The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-13 00:00:00

EVENING SUN

LA W IN TELT 4P;
CHANCERY COURT-(THIS DAY)

WARD V. ALSAGER.—WARD V. WARD.
This case came before the Court upon cause and cross-
cause. The bill was filed by Mr. George Henry v
against Messrs. Alsager and other persons, the assignees
of the estate of Mr. W. Ward, who, some years back'
was Member for the City of London, but against whew,
in April, 1836, a fiat of bankruptcy issued'. The other
defendants to the bill were the children of Mr. F'
Ward. The object of the plaintiff in filing his bill wt
i.l
get himself removed from the trust of a deed execute'
by his father, Mr. George Ward, and alto to obtain tilt
declaration of the Court that he had not committelia4,
breach of trust, and that therefore his estate was not boned
to make good any losses that had taken place. The eir-
cumstanees of the case may be thus shortly stated
Mr. George Ward, the father of the plaintiff; and A't
William Wrard, was in, and prior to the year 1811'
merchant of eminence .in the City of London, and sub-
sequently resided at Nortwood Park, at Cows, in the
Isle of Wight. ,Mr. George Ward being desirous of
doing something for the benefit of his sons,. entered, is
the year 1811, into partnership with him then, and Mr:,
Thompson, who was a clerk in his house. Mr. George
Ward wds to find 100,0001., which was to be the oaln7,
of the partnership, and the two sons and Mr. Thonll3s°l;
were to be the active partners. Each party was to ttra'4o.
out yearly 500/., and the remainder of the profit'
was to go to the capital. The • partnership
t,
carried on with various alterations in its members,
the
Dec. 1825, when Mr. Wm. Ward alone • remained in t'
business. Upon winding up the partnership accoll
the profits were found to be 93,0001. and upwards, which
. was divided equally among all the parties. Mr. GoOrF
Ward's share, the plaintiff and two other gentlemen, were
by the deed he had executed, the trustees upon trust fb,.
the benefit of his two sons, and after their death for the
children of William Ward. At the time of his hank;
ruptcy a great portion of this fund was in the hands ".
William Ward, and by the cross bill filed by the children
of that gentleman, it was sought to charge Mr. Georg'
Henry Ward with the loss occasioned by the bankruptl.
of their father, on the ground that he had committed:''
breach of trust, in allowing the money to remain in I°4
hands. The plaintiff, to relieve himself from the tense'
quences of an act, which had been done out of kintineo
to his brother,"filed the present bill.
TheSolicitor-General, Mr. Girdlestene, and Mr. Calg
bell appeared, for the plaintiff in the original suit of
,
George Henry Ward.
Mr. Bethell, Mr. Piggott, and Mr. Fisher, were COllO-1
sel for the children of Mr. Wm. Ward.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL addressed the Court at --_,,,
siderable length on behalf of the plaintiff; contenkt
that he had done all he could to obtain payment of
money from his brother ; that he had even instituttai'
suit in Chancery against him for that purpose ; and
he had only been restrained from proceeding with Lim-f.
suit through the interposition of Mr. Justice Patter it
who acted as their mutual friend.
The Learned Counsel had not concluded when /I'e
went to press. -

ROLLS' COURT.--(THIS DAY•)

