Star.
London, England, 1805-11-02 00:00:00

Lifir INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, NOV. z.
BOWDEN V. LYMER.

In this cafe the complainant, the widow Bowden,
had filed a bill againft the Defendant, her agent, and
five other percent, flaring that her late hufband hat-
ing become embarralfed in his affairs, was thrown
into prifon by his creditors, and afterwards made a
bankrupt, and that the Defendant, Edward Rymer,
was appointed his aflignee: that the Defendant
profeffing fentitnents of hiendfhip for her and her
family, propofed to her to :align ever to him the
whole of her feparate property, as a confideration
for which he promifed to procure the liberation of
her hufband, and provide for her future fupport, by
allowing her two guineas and a half per week, and
a houfe to live in : that (he accordingly made fuch
affignment ; but the Defendant, inftead of fulfilling
his engagement, afterwards urged her to content to
her hufband's continuing in confinement, and made
propofitions to her, which in honour and confcience
the was bound to rejelt with horror and indignation
—that the Defendant, from that period, altered his
condufi towards her and her family, and neglected
to appropriate her property in difcharge of her hut-
band's debts during his life, or to reltore it after his
death ; on the contrary, he retained it to his own ufe.
Sate therefore prayed that all deeds and affurances,
fo unduly obtained, might be delivered up and can-
celled ; that (he might be let into the profits of her
eftates ; and that the Defendant might account for
the monies he had received. Five of the Defendants
put in their anfwers, but the Defendant Rymer de-
murred to the bill, on the ground that the charge it
contained was fcandalous and impertinent, and one
which he was not bound to anfwer. It was referred
to the Meter to enquire whether the bill was of that
defcription ? and his report being in the affirmative,
the matter now came before the Court upon excep-
tions to the Mailer's report. It was argued by Mr.
Jonissow, that the charge of having made propofals
which the Plaintiff was bound to rejeft with indigna-
tion, was too vague and indefinite to call upon the
Defendant for any anfwer. For the Plaintiff, Mr.
Pt.owDEa contended, that it was evident the Defen-
dant had obtained her property as the (urea means
of forwarding his defigns upon her virtue, or per-
haps he thought the belt way of keeping her fortune
was to fecure her perfon, upon the principle that it
was eater to wheedle and kits a woman out of her
elate, than to force it from her. He trufled, that as
the Defendant had not kept his faith, but had with-
held the whole of the lady's property, and aftually
fuffered two of her children to be fent and kept at
the Workhoufe, his Lordfhip would confider his ori-
ginal priffeffion of the eftate to have been obtained
mato anhno, and that he would nist confirm the Mat-
ter's Report.
The LORD CNANCELLOR teemed inclined to allow
the exceptions to the Report ; but, he talc!, he
(hould read the Bill again, the better to judge whe-
ther his preterit opinion was right or wrong, and he
would then tell the parties what that opinion was.
BRUER R V. SILVERI.

A reference had been made to the Mailer, to af-
certain whether a claim preferred by Sir Stephen
Lufhington, to the amount of 25001. upon the dime
of the late Mr. Sadlier, a merchant in the Eall In-
dies, ought to be allowed. The Mailer reported
that it ought not, and exceptions were taken to his
Report. It appeared that the alledged demand was
a charge for commiffion upon fums remitted by Mr.
Sadlier to Sir Stephen, for which 4. per cent. inte-
raft was to be paid until they were invened in Go-
vernment acurities. Sir Stephen lent large fums of
this money to the banking houfe in which he was con-
cet ned, and for the (pace of ten years regularly tranf-
mined his accounts without any charge for commit.
Pion. It was prefusned be expected to find in Mr.
Sadlier's will, an adequate remuneration for his
trouble ; but that not having been remembered in
that inflrnment, he bad charged his executors the fum
in queLlion, by way of commilLon, at the rate of one
and. a half per cent.
_

The ATTOaN IsY GiwIsRAL infifted that every man
who did butinels fur another was entitled to be paid,
and that it was the general curing, of the merchants
of London to charge commiffion for all monies that
went through their hands.
On the contrary, it was urged, that the circum-
fiance of Sir Stephen never having macit any charge
for commiffion in Mr. Sadlier's life time, was evidence
that he did not think himfelf entitled to it.

The LORD CHANCELLOR was of opinion, that it
Sir Stephen Lulhington had looked to the honour
and feelings of Mr. Sadlier for remuneration, and if
his expectations had been defeated, he could nut turn
round and fay be would be paid for his trouble. He
could net convert an imperfe& obligation, founded
in honour, into a contrad. The accounts had been
tranfn►itted for ten years without any claim for corn-
miffion. He was aware that there was nothing men
in the City looked fo greedily at as commiffion. It
was fo tweet a word, that it was ever in their
mouths, and no wonder, when it was confidered
what in►menfe (Urns were obtained that way, by
lending money, calling it in, and lending it out
again—but if a man could receive that advantage
by lending money to himfelf, paying it back to him-
felf, and then lending it to his partners, it might be
worth his while to pay any intereft for its ufe. His
Lordthip exprelled himfelt well allured, that had inch
a charge fur committion been made to Mr. Sadlier in
his life time, that Gentleman would have confidered
it a fort of (haling w'Sich it would have been his
duty to put a flop to. He had not a particle of doubt
that in this cafe Sir Stephen could claim nothing by
way of commiffion. If the quefiton was fent to a
Jury of London merchants, and their love of com-
miffion lhould induce them to allow his claim to that
which they were fo fund of receiving themfelves, he
thould have, upon the report of fuel► evidence as was
now before him, no hefitation in fending the caufe to
a new trial. The exceptions were accordingly over-
ruled, and the Mailer's Repoli, difallowing the
claim, ettablilhed.

ioNES V. THA MARQUIS nF DONNFGAL AND OTHERS.
In this caufe a decree had palled against the Mar-
quis of Donnegal, in confequence of his withdraw•
ing himfelf from the procefs of the Court. The other
Ddeodauts were his trullees, who,as fuch, were bound
to take care of his intereft, and fee that improper de-
mands were not made againft his elate. It had beeq
referred to the Mallet to take an account of his debt?,
and a claim had been preferred.by Philip (Melly,