The Sun.
London, England, 1817-11-19 00:00:00

FUNERAL OF THE PRINCESS CHARLOTTE.

Lord ELLENBOHOUGH announce°, that this
Court would not sit to-morrow, except for the
justification of'bail ; but desired it to be under-
stow!, 'fiat in the cases which stood in tqs Lord-
ship's paper, fit his second Sittings in Term, to.
morrow, though they could not be then tried, yet
-the plaintiffs who should recover verdicts in the
Sittings after Term, - would be entitled to have
judgment as of this Term. .

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 18.

SIR WATKI'S LEvrFS V. MORGA&.

JUDGMENT.

This day judgment was pronounced in favour
of the plaintiff, in the important and long-pend-
ing cause between Sir \V. Lewes and Mr. John
Morgan. ,The motion before rite Court was,
that Sir Watkin should be put into possession of
his estates, so long held by the defendant Mr. J.
Morgan.
After Counsel were beard,
Mr. Baron GRAHAM first proceeded to deliver
his opinion, which he did in the following man-
ner :—" I hope 1 shall not excite any surprize in
the minds of my Learned Brethren, when I de-
clare to them, that I am now ready to proceed
to judgment, without any further consideration of
this case—a case which has occupied so much at-
tention, as to carry something like opprobrium
on that system of jurisprudence in this country,
which has been long and justly the admiration
of the world. I have another reason for deter-
mining to give my opinion now, because this
opinion is so made up and decided, that I am free
to say nothing which can occur by longer pro-
crastinatiOn of the cause is likely to shake it in
the smallest degree. The application before us is
in two parts. I reject the latter, the hearing of
certain affidavits-, because I think them now un-
necessary ; but I embrace the former, namely, the
letting in Sir %V. Lewes into the possession of his
estates, and the making Mr. J. Morgan refund the
monies he has received out of these estates, ultra
the payment of what is called the mortgage mo-
ney, for which they were originally invested. •
This motion is grounded on a report made by
the Deputy Remembrancer, in consequence of
two appeals to time House of Lords, who directed
that a certain account should be taken, and the
result communicated-to this Court. The House
of Lords, when it made this order, definitively
stated that the mortgage money alone came into,
the hands of John Morgan, in his capacity as.
agent to the estate, and in no other. By the
Deputy Remembrancer's report, it appears that
the whole of this mortgage Money (originally
stated to be 12,0000 was paid off, principal
and interest, in the year 1804 ; and that so far as
the accounts of rents, profits, and value of tins-
her cut down, were since taken, that is, up to
1807, John Morgan had received, ultra this
morgage sum-(the only one he was•entitled to re-
ceive in the situation in which he stood), MI.
which, at a calculation made in the most favour-
able mauner for the defendant, must now leave
in his hands 49091. beyond the mortgAge claim.
On General principles, then, why should cot this
sum be giVen up to the plaintiff, to whom of right
it belongs ? It is hard to answer this question.
The mortgager,has paid the mortgagee, the re-
ceiver (if he be, the receiver) has taken beyond
the, amount of his trust ; why then should not
the surplus so paid be given back to the real
owner ? Now let us revert to the original frame
of the bill filed in 1783, on which John Morgan
lays the stress of his being an injured man,
and one to whom the plaintiff is still largely in-
debted. According to the matter on which that
bill is founded, it appears, that MOrgrin told Sir
'Watkin be bad received 13,0001. for him which
he would account for in the general settlement.
The latter, astonished at hearing this, naturally
wonders Imps; a larger sum than two or three
`thousand pounds could have been at that early pe-
riod received by the defendant on his account.
Sir %Vatkin then says, ' If that be the case, NI •
pay off the mortgage ; I'll pay you also every
halfpenny I owe you, and give me back myestates.'
Under this idea, and under this information, Sir
Watkin tiles his original Bill, and makes the

next.

