The Sun.
London, England, 1827-12-22 00:00:00

SHIP-PIN - • - . , .
Q INTELLIGENCE--(THIS DAY.) I bill cannot be sustained, Upon the authority, therefore,
of these two opinions, I inn of opinion then that the de-
murrer ought not to be allowed. The question depends
entirely upon the construction of the instrument set out
in the bill, and I am of opinion that that instrument
doei not convey any interest to Tacon and Serne
n this property. The bill, therefore, cannot he sustained.
Sir C. WETHERELL then applied for leave to amend the

FROM LLOYIYS.
DE4I, DEC. 21.--Arrived the Europe, Brown,
remain.
from Trieste.
The
wholeThof the outward-bound
"
FALMOUTH' DEC. 26. vv Ivrur A rri veu
the L°lll Hobart Packet, from the Leeward Islands. b
The D.
—ope, of Sunderland, sunk on Scroby Saud
on Thursday night.
B The Olympic, from Havre to Monte Video and
thuee"BYres) was wrecked the eml of October on
Coast of Africa, about 300 Colonists saved.

His Loanstxip overruled the demurrer without preju-
dice to any amendment. He considered it a case of great
importance, Machardo having in his hands a vast suns of
money (upwards, we believe, of 100,0001.), which he bad
no right to retain.-

NEROT U. BURNAM).

LAW INTELLIGENCE41M=PM.1........1
THIS DAY.)

The Loan CHANCELLOR said this was a bill filed by
James Nerot against George Burnand and his wife, to ob-
tain the dissolution of the partnership and for an account.
The transaction was of this nature :—A person of the
name of Nerot kept an betel in King-street, St. James's.
In the year 1798, being then in the occupation of the pro-
perty, he made his will, and by that will he bequeathed the
residue of his property to his only children, his soil and
daughter, Mr. Nerot, the plaintiff, who was then about
twenty years of age, and Mary (the female defendant), his
sister, who was then living with him ou the premises.
In his will the testator declared that it was his intention
to assign over the house, the property in it, and the busi-
ness, to two trustees, for the benefit of his son and daugh-
ter. No such assignment, however, was ever made, and
by his will he appointed his daughter his executrix, who,
up to that time, had managed the business of the house.
After the death of the testator, she took possession of the
property as executrix, and conducted the business as be-
fore; and there can be no doubt that she and her brother
were entitled jointly to the property. The business was
carried on by Miss Nerot upon the premises, in King-
street, until 1809 or 1810. Mr. Nerot was frequently
absent from the country ; he carried on business of some
description in France. In the year 1809 the lease of the
house in King-street being about to expire, a negociation
was opened by Miss Nerot, fur the purchase of a house in
Clifford-street, with the view of transferring the business to
that house. In the course of that negotiation she made an
'application to a Mr. Carey, who acted in this country as
the agent of her brother, for an advance of money to assist
her in the purchase of that house. He demurred for a
considerable time, at last he agreed to advance 4001., but
in the mean time money had been procured from an-
other quarter. The business was ultimately trans-
ferred to the Clifford-street house, purchased by Miss Nerot
and she continued to conduct it there as formerly, until
1819. In September er October of that year, the plain-
tiff being en the Continent, she married the other de-
fendant, Mr. Burnand. As soon as Mr. Nerot heard of
this he was dissatisfied with it, and declared the partner-
ship to be dissolved. He filed his bill in Hilary Term,
1880. No delay, therefore took place between his hearing
of the marriage and his determination to act ou that mar-
riage as a dissolution. The answer set up to the bill was,
that shortly after the death of the testator, an agreement
had been come to between his son and daughter,
(Mr. Nerot alleging that it was inconsistent with his views
in life to be concerned in this business), that the property
should be valued, and that half the amount of the valuation
should be paid to Mr. Nerot. The Vice-Chancellor di-
vested an issue to try the fact, whether such an agreement
had been entered into or not. Upon the trial of that
issue, before the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Nerot, Mrs.
eßi‘ws
enieuertrmre.
enr
Neeaddnd, a
eorftoo t.oh opinion
into—consequently
aivnßei
000tnbtiele
etn trhisi
e, w
ao
tfLoonperoirdne
Cot le:
exmined, and the Jury
suchi
tyeahf
netpideacnie,itenanaeitrl
and the
partnership
eeext
Jib esutfeero idyri
between those parties. Lord Eldon,atfja oguatagreement
however, has observed
and justly observed, that the Chief Justice had nothing to
do with the partnership ; that the Jury had nothing to do
with it ; so that, whatever impression was made on their
minds with respect to the existence of a partnership, as
they had no authority to decide the question, although all
parties were examined before them, I must lay entirely out
of my view. In the answer it is stated that the parties canie to
no account whatever except the supposed account which was
referred to the decision of the jury. The case therefore,
stands thus :—These parties were jointly interested in this
property upon the death of this testatoe; no account has
ever been come to ; Miss Nerot has continued in the oc-
cupation of the property from 1804 to 1819, and the only
question is, whether those parties were partners,—whether
_they carried en the business in partnership,—the business
having actually been conducted by Miss Nerot alone.
—I have read the evidence several times, with a
view of coming to what I consider a just conclu-
sion; and though I , have entertained. doubts,. . at dif-
ferent periods, I think in the result, I am bound to decide
that there was a partnership existing up to the marriage of
Miss Nerot. I am bound to decide that, melees I reject

