The Sun.
London, England, 1826-11-24 00:00:00

FRIDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 24, 1826.

a prayer? Was she afraid that her annuity would not be regu-
larly paid ?—Mr. Hoene—lndeed, she is very much afraid.
Mr. Suonvi continued—Mee. Robson needed not to fear that
her annuity would not be paid ; for it was chargeable upon lau-
ded Mated' producing 2,600!. per annum ; and so judicious was
the purchase made under the settlement, that he was instructed
to state, that Mrs. Robson's security was increased rather than
diminished in value. The bill concluded by praying that the
expends of the present, proceedings should be paid out of the funds
in. Court. Those funds, he before observed, had nothing to do
with the present case—they were reserved fur the infants; and
he was confident the Court would not trespaxs upon that capital
to indulge the litigious spirit:of the plaiutiffs.
Mr. WAKEFIELD said, as he wan junior Counsel for all the de-
fendants, it was 'his duty again to address' his Honour. Ile re-
peated the observation of his Learned Leader (Mr. Heald), that
so trumpery, vexations, and oppressive s suit, was not to be found
in the records of the Court. It charged fraud and forgery upon
the defendants, and yet not one witness was produced to substan-
tiate those grave imputations. It was proved that the notes which
Mrs: Robson insinuated were forged, were •in that lady's own
bi.and-writing, This circutustancisisaken per se, should inAttencg.
WiCourt in dismissing the ease with costs. The principle had
been frequently acted upon, that when a party introduced serious
imputations, without adducing any proof in support of them, that
party should be punished by the refusal of the Court to grant
costs. In the present ease, he contended, the interference of the
Court was most unnecessary. Fraud had been imputed, but there
was not the slightest proof of fraud; and in an account of great
magnitude, and one going on for several years, it appeared there
was but one insignificant mietake, where a sum of 5/. was in-
advertently charged. It was not alleged that Mr. Edward
,Wakefield was negligent in his trust ; his honour and integrity
were unimpeachable; and the only objection to him was, that lie
was the father of Mr. Edward Gibbon Wakefield, with whom
Mrs. Robson had quarrelled. Mr. Wakefield was already five
years before the Court, and if the prayer of the bill was granted,
he would probably be kept five years more in 'the Maater's office.
This was a sufficient reason for Mr. Wakefield's objecting to open
the account ; though his learned friends pretended they could
see no reason why he should object to such a proceeding. Un-
der all the circumstances, he hoped the Court would not en-
courage this wanton attack upon a gentleman's character ; but
would evince its sense of the whole proceeding, by dismissing the
bill with costs.

Mr. Hoax; in reply, said before he entered into the merits of
the case, he could not avoid making an observation upon the sin-
gular distribution of professional labour which had taken place.—
His friend (Mr. Wakefield) appeared for all the defendants. Now '
it was clear that the interests of the defendants were distinctly dif-
ferent, and he confessed he felt a difficult), in seeing how any gen-
tleman could undertake to represent all those defendants, consistent
with professional propriety. As to his learned friend's tone, when
his connexion with some of the parties was considered, it was no
wonder that he should assume a different tone from that taken by
the other Counsel, whew looked upon the parties merely as clients.
His learned friend (Mr. Wakefield's) warmth was easily accounted
for, and was not at all inconsistent with honour or professional
propriety. Now as to the merits of the case ; using the phrame
as it was ordinarily used in Courts of Equity, there clearly was a
breach of trust on the part of Mr. Edward Wakefield, and an abet-
ting of that breach of trust on the part of Mr. Edw. Gibbon Wak-
efield. Those parties therefore were properly before the Court, and
all that was ever demanded was an inquiry into the trust of
which there had been no settlement. The question was not
whether Mr. Wakefield's conduct was proper or not ; into that
he would not enter. The question merely was, whether there
was a sufficient bar to taking the account, for if there was no bar,
an account must be taken. How that account might turn out
was another question ; the person who demanded it did so on her
own responsibility, and if she failed to make it appear that there
were grounds for going into the account, she subjected herself to
all the costs of the inquiry. The Vice-Chancellor then laid it
down distinctly, that where one error was proved in an account,'
though that account had been settled, it was to be opened with
leave to surcharge and falsify. Without entering any further intu
detail, be submitted that an account must be taken, and that there
should be a change of trustees.

The argument; having concluded, the case amide over for !di
Honour's judgment.
Mr. Wakefield, Mr. E. Gibbon Wakefield, and a younger
brother, were in Court during the entire evening.

