Star.
London, England, 1825-01-28 00:00:00

ROBERTS V. BOZON.

The argument was then resumed upon this laborious
case, which respects a considerable portion of the pro-
perty of the celebrated Crennis tin mines in Corn% all.
Mr. HORN and Mr. kuitair stoutly supported the
tight of the Solicitor (the defendant) to include the
clause in the deed upon which he had proceeded io
effect the sale, which clause had for its object the :tab
luring to the Solicitor the amount of the debt claitned
by him upon Mr. Joseph Rowe, for an infinite series of
expense and services which the defendant had contri-
buted to Mr. Rowe, in the coarse of that litigation which
the latter had enjoyed with Mr. Alderman Wood.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, in a variety of incidental
observations, seemed to be of opinion that the clause
implied rather tee strict a security to be taken by one
who was engaged in confidential agency. His Lord-
ship hinted that they (the Court) were " too far north"
to entertain the obligations of deeds so framed.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JANUARY 27.
HANDWORD 0. STOREY.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR gave judgment in th;s cal
which has occupied in argument a large portion of .
time of the Court. The bill .was filed by the plait*
on behalf of himself and others, the et editors Of
blarquis of Heidfort and of Lord Bective, against tt.
defendant, who is also a creditor, to obtain the refunding
of a sum of money received by him, and to a propor-
tion only of which he was entitled. It appeared
Lord Bective, being entitled to the remainder in t.
certain estates of which his father the Marquis of Hi
fort was tenant-in-tail, joined with the latter in
veying those estates to trustees, for the purpose of
plying the rents and profits from time to time in lig_
dation of their joint debts, so as that the creditors should
receive rateable shares in proportion to their seas
claims. A Mr. Ball was appointed receiver and agern
under this deed to catty its provisions into effect. Thy
present defendant, the Rev. Mr. Storey, who had 1.-
a party to that deed afterwards, in the year 1811,
maned a suit against Lord Bective for the recovery
his own debt and those of the other creditors. Lor
Bective was desirous to put a stop to this proceedir
and Mr. Storey was afterwards induced to compromis.
it by payment of certain sums. These sums vete handed
to him by Mr. Ball, and were, as was alleged by
present bill, the proceeds of the trust-estates. It
therefore charged, that the defendant had recair
money to which he was not entitled, and that Bail,
agent, had paid it wrongfully. His Honour, after
having recapitutated the facts of the case, said that tb•
hill before him could not be sustained. The evidence
failed to prove that the money had come immediately
from the hands of Ball to those of Storey. Ball
pe, flaps justified in paying money to Lard Bective,
the latter had a right, if he thought fit, to apply
money for the purpose of staying the suit whisk
been commenced against him. But how could
Stoley, who was not shewn to bate been a party to
transaction, whatever it was, between Lord Bective
51r. Ball, be chargeable for the amount he had so

r writca
dental
clause
by one
Lord-
north"
27.
cause,
of the
Idiot iff
Of the
Ist the
sading
rropoi-
LI that
tail of
Head-
-3 con-
of ap-
liqui-
should
.everal
agent
The
been
, cent-
ery of
Lord
eding,
ended
ly the
ft was
:oired
the.
after
at th.
idetce
liately
I eras
e, and
y that
b bead
d Mr.
to the
re and
so ref