xx TR COURT O CHANCEY.
- lIATTEK or THE REV. 241E.R
HOLIIES, A SUP-
POSED LUNATIC.
Messrs
OORN moved that an order be served upon
sr2;r:VlHiolnlme
Holmes
snd Parry, solicitors, in the Temple,
that Arr
may be' produced at Nottingham,
" the 27th inst., upon the execution of the corn-
Ifinissi"; becausev ever y exertion had been used to
lid M • and ..trs. tiolmes, without effect. A mes-
senger had been sent to Mr. Holmes's residence, to
Liverpool t
,to ..1.
13...0, and to several other places, but
it;.(l not been able to find him i they believed that
:Ilya; intentionally kept out of the way.
made the order, and directed that
"lorlic iilBlol,lolnuens
before t- enaington and Arnold should see Mr. Holmes
he 27th.

JUDGMENT.
Th -.. arss OP SPAIN V. HALLET, &C.
e "RI) CHANCELLOR gave judgment in. this
case, The li. bill
1e..; ° tect of the (said his Lordship) is
to obi
from the defendants an account of certain
-,_
eh tging to the plaintiffs, which came into
v enfiania cb°' the defendants. By virtue of a con-
meet: - of WaS entered into between the Govern-,
Fran: °f France and Spain, the Gd.vernment of
sum of look upOn itself to appropriate a certain
i•Money for the purpose
pub led tbeing IT'
"f
'h the
0 the liquidation of certain claims which jeet
of .
i„ s Spain bad upon the French Government,
t'ro°tisideration of certain circumstances when he
was' of France occupied Spain. The stipulation
, not that so much money should be paid, but
that a .
in
the certain quantity of rentes should be
vats tue Great Book of France, and that inscriptioninseribed
sons be be made in the name of such persotn
olrt was
per-
Put ins the King of Spain should al
Ski the Great Book in the nan'ieP
of the 1811 Consul in France. In pursuance
it
eonyew .
ti
.00inf the then
was 'ion the inscription was made, but before
Nlieb:°,l4leted, that Consul was., em.oved, and
of 11,110 substituted in his
e inscriptionthat
the i placeen, the part
to the nelmer Consul's numbed
scripti„-ane of Michardo, and in that trmanasdfeerreida
was
sname the in-
Was. 1;1 wag completed. Soon aften.vardns
sateenivdi.l.
ing •nte out in Fr„ce, and the inseripteioname
of
Miclb the Great Book of France in h
Props 4da, he being apprehensive thattth
tookrtY flight be in some way divested
of the in-
to him,en s e
seriptii!°o himself to sell the whole oisutimo
for some time
to tti 7, end with the proceedshoafesuch sale he came.
he ils!and. After lie was .
and he afterwards:
arid Co ordeposited.money,
ned
went ,113,1113 Y part of this
where he wan residing
when to pant
Netherlands,
arras g •'''' bill was filed. Subsequent to the next
when the
civil Vlleuts between France and Spain,
the er had determined, application was made by
pay over this
/non 11)R. of Spain to Michardo to
the e)r, or to deposit it in the Bank of England ;
and 4415,?iieation was made by the Secretary of State,
two t,'terwards by two individuals at the heads of the
tic f,`-loverninents, the one appointed for liquidating
peal ili'nrid, and the other from the Tribunal of Ap-
twn In consequence of instructions from these two,
n- Persons were appointed for collecting in this
lapC;lleY, they were Tacon and Serne, two of the
i :'iltiffa on the record. They came to this coun-
till* ttnd filed the bill in their names and in that of
t4.l(ing of Spain, against Hallet and Co. and
antrrdii 0. To this bill there is put in a demurrer;
l'ae ~e Point argued on the demurrer was, that
so s„1 and Serne had no interest in that property
tlia;t,se entitle them to sue for it in this Court ; and
.
the. 'L they had no interest, their. being joined with
inter king of Spain, assuming that he has an
tlieest, that that was a ground to sustain
is ~dernurrer. The first question. therefore
u) "ether Tacon and Serne have any interest in the
'lll‘t3tel:ertY. The question of whether they have any
lfaet est or not depends upon a very short statement.of
I 41jaud a material document set forth in the. bill.
:(Ivitl,l' 4ssum that the King of Spain has an interest
ihlai, -roll rnoneey, and I think there is no doubt that
who
4(1 ,;',O tribunals were instructed to ascertain I
1151 -.Tuts on the fund—they were merely triwbu-
-44,48 -1; adjudication. After the claims had been as-
the Pertt they were to give certificates, and
tiled loos holdinthose certificates were to be en-
4Luountt° receives sums corresponding with the
get tit. stated inthem. In consequence of this, to
king of tlg Of b eY out of the hands of Michardo, the
"rorri'l •'Pain authorised those two tribunals or
get 1-6% • some person or persons to
the eta to appoint
were
~ItiCaal • the two persons already named
