The Sun.
London, England, 1827-05-28 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.—SCOTCH APPEALS.
LAING, APPELLANT-STRUTHERS, RESPONDENT.
This Appeal, which was in part heard on Wednesday
last, came on to-day for further argument, before the
Master of the Rolls, the Marquis of Lansdown, Viscount
Sidmouth, and Lord Selsie.
The facts of the case are shortly these : —Struthers having
purchased certain property from an individual who after-
wards became a bankrupt, employed Laing, who is
a conveyancer, to draw up the necessary securities.—
This Laing undertook to do, but in consequence of his
having neglected to procure the confirmation of the Supe-
rior (the Lord of -the Fee), the creditors of the bankrupt
obtained a preference over the security of Struthers, who
thereby lost the money which he had , paid for the pur-
chase. Struthers, upon this, brought an action against
Laing, fur the recovery of the moneyso lost, on the grounds
that as Laing had neglected to make up the titles suffici-
ently, he had rendered himself responsible to his client.
The case was tried before the Court of Session in Scot-
land, and a verdict returned for Struthers; and from that
decision the present appeal was lodged. ..

COURT OF CHANCERY.
GROVES V. NEWGILL.

Mr. SuanEN moved that this cause, which stood for
hearing before the Vice Chancellor, might be ordered to be
transferred to the paper of the Master of the Rolls. His
client had, some time ago, obtained the opinion of the
present Vice Chancellor, and he objected to his cause being
heard before a Judge who had, in his character of counsel,
given a decided opinion against him.
Mr. BARBER objected to this. If the cause were to be
transferred to the Master of the Rolls, the consequence
would be, that it would be placed at -the bottom of his
paper, though it now stood nearly at the top of the paper
in which it was.

His LORDSHIP considered it most reasonable that the
suitor should have his cause heard before a Judge who had
given no opinion respecting it; therefore Mr. Sugden
might apply to Sir John Leach, to know if he could, con-
sistently with his paper, appoint it to be heard on an early
day, if not-he (the Lord Chancellor) would hear it himself.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
MARSACK V. BAILIE AND ANOTHER.

In this case an injunction had been granted to restrain
the defendants, who are builders in the neighbourhood of
Manchester-square, from proceeding in an action at law
against the plaintiff, for the recovery of a bond for the sum
of 2,6001., on the ground that the bond had originated in
a fraudulent and usurious transaction. The plaintiff's
bill also prayed, that the bond might be delivered
up to be cancelled, on the plaintiff's undertaking to
pay the. sum actually due on it. It appeared, the
plaintiff, who is the eldest son of the late Charles
Marsack, Esq. of Devonshire Part, in the County of
Oxford, being in very embarrassed circumstances,
was induced by Mr. Wilson, a banker, in consideration of
receiving the sum of 3000/. to give Wilson three separate
bonds for 50001. each, payable at the expiration of six
months after the death of the plaintiff's father. Of the
30001. which were to form the consideration for, the ,
three post obit bonds, the plaintiff actually received f but
1,700/. In August 1819, the defendants, who are builders,
residing in the neighbourhood of Manchester-square, and
who had been employed by Wilson in erecting a house for
him in Hertfordshire, were proceeding in an action at
law against -him for the recovery of certain bills which
he had given to the defendants on account of the build-
ing-work so done. It was then arranged between all the
parties that Mr. Wilson should cancel one of the bonds
for five thousand pounds, and that the plaintiff should
pass a bond for 2,600/. to the defendants, that being the
amount of Wilson's debt to them, and that he aliould also
pass a bond for the remaining 2,400/. to Wilson himself.
'These bonds were made payable in the same manner as the
original ones, none of which contained any contingency as
to survivorship, but were to be binding on the plaintiff's
executors, administrators, or assigns, even in the event of
his dying before his father. The elder Mr. Marsack died
ill November 1819; Wilson having become a bankrupt,
his assignees brought an action for one of the ori-
ginal bonds in the Court of King's Bench. It was
therefore referred to the Master to say what part of
the 1,7001. advanced to the plaintiff was attributable to
that particular bond. The Master found that the Assig-
nees were entitled only to 7421. for principal and inter-
est; that sum was accordingly paid, and the bond was
cancelled.—The other bond for 5,000/. was assigned by
Wilson before his bankruptcy, and still remains outstand-
ing. The defendants, in their answer, deny any knowledge
of the manner in which the bonds for 5,000/. had been
obtained, and insist on their right to recover, on the
grounds that the bond for 2,6001. passed to them had been
given for a valuable consideration. The plaintiff on-the
other hand submitted, that the defendants must have been
in full possession of all the circumstances connected with
the original proceedings, inasmuch as he Mr. Manning,
who had acted as solicitor for Wilson, in the first instance,
and was therefore necessarily privy to the original fraud,
was also engaged to prepare the defendants' bond, and was
in constant communication with them during the treaty
which preceded that transaction.

Mr. -SUGDEN and Mr. CHYNG were heard against dis-
solving the injunction.
Mr. HEALD addressed the Court for the defendants, and
Mr. PErYs and Mr. Mooan are to follow on the came side.