The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-12 00:00:00

HOLLAND V. CLARKE.

The bill in this cause was filed in April, 1840, by Mr.
George Holland, as administrator of his deceased wife,
formerly Susannah Clark, for the purpose of recovering
a legacy of 1501. bequeathed to her by her grandmother,
who died in 1811. The executors appointed by the
legator were her sons John and James Clark, the de-
fendants. _ _ _

His HONOUR having detailed at considerable length
the facts of the case, directed an inquiry by the Master
as to whether the sum of 4a. mentioned in the plead-
ings arose upon a certain account, and was paid or not ;.
whether the legacy, or any part of it, and the interest on
it since April, 1834, or any portion thereof, were satisfied
or discharged ; and whether any and what part were
due for principal and interest in respect of the legacy.
In making these inquiries, the Master to consider four
per cent. the rate of interest, and to state special cir-
cumstances.

COCKBURN (THE DEAN OF YORK) V. SINGLETON.
In this cause the present Dean of York was the plain-
tiff. The bill prayed that certain leases and agreements
entered into between the plaintiff and the two defendants,
Singleton and Milner, should be declared void ; also,
that injunction should be granted to prevent the defen-
dant Singleton from conveying the legal estate to the de-
fendant Milner. The bill also prayed for an investigation
into certain accounts between the parties. The plaintiff;
though a dignitary
,of the Church, had been brought up
to the bar, and had on that account directed the proceed-
ings in his own case, previous to the last hearing of it,
and was of opinion that his counsel could read passages
from the answer of the defendants, by which he (the
plaintiff) would get the decree he prayed for. Counsel
for the plaintiff, however, was of opinion that he could
only obtain at present some issue or inquiry into the mat-
ter, as no evidence had been given by him (theplaintiff).
The facts of the case were these :—The plaintiff, in the
year 1822, was installed in the dignity of Dean of York,
and by right of that office became seised of property de-
scribed under three different heads. The first was a cer-
tain farm in Milian', Yorkshire, of 400 acres; the second
description of property consisted of some money pay-
ments to the amount of 1021. a year, in lieu of the
rectorial tithes of Kiiham, and the third description of
property of which the plaintiff became possessed was a
moiety of the rectorial tithes of Swatham, also in York-
shire. Before the plaintiff became Dean of York ail
this property had been demised, under leases dated in
the year 1814, and granted by his predecessor to a Mr.
Thomson for three lives, one' of the lives being that of
Thomson's daughter Anne ; another that of his
grandson, also named Thomson ; and the third
that of a gentleman, named Snow. Thomson, sen., by
his will devised this property to his daughter Anne
during her life, with remainder to his grandson abso-
lutely. In the year 1832, the plaintiff, in the lifetime
of Anne Thomson, and Thomson, jun., the grandson,
became desirous of purchasing the reversionary interest
of the latter, and succeeded through the agency of Sin-
gleton, the defendant, in making the purchase. The
terms were, that Thomson was to receive 3001. a
year, during the life of his aunt, Anne Thomson,
and after her death, if Snow still lived, he was to re-
ceive from the plaintiff 6,0001. Snow survived Anne
Thomson, and the plaintiff accordingly became liable
for the 6,0001. At this time the plaintiff was rather
embarrassed, and applied to his agent Singleton, to find
a purchaser for the new lease of the farm for three
lives ; finally the plaintiff agreed to grant the lease to
Singleton himself in consideration of a sum of 7,0001 fur
three lives, with the stipulation that if one
of the lives fell in during the plaintiffs lifetime, Singleton
should be allowed to substitute another life for it without
payment of a fine. After this agreement the defendant
Singleton, expressed a desire to obtain a leasein like
manner of the money payments, and the moiety of the
rectorial tithes already referred to, and accordingly the
plaintiff granted him a lease of them for 3,0001., fur 500/.
of which two horses were to be taken in payment ; and
there was at the same time a verbal agreement
that if. Singleton did not succeed in negotiations which
he was entering upon with Lord Hotham, for a sale of a
portion of the rectorial tithes, the plaintiff should make
him some reduction. The latter agreement was endorsed
on the former one, and was without date. The under-
standing about payment was, that Singleton should pay
to Thomson, junior, the 6,000/. which the Dean
owed him, and that he shotild account to the Dean
for the balance. Singleton then sold the moiety
of the rectorial tithes to Lord Hotham for 1,2001 The
6,0001. still remained unpaid to Thomson. The plain-
tiff by this time had his suspicions excited by the cir-
cumstance that of the two horses given him in lieu
of 50C1e one waa..broken-winded, and sold for 15/., the
other was only worth 150/. He pressed, theref we, for
the payment of the 60001. -to Thomsen. The defen-
:Ent refused to pay it th. 2, plaintiff 'allo‘ved
him 4001, because, as he stated, he had received
from Lord Hotham but 1,200/. instead of 1,6001, which
he had expected. The 400/. was paid to the defendant,

who accordingly paid over the 6,000/. to Thomson.
Singleton also paid to the Dean the sum of
5001. •at the same time ; when also -the Dean
pressed Singleton to have the accounts between them
settled. A copy of the account was made out by
Singleton, to items in which, and particularly
the law charges, the plaintiff objected, and on
this account prayed for an investigation into the state
of the accounts between them. The present application
was made to have the lease which the plaintiff granted
to Singleton set aside, on the ground of fraud and col-
lusion. The grounds of this application were developed
in a suit which lately took place between the present
defendants, in which Milner was plaintiff, and Singleton
defendant, and in which the former succeeded in making
out that the latter was but his agent in all
those transactions. Milner was the occupying tenant of
the farm of which the lease had been made, and it was
alleged that there was an agreement between him and
Singleton, by which the latter was to use his influence
with the Dean, to get the farm from him at as low a rate
as possible, and then let it to Milner for a consideration
of 8,5001., for which Milner was to obtain it; while Sin-
gleton would at the same time make 1,5001. by the trans-
action, independently of his profit in the other leases. It
was alleged that the defendant, in order to effect this
agreement, had made fraudulent representations to
the plaintiff, for whom he was then about acting
as agent, of the value of the property. The chief legal
question before the Court was, whether the plaintiff
could, without putting in evidence, obtain by means of
passages from the defendant's answer, the decree which
he souht.
His HoNoun dismissed the bill as against both the de-
fendants, without costs.
(Bet ore Vice-Chancellor WIG RA M. )
His HONOUR entered the Court, and took his seat at
half.past one.