IN RE LAW.
Mr. TINNEY stated that the petition prayed toe-
he
t
proper person should be appointed as a trustee in
,24
place of the late Mr. J. Price, in this matter. In .
a marriage was agreed upon between Mr. Francis Ds.
and MisS Elizabeth Evans. The fortune of Miss Evn,
'
consisted of stock to the amount of 3,2001., which 0;
held in Three per Cent. Consols, and 21,600 rupees s
certain Bengal loans. It was agreed that this sum sh°ll.,
be transferred into the joint hands of trustees, and 1‘
J. Price was one and Mr. J. Beaumont the other, 311,
Mr. Thomas Price was subsequently appointed anothi,t;t
The stock was transferred into their hands on trust
the lady during her life. The trust upon which tb§
stock was to be held provided that after the death of ti;'
1;
wife the trust stock should be allowed to accumulate f°o
the benefit of the children, with no life interest Iv
the husband, and the usual power for appointing "el
trustees. It also provided that the wife, the husban;',
or the survivor, should have the power of appointing t,
new trustee. The petitioner then went on •to sea
J
that 10,400 rupees were brought over to Engh%
and invested in the Three per Cent. Consols ; this sn
being part of the 21,000 rupees in the Bengal loan. 31r:
Law died on the 21st of November, 1827, without
ing exercised 'her appointment, and leaving one clu
In 1834 the death of one of the trustees occurred. ng
the 18th of September, 1834, a deed was executed b
a
tween Mr. F. Law, the husband, ,and the executrix, ant
which recited that the dividends and interest on the
fund had, siocethe death of Mrs. Law, accumulated, ant
which accumulation had caused the principal to aano-
to 6,7871. Three per Cent. Consols, and 1;1,000 rue
jtind the deed witnessed that Thomas Price was appoint
t,,
joint trustee, and the' funds were thereby transferred ;
him jointly upon trust. In 1839 the-two Prices becanit
the only trustees, and on the death of Mr. Beanallit,
Mr.. F. Law being desirous of carrying out the provisl%.
of the trust-deed, requested Mr. George Law, the pee,
tioner, to proceed to the appointment of a new trustee
anal he accordingly wrote to Mr. J. Price for that purr?„o-,
Mr. PEMBERTON objected to the title of the petitl'of
Which should have stated, in the matter of the Act
Parliament.
His LORDSHIP said that the title of the petition ''';jfi4
decidedly incorrect and irregular ; but he had consul, na
his Honour the Vice-Chancellor of Eng'er-
and he thought the objection could be (!st'- '•
p ruled. Mr. Tinney might go on :with ,the etttn)
then, or have it amended, hut if he "proceeded then ue
must stand or fall by it. The parties preparing the P 7,
don evidently wished to try an experiment, there“)-
they put a new title to the petition. The subject-matet.,
ter of the petition was a marriage settlement, and t;
Court had to act upon the Act of Parliament, but li
Lordship was far from thinking the point essential. AI
Afr. TINNEY then proceeded with the petition, wu'"-t0
stated that Mr. Thomas Price refused to be a parc) the
the appointment of a new trustee, as directed by -01,
trust deed. Respecting the costs, the petitioners prali,a
that inasmuch as the neglect of Thomas Price and J° to
Price in acting on the power of attorney, they ouP,eci
pay the costs of this application ; and then it Poi,bo
that the whole fund might be transferred to the name °I to
three trustees. Now if the whole fund were transferred
,t
the names of the trustees, of course the costs could nhig
be deducted out of that fund. The costs of cases of
et
kind were comprehended in the 25th section of the •t"-
of Parliament (Sir-Edward Sugden's Act), which st3tiled
f
that the , disposing of the costs was in the discretion "
the Lord Chancellor and the Court. t
Mr. PEainEwrox replied, and expressed his rekrree
that an. arrangement had not been made be!°,,ja
the parties came into Court, and which course nub
have been adopted ; and it appeared to him to be,r,
matter taken up with much asperity by the petition; ,
against the defendants. The petition states that the ",e,
fendants had imputed to the petitioner a conspirac?'
defraud the estate. They had done no such thing, tileit.l
had never dreamed of such a thing. What they s'f:a
was, that the petitioner was not entitled to an;
amount out of this estate for the maintenance
his child by a former marriage, and which he denuna,
and as the discretionary power of choosing a truiii`e
was vested in him, he refused to agree to the app°lo,
went of a trustee unless they were granted. The go,,t,
tion was, whether there was any jurisdiction in this 04,
ter. If his Lordship would refer to the Act of Pnru;it
meat, there was a provision there made that it
refusal for neglect to comply with the reclil.ebe
made in writing within thirty-one days after LO,
application was made, then the Court had a jurisdietu2l,,
But the party making that appliCation must have an 'he
terest in the trust. Mr. Law had. no such tbingl 1,0
was a stranger to the trust, therefore the Court had J
jurisdiction. He had no objection, and he felt inclio7,o
to recommend to these gentlemen the Messrs. Price,
agree to Some arrangement.
Mr. TINNEY said that perhaps his Lordship iy°,l,o
allow this case to •stand over, to ascertain whether "
arrangement could be made. lot
His Loansnip said he thought that was the best Plan
to adopt, for he thought there were some misapprellei;
sions between the parties. With respect to the costs,
0,
could make no order upon the defendants ; it was c°
c 1
trary to all rule ; but as from whence the costs shoal
come, he could make no specific order till the arrange
meat, if agreed to, was made.
The case was then adjourned,

Y•)

VICE CHANCERY—(THIS DA
(Before the Vice-Chancellor of ENGLAND.)
FAITH AND CATTERWELL V. GIBBS AND C°.
This was a motion to dissolve an exparte iUJ
e.
restraining Emanuel Aguilla or his agents, from rel.,
'ceiving or collecting any part of the out-standing 1)140
sonal estate of Domingo Mattel, in England ; and -to
restraining the defendants, Gibbs, from paying nver,ho
Emanuel Aguilla, or any other person, save under the
direction of the Court, any sum of money due to t"-.
estate of Mattei.
It appeared that the defendants, Gibbs and Co., will:
made the present application, were merchants in
City, and the agents of Emanuel Aguilla, the personi.e
representative of Domingo Mattei, deceased. In To
year 1834, Mattei, who resided at Saint Jose, in the
Brazils, sold his claim to the woods in a certain fet,is ,
in that country to an Englishman, of the name of P;` ~,e
Moore, on condition that he should himself revel
10,000 quintals of the wood. Mattei transferred 11%
claim he thus acquired to Edward Wallens,te,,
the agent of Messrs. Faith and Catterwell, the P.,31/,
tiffs in the present suit, for a consideration of 591 0
~ye
This sum was made payable in three bills of exchal
for 2,0001., 1,9001., and 1,8001., drawn by Walleasteill,;:ja
the plaintiffs. The wood, however, never reach'
country. Moore having cut 14,000 quintals of it, tle;
1
were seized by the Brazilian Government before ~'
were embarked ; but the grounds of this seizure did ere
appear from the documents before the Court, and tther
sae&
was consequently no means of determining rest .;.
Mattei had or had not originally a good title to the 1(-) 0,0
he had sold. In the meantime, Mattei had sent over the
bills of exchange to the Messrs. Gibbs in London, fbr for
purpose of obtaining payment of them. The bill it, a
1,900/. had been parted with by the Messrs. Gibb. ids
third party, for a valuable consideration, and the platt'tber
were in consequence obliged to pay that bill. l'he%bs;
two bills were still in th hands of the Messrs. oit
and the object of the injunction which it was now scA,lO,:
to dissolve, had been to prevent the defendants tits,
transferring those bills to Aguilla. The defends
however, had no personal interest in the matter. 01'
His HONOUR said that he did not feel that he c 0
the
dissolve the injunction as regarded the first part, i; di-
absence of Aguilla, against whom it was principa i
`Ytbe
rected ; and he could not grant the applications tot of
second part, inasmuch as it might lead to a contourtbat
Court. But he should make an order to the effectfroai
the injunction should not prevent the defendants
proceeding with the actions at law.
(Before Vice-Chancellor BRUCE,)
SAMUEL V. 13IGGS. •
11:1
Ilis HoNoun, was engaged throughout the dsl