The Sun.
London, England, 1829-07-08 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

ROLLS COURT, JULY 7.
CHAMPION AND MAW.
This was a bill tiled by the plaintiff for an account
of trinkets and jewels belonging to a testatrix at the
time of her decease, and not specifically devised; also
praying that all articles of jewellery bequeathed to
Ann Champion by the testatrix, and not already
made over to her, be delivered up by the defendant,
who is the executor of the will.
The MASTER of the ROLLS said, it appeared that
the testatrix, after excepting some particular articles,
bequeathed to the plaintiff all her other trinkets and
jewels. That was a very indefinite expression; and
if the plaintiff pressed for an inquiry as to what trin-
kets the testatrix died possessed of which were not
specifically devised, the Court would grant the ap-
plication at the plaintiff's risk.
ELSWORTIIY AND BIRD.
This was a bill for the specific performance of an
agreement.
_ . . . _

-The case is simply this :—Mr. and Mrs. Bird are
husband and wife. The plaintiff is Mrs. Bird's fa-
ther. Very unhappy disputes having arisen between
Mr. and Mrs. Bird, a charge of cruelty was insti-
tuted by the latter against her husband, whom she
accused of assaulting her, and confining her in a dark
room. Mr. Bird was indicted for an assault on his
wife at the Somersetshire Quarter Sessions, and
found guilty. The Court recommended that an ar-
rangement should be made by the parties, with a
view to prevent the occurrence of future disagree-
ments. In consequence of this recommendation an
agreement was entered into on the part of Mr. and
Mrs. Bird, and signed by their legal advisers. By
this arrangement a separation was agreed on, Mr.
Bird consenting to pay 50!. a-year for his wife's sup-
port to her father and brother as trustees; and it
being also provided that all further litigation con-
nected with the transactions in question, or the al-
leged conduct of Mrs. Bird, should be discontinued.
Mr. BICKERSTETH, for the plaintiff, who filed this
bill in his character of trustee to enforce the contract
for the maintenance of Mrs. Bird, said it was in evi-
dence that Mr. Bird had acquiesced in the arrange-
ment,' in consequence of which only a nominal
punishment was inflicted on him by the Court upon
his conviction. It would be sufficient to prove that
the agreement (which had been fulfilled by the de-
fendant) was entered into by his consent and au-
thority. _ .

Evi►lence was read on the part of the plaintiff,
proving that defendant acquiesced in the arrange-
ment.

The MASTER of the ROLLS said, from the evi-
dence adduced on the part of the plaintiff, it was
clear that Mr. Bird finally acquiesced in the settle-
ment by which an allowance was provided for his
wife's maintenance. There must, therefore, be a
decree in favour of the plaintiff for the specific per-
formance of the agreement, and that decree must be
with costs. The Master would settle what was due
and prepare a proper deed for the payment of the al-
lowance as made by the agreement.
DRURY AND ATKINS.
This was a bill filed by the executors of the late
Admiral Drury against Alderman Atkins, calling
upon him to produce the accounts of certain transac-
tions which took place between the Admiral and
himself in his capacity of a navy agent from 1787,
down to 1814, the date of his employer's death, and
aubsequeutly till a still later period, at which the

affairs of the deceased were managed by the de-
fendant for the executors.

His HONOUR, after stating that he should dismiss
the bill ►with costs, so far as it sought to open the
accounts generally, observed, he ►was afraid that he
could not refuse an inquiry (if the plaintiffs ►would
take it with costs) whether, according to the usage
and custom of agents or merchants, Mr. Alderman
Atkins was entitled to retain a sum of 40U1., re-
ceived by him in 1814, without bringing it to ac-
count till the time of the average of the insurance
being settled or compromised, putting it to the Mas-
ter to state special circumstances.

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JULY 7.
DEL PONT V. DE TASTET.
Mr. HORNE (with whom was Mr. Pemberton)
appeared for the plaintiff. The circumstances of
the case were these :—The plaintiff, who was a
merchant at Madrid, sent produce to Lima through
the agency of Braman() and Co., of Hamburgh.
This took place in 1808, when England was at war
with Spain, and when, consequently, all trade be-
tween Spain and her colonies was either cut off or
rendered very insecure. This country, however,
was in the habit of granting licences to the vessels
of neutral states to carry on the trade ; and thus it
happened that the plaintiff (Del Pont) sent his
produce to Lima, through the agency of an Ham-
burgh house. The produce was sold for 1,3164
doubloons (being equal to 4,4461. 13s. 11d. ster-
ling), and the doubloons were consigned by Bran.:
tano and Co. to their agent De Tastet, in London,
whom they directed to hold them for the plaintiff.
A correspondence took place between the plaintiff
and defendant, and the result was that the doubloons
were sold for the above-mentioned sum, which the
defendant agreed to hold for the plaintiff, allowing
him in the mean time 44 per cent. upon it. Bren-
tano and CO. subsequently found that Del Pont
owed money to a certain Spanish nobleman who
was indebted to them, and, upon making this dis-
covery, they wrote to De Tastet, desiring him not
to give up the money realized by the sale of the
doubloons to Del Pont, but to hold it for them in
discharge of the debt due from Del Pont to their
debtor. The defendant had thought proper to
obey their instructions, and therefore, after every
other means had failed, the plaintiff had been com-
pelled, in 1822, to file this bill against the defend-
ant, in order to compel the restitution of that
property which the latter thus unjustly withheld
from the former.
. The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, the money must be
paid over to the plaintiff, with five per cent. interest
upon it from the period at which it came into the
hands of the defendant, to the time at which it had
been lodged in Court under an order made by Lord
Eldon at a former hearing of the cause. All the
costs must fall upon the defendant.
HUME V. SHEPHARD.
This was a case in which a testator in his will
had used the following words :—" After paying all
my lawful debts and funeral expences, I bequeath to
my son, James Sorrel, the sum of 400/.," &e. This
son was an illegimate child, and at a former period
the testator had entered into a bond to give him
400/. on his (the testator's) decease, or on his son's
coining of age. It was now sought to recover upon
the bond as a debt, in addition to the leaaey of
4001. in the will. A report was made to the Mas-
ter, who had reported that the bond was a debt,
and the case was now heard on exceptions to the
Master's report.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR agreed with the Master,
and confirmed the report.—Costs to be paid out o
the testator's estate.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 7.

PEYTON V. THE GOVERNORS OF ST. THOMAS'S