (hired
ned out as to put him in a condition to have re-
: the chose in action into possession. No such
the Port,
theer'stances occurred in this case, and consequently
sh eQurt thought the opinion of the late Master of
e Rolls that assignment could not
be s . was right, this
r, Crans- , .ustained.
Th DIMES V. SCOTT.
-Arrived- trust. e testator, a Mr. Piercy, left his property to
p (eeBl With. a direction to sell it, and invest the
4°441," in Government securities. The testator
" 'n the West Indies. Part of the property
f ft
Cons.
paid Isted of a decennial loan. The interest of
the Hee- ProPerty, after it was thus invested, was to be
° a certain party, and the remainder was to go
se, ,„
Hoogly loo• , the trustees did.not part with the decennial
er ti' 'Jut paid the tempt for .life -10 per cent, in lieu
lon, 111
easel has
th `inestion
e , whether this was a proper compliance with
Ion; and , testator's direction ? His Lordship's judgment
period of s,,rent;
" negative, and therefore he directed the dif-
fing each thefor life, between
e to be paid to the tenant
that ,
10 and the interest would
hate per. cent,ld
irn about •
. e been produced by the directed sale and invest-.
meat within a proper time of the death of the tes-
toat o
Dun- r r• This confirmed the judgment of the Master
!w saved.
• the Rolls.
yto Lon- 1I r, WOOD V. WOOD.
111
r ostiALL, a solicitor, of this Court, filed a
.d all on ', in which suit a receiver was appointed. He
:11.bsequelitly abandoned that suit, and filed another
.iverpool, , 11l at a very considerable additional expense. The
.tat ter bill did
oath, but t: not pray for a receiver, but Mr.Dumbell
f°s°-- u, Pon himself the character of receiver, and
-"' time to time rendered accounts, charging pound-
• • te•
_, Ile alleged that Mr. Hall had advised the
s4,eatolu°nment of the first, and institution of the
to bn,,,,,(1 suit, but which did not appear to the Court
Since,
It su'‘vi r°"(1. If an attorney improperly abandoned
sto have . -' and unnecessarily instituted another, by which
,geet ad,. . .
;ii Funds the pow'utional expense was incurred, the Court had
ar, have the client' and which it would exercise, of protecting
ed nomi- hone`.Court at
ar,
were
.against that expense. As these fiefs,
I are now e
ere not so clearly brought before the
the same as it w present as to enable it to act on them, and
been pa,a, nst distinctly shown that rents had not
1 6. to ha`°';ect-ed by the assumed receiver which ought
LY, but it coold'e been collected, his Lordship at this period
the con- been not saddle him with any such loss as may have
fairly be Petiti'ustained; but according to the prayer of the
on both'°n referred it to the Master to make a report
Chore has . tb .
The • • complained also of
(Maws , ese points. petition comp
from 62 . a ehtattOns .
appear to Part of ' but this the Court considered to be
in a the case, which was not to be dealt with
apply to on itsem_ sultry way, and consequently made no order
The COSTmorning, hear motions, but
there proceeded to
difficultymatch in getting a
tw alliong the Learned Gentlemen made up,
• `-'•rig to the absence of several of them.
it is in- LUNATIC PETITIONS.
Margate sthe LOTID CHANCELLOR directed a notice to be
vernment -sted that he will hear lunatic petitions on Thurs-
Y next.
to COM-
ween the VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
idered as This was the first seal before Easter Term.
INJUNCTION.
iterday of lo ,f, LEIGH V. STENTFORD.
far, from - e t
th
i as case the bill was filed for an account of
Net
he cargo n the or s property and effects, and it prayed that
by th inean time the defendants might be restrained
In belong- bolls: order of the Court from selling a certain
that this Perty'otr from otherwise making away with the pro-
.or not is left iiithe testator. It appeared that the testator
a ." his wife,of the defend-
ants 8 Property to
into'ttle°ll condition that she should
not again enter
n. the Ac-
e ..._ •.
to, 1826,the event of her
second matrimonial state, and in
IProp alarriaue or death, the testator devised 61 2 pin. erts i e,
0 CK.Elizabeth Leigh 4nd EV n question to
, and • 4^Bbeth Leigh the younger, his wife's mother
.
hours at Sigt...
' Will `l' Notwithstanding the
i , tb- provisions in his
I, become . otb '‘e testator's widow had Since married- the
I er clef
I its" endant Stentford (as we understood the
, 0 CR. he Tap and the plaintiffs conceiving themselves to
Thy: entitled to the property filed the present bill.
ACES. VICR-eIIANCELIZR granted the injunction.
i- - - - - ------ -----

