The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-19 00:00:00

BLACKBURN V. STANLLAND AND SONVERBY.

The bill in .this case was filed by the plaintiff, who is a
wine-merchant, for the purpose of obtaining the decree of
the Court that the defendants were liable to account for
the property of the business alleged to have been carried on
by the defendant Staniland in his character as executor, and
also for the assets which were admitted to have been re-
ceived by both the defendants on account of the estate of a
gentleman named Thomas Clifford.

From the statements in the bill it appeared that some
years ago Mr. Thomas Clifford carried on the business of au
innkeeper at the Palace Inn, Sheffield, and in that character
he had dealings with the plaintiff, who was a wine-mer-
chant, and became indebted to him to the extent of 991.
The plaintiff brought an action against Mr. Clifford for the
amount, but before the proceedings advanced so far
as the plaintiff's obtaining judgment, Mr. Clifford
died. The defendant Staniland, who was his sole
executor, carried on the business afterwards, as it
as alleged, as executor of Clifford, but, as he asserted,
for the creditors. The other defendant, Mr. Sowerby, who
was a solicitor, it was alleged, had acted as such to Staniland
in his character of executor. In these characters certain
funds cameiuto their hands, which they deposited in the hands
of Messrs. Shores and Co., bankers of Sheffield. These
funds were lost in consequence of the bankruptcy of Messrs.
Shores, and the object of the present bill was to compel the
defendants to make good the amount, and also to compel
Staniland to account for the profits he had made by carrying
on the business of the Palace Inn, at Sheffield.

Mr. Stuart and Mr. Campbell appeared for the plaintiff.
Mr. James Parker and Mr. Bethell were Counsel for the
defendants, and contended that they were acting as the ser-
vants of the creditors, and as such were not liable personally
to make good any losses that had occurred.

His HONOUR at the conclusion of the argument gave judg-
ment, dismissing both the original and supplemental bills
with costs.

(Before Vice-Chancellor WronAm.)
SHARP V. TAYLOR.

His HONOUR pronounced judgment on the exceptions taken
in this case by the plaintiffs and defendants. The first of the
plaintiffs' exceptions was allowed, the account being subject
to a correction by striking out the sum of 1,0001.; the other
exceptions were allowed. On the eighth, which wasthat the
Master had committed a certain witness, and received evi-
dence, his Honour said he had seen the Master, who in refer-
ence to this said he conceived himself justified in receiving
the evidence, for reasons not stated in Court, but such as in
his Honour's opinion ought not to have prevailed. He was
extremely sorry to allow this exception, but Mr. Burge's
client, (one of the defendants), would have the benefit of its
going back to the Master; the 3d, 4th and sth exceptions
being in consequence drawn with it again before the Master.
Of the exceptions by the defendants, that having reference
to the 7441. net proceeds of 100 bales of cotton shipped for
Liverpool, at Charleston, was reserved for further directions.
Another exception was taken to the charge of half the ex-
penses incurred by Mr. Hodgson, and placed to Mr. Sharp's
debit; Mr. Hodgson was employed by Robertson without
the privity of Sharp, and sent out on instructions and
matters in which Sharp had no interest; but while out. Mr.
Hodgson did act in matters where Sharp was concerned, and
in consequence one-half of his whole expenses, which
amounted to 4001., was charged to Sharp. This exception
must be referred back to the Master, with liberty to Taylor
to show, if he can, whether any of such moneys expended
by Hodgson are to be allowed out of the sum due to Sharp.
Reference was made again to the Master on the seventh and
eighth exceptions, on account of imperfection and incon-
clusiveness in the Master's finding.