The Sun.
London, England, 1829-11-26 00:00:00

EX-PARTE THE LATE SHERIFFS OF MIDDLESEX.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved for a rule to
show cause why the judgment and execution for
16,0001., in the cause of " Wilton v. Chambers,"
should not be set aside. The Learned Counsel
stated that this application arose out of the bank-
ruptcy of Messrs. Chambers, the late bankers. The
question which he was about to submit to their
Lordships had been before this and another Court
in a variety of shapes, but this was the first time that
it had been submitted to the Court in the shape of
an application to set aside the-judgrtint, and exe-N.
cation issued at the suit of Mr. Wilton. The pfl-
sent application was made on behalf of Messrs. Fare-
brother and Winchester, the late Sheriffs of Mid-
dlesex, to whom a writ of fieri facial had been di-
rected, at the suit of Mr. Wilton. The affidavits
stated that this Mr. Wilton was an attorney, who,
after having resided at a variety of places, took the
benefit of the Insolvent Debtors' Act. Soon after
his discharge from prison he became acquainted with
the elder Mr. Chambers, against whom a commis-
sion of bankrupt had been taken out. Mr. Chambers
did not at first dispute the validity of the commission ;
but having become acquainted with Mr. Wilton, he
afterwards took proceedings with a view to get the
commission superseded. It appeared that Mr. 'Wil-
ton having undertaken to do business for Mr. Cham-
bers, and make advances to him, the latter gave him
a judgment, in debt, for 16,0001. without having
previously received any bill of costs. Upon this
judgment an execution was taken out, directed to
the late Sheriffs of Middlesex, who made a seizure,
but afterwards returned nulla bona to the writ. In
the mean time, the assignees of Mr. Chambers
brought an action of trespass against the Sheriffs
and Mr. Wilton for taking the goods. In that tic-
' tion, which was tried before Lord Tenterden some
months back, one of the questions was, whether the
judgment given by Mr. Chambers to Mr. Wilton
was not a collusive and fraudulent judgment ; and
the jury found that it was. Another question raised
on the part of Mr. Chambers or Mr. Wilton was,
whether there had been a sufficient act of bank-
ruptcy to sustain the commission against Messrs.
Chambers, and also whether there was sufficient
evidence of the trading. Upon these points a rule
nisi to set aside the verdict for the plaintiffs (the

assignees) had been obtained, and it now stood in
the new trial paper for argument. The question as
to the judgment being collusive had been tried in
the-Court of Exchequer, in an action brought by
Wilton against the Sheriffs for a false return, and
in that action also the jury had found the judgment
to be collusive. They had given a verdict for 401.
but the plaintiff (Mr. Wilton) had taken out execu-
tion for 1,8351. The present application was made
to set aside the execution, on the grounds of its
having been obtained by fraud and collusion.
The COURT granted a rule nisi.
_ _

Lord TENTERDEN being still indisposed, left the
Court at half-past three o'clock, after all the import-
ant motions had been disposed of. The other
Judges sat till between five and six o'clock, to dis-
pose of the remaining business.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 25.

WHITE V. THE TRUSTEES OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM

The COURT delivered their judgment in this case
this morning. The facts have been already report-
ed : it will therefore only be necessary at present to
state that this was a feigned issue from Chancery, to
try whether or not the will of the late Mr. White
was legally executed, It appeared that the will was
drawn up in the testator's own handwriting, and
signed by him. About five months before his death
he called upon two of the subscribing witnesses, and
got them to attest the will, but did not acquaint
them at the time with the nature of the instrument
which they so attested. In three months subse-
quently, he called upon the third witness, and in
like manner got him to attest it, but informed him
that it was his will which he was attesting. Their
Lordships held that this was a sufficient compliance
with the provisions of the statute of frauds. The
object of the statute was to guard against the con-
veyance of property by virtue of instruments that
were not really in accordance with the wishes of the
party alleged to have disposed of it ; but here the
testator had not only drawn up the will himself, but
had sought out and gone to the witnesses for the
purpose of procuring their attestation of it, which
was very unlike the usual cases of fraud, in which
the witnesses generally came or were brought to the
testator. There had clearly been no fraud attempted
to be practised here, and the will having been at-
tested by three subscribing witnesses, as required by
the statute, although two of them were not informed
at the time of the nature of the instrument which
they were attesting, that was sufficient to give it
validity.