7
:3 ')?7

is likely

DUFF
y received,
FUN, jun.
•ent one he

)eared at
lentine, in
t, and me-
ipplause by
2gs, which
• " Is there
o appeared
and sang
the Royal
: with a fa-

sent this

that Mr.
Lance, Mr.

first ap-
., iu Ros-

lstponed.
ject to the
tg it out at

Mnsical
lent of the
re Madame
which Miss
Ii the Pro-
t, as usual,
ew Operas.
!d by the
'sonages in
ity," in the

ly engage-
•ance much
a limited

ass the re-
. of Bute.
and her
any stage,
ne Theatre,
Jne drama,

balls and
pied the at-
n, have left
sae returned
of making
engaged a
re for many
t his taleat4
candidate;
ronised, the
tblin EMIT

ItAkv COURT OF KING'S BENCH..
1,
-,;_, AEYNOLDS, AND Or lIERSV. WM. RAY, BART.
kii "" was an action brought against Sir Wm.
h' as a Director of the Calder and Devon Mining
GCa -Y,a4Y,_for the amount of a bill of exchange for
z6it/ee...tso.r9sd. drawn by Rowland Wilkes upon
their
af the CoMpany, and accepted, in
Inane brY the Secretary'.
f.,
.I_..hre,tiSsucaninLETT stated the case'
proof having been given of the de-
.7l(la"t being a Director of the Company, and hay_
4tl takej,
part RI its management, and that the plain-
ill''' wu° are iron founders, supplied goods for the
v,(4 the Company,
lot''r• CAMpgp- any, the Jury for the defend-
• .LL addressed
, and contended, that the bill in question was
11 bill of exchange according to the usage of
hOtierch reeo,ants, and that the plaintiff Reynolds. coum
v r,ornpan,..
,
€l., as he was himself a partner mthe
In R„.'
p a —PPort of this case various letters were
the Baled from the plaintiff, in which he alluded to
Dae,, a3le of 30 shares held by him under the Com-
WI! and which under the deed drawn up by Mr.
tr.Z", the late Member for Sudbury, could not be
rerred except under certain regulations.
th;44,llswer to this proof, Sir JAIIES SCARLETT for
Co-h,l3l4ililtiff recalled Mr. Wood, the Secretary of the
i -'l3Aa who proved from the books that the
111812116t!frl'shares were- transferred on the 23d March,
L.
°ll TENTERDFN said it was quite clear that the
sPitsteltoilf must recover' for the value of the goods sold
he teent to the transfer of the shares he held;
takensub' eNfore suggested that a verdict should be
()flirt to 'Ps Bench
far the whole amount claimed by the plaintiff,
the opinion of the Court oflCing
wht Chet
of law submitted byCampbell,
, set
a- • ° 'lad leave , for a nonsuit, or to
side theto move
Mr.
everdiet.
tion of Mr.
IitIiPHELI.: having concurred in the sugges7
Plaintiff
sub' I-4ordship, a verdict was taken for the
ject to the opinion. of the court.
This ~„ • . WHEELER v. NEST.
,
I 000/• d, 'a4 -an action on a Bill of Exchange for
,
eepted 131. ,w 21-by a person named Atkinson, and ac-
Prove di "Le defendant. Evidence was adduced to
" defendant hand-writing of Wm. Avery West, the
Mr. Bato:the bill in question.
defendant tiAll then addressed the jury, for the
eame into a Ile said a grosser case of fraud never
respectable e°llct of justice. The defendant was a
7ifoange on ti,7°,1111 gentleman, who had only come
wa '"e 17th August last. The bill in. clues-
' stances us cidated the 31st August, and the eircuml-
low :.....mn-,,..er Which it was obtained, were as fo -
iae, to purebvvest wanted money before he came of
did not deetn'"? a Commission, which his guardians
lie heca it prudent at that time to advance.
llentlemr,,•ine acquainted, however, with a sporting
\ ---", a Captain Atkinson, who promised to
1; iCCOMMo
-; ecurity, him with the sum he required, and as
tamps, took four blank acceptances on the proper
:.,,1 tliiS was long before Mr. West became of
''' ""'" the money not- being forthcoming, Mr. W.
. I Ifplied for theblank acceptances, and Capt. Atkinson