SINGULAR DUEL.---PARIS, SATURDAY EVEN.
mo.--The famous duel between the Marquess I.ivron and M. du
Tione took place this day at twelve o'clock, in the forest of
Senart, very near the chateau of Madame du Cayla. The whole
affair has the appearance of an act of madmen, and resembles more
a tournament than a modern duel. Du Trone, the young Advo-
cate, was babited in the costume of a Greek chief; each was
mounted on horseback, and had three seconds. The parties were
armed with sabres, and on the onset, Livron was dismounted by
the concussion of
.the horses. Both were slightly wounded, and
the seconds then thought proper to interfere.—What adds to the
singularity of this tournament, is, that it took place in the pre-
sence of 150 spectators ! It is said that the Marquees found
great difficulty in obtaining seconds, and that in • consequence the
duel, which was appointed to take place yesterday, was delayed
until to-day. This affair will form the subject of the gossips of
Paris for weeks to come.

NOVEL FRAUD.-011 Thursday last a man of an
univiting and rather shabby appearance, named May, was examin-
ed before the Mayor, Mr. Alderman Plead, anal Mr. Alderman
Blacken, at our Guildhall, on several charges of cheating Grade-
men of the legal profession in Exeter. A case so uncommon as
that of akin, in the lawyers could not fail to excite consider-
able attention, and to draw forth many singular and crude obser-
vations from persons assembled outside the Hall, as the different
aggrieved parties made their appearance ; sod it was remarked by
one, that, with such a combination of law there was no doubt
justice would be done to the poor unfortunate Wight---so that in
the novelty of the circumstance, the atrocity of the of/testier Was
forgotten. It appears, however, from the depositions of three its-
licitors, that lie bad been obtaining money under false pretences;
his plan was, to go to a solicitor, stating himself to he the pur
chaser of an estate ; he then produces partirulers of the property,
describing every field noel appurtenance unnutely, and the names
of the parties cuucerned in the transfer, all of course fictitious, and
requests the necesaiwy deeds to be drawn. Having established
Illtusiisdeareigolitodwiettentlti,egP:ilfigessitohnl
eanatteustlueiefrsees,
ress
spectable
bnisean of property,
indivitivalri
as
referees, be conies to the real object of his visit, aid asks the loss
of a few pounds to make up the purchase money, promising that
he would get the deed executed, and return it to the Solicitor as a
'kw of sixteen Solicitors in
securityforgreat theextent,
m and
ey
w ae dv
alreadyaee no This artifice he has practised
to
a
this city who have suffered by him. 'seems cues he made oc-
casionalsuited his proferakeed.friends ; and it WAS not always his object
nowutsitilt'lea"nloitald'elr:is " falsehood,"
variations in the description of huiinera on whieh he eon.
to obtain money, but to procure deeds only from one lawyer in
es security for money advent.,
ordereit— rt,ll,l,epcoosoidtlythaent
that in scarcely
a single instance has he failed in despoiling the statutarione
either of sovereigns, stamps, or thee. Maps of the property of
several high characters in this county were found amongst his
August, the prisoner, who then called himself William Parker,
papers. One of the Solicitors stated, that,
came to deponent's office,in the month of
and said he had purchased some, pro-
partyto have a deed prepared, at the tame time requesting a loan of 10/.
01-W. Simon, and wished
in Broadwoodkelly, the property
to snake up the purchase money, which was granted : the stamp
on the deed was of the value of 2/. In the second case de-
posed to, the prisoner called hiniself James!' itall,; residing in St.
David's; he requested the deponent to prepare a lease of some
property in Sandford, for 21 years, and asked the loan of 41.
which deponent complied, with,
Pe;Aoner, promising to, get time
deed executed, and heave it With deponent as security, but ne
did not return: the stamp ou thi lease was for a.
the third cue, the prisoner adopted the, name of James Brown,
living in St. Sidwelfs, and said he had purchased an estate called
New-park, in the parish of Jae°lmow, from Mr. W. 'Rowe, for
21 years, fur the sum of 1411. ; he requested a lease tolbe drawn,
asked for 8 or 101. and 'then fur V., ou the same pretence as in
iimuer instances, but deponent refused to advance him any manes, ;
the stamp On the deed prepared by deponent was for SOs.----1"
every case, the land-tax rate* of these respective parishes have
been examined, and sm such names of lemons or „gates, men-
tioned by the prisoner, appear on them. 'P he prisoner was fully
L committed for trial.......Es.der 41,freti.