toe ,3° pointed, by an instrument set out o
rae
t:ecord.
That' instrument does appear to
s
very (I)iki:e very like a power
,s, gives
Thep, an English power of of attorney—it. i
attorney; .
taneesN'wer to • sue, demand, and give Icquit-
in the
B 1, ' IN then
of it in some
a° of t, to deposit the money
°tiler ni "`sngland, or to dispose
title
struMent ea pointed out. I
and 8, u
rn e° veye any interest
whatever to Tacon
for ft -e. it s do not think this in-
. - -.lose ba, 1••• a mere authority to act
in -he -vuo suggested
It was
coots 111 they represent.
difficult to be
as attornies
quite 814;1 of the aument, to be
awes rtueetdhaccording
er,,,aet :le import of this instrument. It was
e
-41st:tad in -Pain, ad it was said that it was to b.
set out on
to the laws of Spain. The an
tile're nr, at argllntent is obvious. It is
naturael-") and we must construe it according to the
Fete 141 Port of the terms in this country.. If i
e to b
according to
'''roe R e construed otherwise, and
41 teL"Paaiall interPratation, it was incumbent on the pare-
beio.'° set it out on the bill to have stated so ; but there
to its 110 such statement ro.a
—esi must construe it according
rind '" obvious import here and I think, after having 1"-
atto it with my best attention, that it is a mere power of
pri t. 4% authorising those parties to act on behalf of theire
ii...cpal; that being so, there are on this record, the
leave •SPain, who has as interest, and two persons who
:led inttrolt. as platffs who, it is said, ought to have
vrhotn' ntltiei:rtheir own names, but in thed, names of those
ground of
not, a
tive of v ' represent 1 atA the question is, is this, or is it
, the
record WithIt would be due-
pneral detnurrer ?
erygreat inconven' if it were not. If a party
could join ience
an individual who had an interest,
opinion 't ' that
in
Party having no interest, m, my
lint it ? would be Productive of the greatest inconvenience.
priu • lis most necessary for me to reason this on general
tins- and because the point has been decided in two dis-
. and n, :
precise cases, b the late Vice-Chancellor, the
131e;rit Master of the Rolls): ,and in one of these cases, Cuff
v. aster
11;ttell, decided in the year 1t522, a person of the name
was in °ln fell into embarrassment, and an arrangement
heneatadoe that he should assign over his property for the
and the 6fl'is creditors. An assignment was draws out,
name of C.°,63 named were Cuff, and a man of thde.
Linen, `inffiths, hut the assignment was never executed.
the suit afterwards became insolvent. The defendant in
Whicil Platen, took possession of part of the property,
caff, !.ashl. Subsequently a commission issued, and
t 1,, Aned by the other assignee, filed a bill against
well for the r •of the ofthe property he
ad „to., ecovely e amount
and
4 upoo
bye" A general demurrer was put in to that bill,
not .., argument it turned nut that the assignment had
the
miszt. executed. The Vice-Chancellor, therefore, said
intere,itarnent not having been executed, Griffiths had no
, in conjilus,(.l that having no interest, he had no right to sue
serest : angra with Cuff, who, it appeared,' had an in-
the demurretrlait he was of opinion on that ground, that
came again h_,,asght not to be allowed. The same question
Make ""re the same Learned Judge, in the case of
Peace v. %% in 1827. The objection there
did not appear on t
~ .
it, and ahe ind ,sine,
11, the def d
.en_ant, therefore, pleaded
' Pleat of Judge was in these
terrns—" The general the Learned
interest bathe m
an-on,Pes, tion is, if one plaintiff..
has an
not, Aloes sac ""aeseit, and the other plaintiff, have
. h unction of a • on the record make
the Bill demurrable ? Upon eZnaarttdieeeration. I retain the
sante opinion I expressed on the arguments that such a

the evidence of Mr. Carey. His Lordship then said, Mr.
Carey in kis evidence proved, that he had frequently
examined Miss Nerot's books on the part .of the plaintiff;
that she had admitted to him at different periods, that she
was in partnership with the plaintiff; and under these cir- •
cumstances, his Lordship felt bound to confirm the
Vice-Chancellor's decree, so •far as it established it
partnership up to the marriage of Miss Nerot,—
His Lordship, however, differed from the view which
the Vice-Chancellor had taken of the partnership
property ; he directed an enquiry before the Master
to ascertain what part of the partnership property remained
on the premises at the time of the dissolution of the part-
nership, and what the value of that property was. The
Master to make a separate report on this inquiry, which
the would afterwards deal with. "