took some papers eut of his pocket, and threw them
in the fire, saying, " - the acceptances, I have
had trouble enough with them." Mr. West thought
the acceptances were destroyed, and that he should
hear no more of the transaction; hut he was subse-
quently called upon by the plaintiff, Wheeler, for
1,0001., the amount of a bill filled up by Atkinson,
and for which the defendant had given a blink ac-
ceptance. There was every reason to believe
that Wheeler was acquainted with the cir-
cumstances under which Atkinson became pos-
sessed of the bill in question ; and if the Jury
were of opinion that he was so informed, or that he
had not given value for the bill, they were bound to
find for the defendant. Proceedings were filed in
the Exchequer against Atkinson, and subsequently
against Wheeler, who stated in his answer, that he
had given 3001. in cash to Atkinson, and sold him
thirteen hogsheads of claret, at 35/. a tun. As to
the claret it would be proved that it was still in the
London Docks, in the name of 'Wheeler. That it
was never worth thirty-five shillings a hogshead, and
that it had been offered, and could not be sold for
5/. a hogshead. If these circumstances were proved,
the Jury could have no hesitation in coming to the
conclusion that the whole transaction was fraudulent.
Mr. Rawlinson, an attorney, proved that he called
on Capt. Atkinson, in Mount-street, in April, 1827,
by desire of the defendant, to demand from him four
blank acceptances, which defendant had given him.
Capt. Atkinson refused 'to give up the acceptances.
Capt. Atkinson is in very straitened circumstances.
Mr. Huxley stated that he accompanied the de-
fendant, in April last, to Capt. Atkinson's lodgings,
to demand fonr acceptances for 500/. each. Atkin-
son said he could not return the bills without having
an apology from Mr. West, for some remarks
made on his character. West said if he bad in-
jured Mr. Atkinson's character he regretted it. A
written apology was prepared in the room.
Mr. Atkinson then looked amongst his papers
with some marks of agitation, and taking some pa-
pers in his hand, said, " here they are; 1 have had
troubleenough about them; -- them." He then
threw the papers into the fire. -Witness thought
they were the bills accepted by Mr. West. Mr.
West is now an officer in the Life Guards.

Cross-examined—l gave a receipt for the bills,
expecting they would be given up.
William Stone, a sheriff's-officer, who had arrested
Captain Atkinson, was present at the interview
described by Mr. Huxley, and corroborated his tes-
timony as to the burning of the papers.
Mr. Alexander Brough stated, that he was Mr.
West's guardian, and that he had transferred the sum
of 20,000/. to him on his coming of age in August
last.

The plaintiff's answer to the bill filed in Chancery
was then put in and read, and occupied the Court
for a considerable time. -

Mr. Wilde, stated, that he is a wine-broker, and
was instructed by Mr. Wheeler, in 1825, to sell
some claret which stood in the London Docks, in
his name. The wine was put up to sale, and bought
in for 51. a hogshead. Witness did not think it
worth so much, as it was of bud quality, and had
turned sour.