• above declaration„.-But did he, when he said
ever mean to charge his estates, in a legal sense,
its this manner with any sums beyond the moil•.
gage account He did not, he could not ; lot -
the settled estate put it ont of his 'power to ex.,.
ceed the terms of the original investiture. Sup
pose it were possible to bind. him to the words of
the original. Bill, see how every feature of the
case, as it then stood, has been subsequently
al-
tered. 1-Vben the answer of Mr. John Morgaa
was put in to the bill, Sir Watkin naturally said,
•t 1 never received this money he alludes to:
IVell, then, another alteration, giving the cause
a different shape, took place in 1801, when the
separate Report was made ; a double motion was.
then made, apparently with the coneurrence rif
both parties, and I remember very little argued;
the result of that motion was deemed unsatisfac.,
tory, and an appeal to the House of Lords fol-
lowed. On that occasion the 1-louse of Lords nu..
questionably disallowed the 4,2001. claimed by
Morgan, as against the Trustees, under a ho•id
of John Adams and others, and said this is alf
shuffling, and desired that the Deputy-Ref:hem-
!mincer should put this bond out of that p.vt •
his inquiry," and confine hiwsel,. to an acenuat
of tl,e bona fide ,t111i• paid i'llgin.,Ay to V
Lewes by the 'flustees, tut monies after
ward's had in, reduction thereof. Morgan, thus
finding himself convicted (for callow use
softer terns) of the legal fraud -of attempting to
charge this bond on the Trustees, then turns
round and charges it on the rstate. 'this was n 0...,!
thing less than trifling with the justice of the
House of Lords ; and supposing that, by an act
of iniquity detected elscw:tere, he was entitled to
an advantage in equity merely by shifting his
ground. The House of Lords put Adams's baud
out of the ques!ion, and threw Lim, be his claim
what it may, pro Junto not on the estate in right
of mortgage, but on the general issue as a cre.•
ditor."

The Learned BARON, after a variety of area.
mews, which our limits will not at present 4citnit
of our giving, decided that Sir Watkin Lewei
should be let into the possession torth►eith of the
estates ; and that Mr. John Morgan should, with,
in a reasonable time, pay into Court the sums he
had received since the mortgage paid off, to
abide the issue of the general account.

Mr. Baron WooD delivered his opinion at rear
length, and in direct opposition to the judgment
pronounced by the preceding Judge.
Baron GARROW, in a Most impressive speech'
declared his full' and unqualified concurrence
the judgment so ably delivered by'BaronGraharn. ••••
In every comment he made, whether of eltwida4 •
don or animadversion, be decidedly sap, iesccd;
,The subject was only known to him (Baron Gar•
row) as it was unto the public, until took
'seat at the Bench ; and from the first moment it

was brought before him, he felt it a duty to liavd
the decision as prompt as possible, as, abstract-
edly speaking, lie could not but consider such pro..
'tracted litigation a reproach .to the admi.nistratioa
of justice. It was with regret be differed from his
Learned Brother who last addressed tbe Court.
Much was said of the ability and capacity of Sit'
W. Lewes to guard himself against fraud. But to
those observations he-would answer, that ever
day's experience proved, as his Learned Brother
(Baron Grahem) had so justly said, that candid
imposition was as successful in practising its
ecits on the confidence as on the distresses and
ignorance of its victims. His own impresion was,
that the amount of the received rents since the
payment of the mortgages ought to be forth wit Li
paid over to Sir W. Lewes, tnAt they olynt 10
constitute a fund to enable him to purstt, hif
claims, and not be longer left in the hahils of
who at the moment fly held possession cat tns
estates, by arming himself s‘itn the whole pro,
perty of Sir V. Lewes, had consigned him and:
the heiress of a tine estate to penury, and tb
father to long-continued imprisonment. But tin.

der every consideration of the case, and in tie
hope of furthering the ent.s of ,justice, lie eon-curd
red in the decision of his Learned Brother; he
trusted ,that this case would render a %%hole-smug-
lesson to Solicitors, who, as they valued theit':
character and property, ►vould be circuntvect itt
their conduct when they became loan-dealers to:
their clients.

A further motion was. about to he made by Mr,
AGAR, asking the directions of the Court, that
Sir W. Lewes might be allowed to take rests on
the balance of the received rents ; that is, that in
every year the amount of rent received exceeded
the interest of the mortgage, interest should be
allowed for the surplus to Sir Watkin. This

erior motion was Axed for argument on Saturday

SHOCKING AccineNT.—Monday night, a mad
in the employ of M.r. Edwards, of Newcross,
Kent-road, was driving a waggon from his mas-
ter's house to Messrs. Barclay and Perkins' brew
house,Uor a load of grains ; when he was at the
far end of the Borough, several children asked
him to let them ride ; he foolishly acceded to the
request of a boy about nine years of age, the sort
of a poor Irish woman named Mullins, and placing .
him on the shaft of•the waggon, drove on. As he
was going past the end of Union-street, in the
Borough, the' road being uneven, the boy was
thrown off the shaft ; a hackney-coach unfortu-
nately passing at the time, went over the boy and
killed him on the spot. The mother of theehild

as been ever since in a state of distraction. ,