Star.
London, England, 1824-02-06 00:00:00

IMPORTANT TO SOLICITORS-TAXING Ot COSTS.

On a motion relative to the taxation of costs, proceed
ing from differences between a Solicitor and his client,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, I understand there are
Solicitors in the profession, who say to a suitor, I will
not transact your business, unless you pledge yourself
not to tax rny bill of costs; now, upon that practice I
have not the smallest hesitation in declaring, that if such
a distinct case shall ever be proved before me, I will
that instant strike that Solicitor's name off the Rolls of
the Court—yes, even though he were the very highest
in the profession.

V ICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, FEBRUARY S.
NAYLER V. WYNCII.

This was a bill filed by the plaintiff, praying the Court
to invalidate a deed, by which she had assigned over all
excepting her life interest, in a sum of 12,0001. which
had been left to her in India, by a Gentleman, to be en-
joyed by her as an annuity for life, and then to descend
to her heirs, if any, or if none, to revert to the executors.
The deed was sought to be invalidated on the ground
of there being no consideration, and that it was a frau-
dulent deed, in the sense in which the term fraud is used
in this Court.

After Counsel had been beard on both sides, the
Vice-CiinncELLon proceeded to pronounce judgment.
A Gentleman, he observed, of the name of Wynch,
dying in India, in 1797, had bequeathed to the plain-
tiff an annuity of 6001. for her life. w ith entail to
her heirs, if any, or in the event of her having no
heirs to revert back to the heirs of the testator.—
Trustees had been appointed, to whom the property
necessary to be invested for the securing of the annuity
was transferred, and a deed was signed by the plaintiff,
in which she agreed to receive an investment of twenty
thousand pagodas (she then residing in India), as a full
security for the annuity bequeathed. Some years after
the legatee, a Lady, came over to England and married
a Gentleman of the name of Hare NA yler. About this
time the great diminution which had taken place in the
rate of interest paid in India, had diminished the income
derivable from the pagodas full twenty-five per cent.—
This induced her to file a bill to compel property to be
invested in the English funds adequate to the securing to
her the annuity of 600/. per annum bequeathed to her.
After this suit had been protracted some time, she'
agreed with the Trustees to withdraw it, on payment of
its costs, and on their agreeing to invest a sum adequate
to the paying her the annuity for life, and also on cer-
tain contingencies, paying to her husband, if he sur-
vived her, the sum of 3001. per annum. In considera-
tion of these advantages, she gave up to the Trustees
all her reversionary interest in the will of Mr. Wynch.
Her husband had since died— she therefore now sought
to set aside the above deed, on the plea of fraud, and
of no consideration having been given. His Honour
proceeded at considerable length to state and to sustain
his opinion, that no fraud was imputable, and that the
terms of the deed sufficiently proved that there had
been a consideration given. He therefore dismissed the
bill, and pronounced the deed to be good and valid.
On application by the Counsel of the defendants, the
Vice-Cltancellor ordered them their costs.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FEBRUARY 5.
SOUTH AMERICAN TRADE.
SOAMS V. LANINGEN.

This had been a question upon the construction of a
charter-party. The plaintiff had at Cadiz chartered
the St. Patrick, and had made the terms of the charter
conditional, upon the arrival of another ship, the Grant,
also chartered by him at a certain port in South America,
within a specified time, from which the St. Patrick was
to carry a cargo to Europe. St. Place, in California,
was the place first mentioned; Guyaquil, in Peru, was
afterwards substituted. The charterer had agreed to
pay 6,0001. for the St. Patrick, which was to go from
London in ballast. In the charter-party of the St.
Patrick, the charter became void if the Grant should
not arrive at Guyaquil at the time stipulated. She had
been captured by Lord Cochrane, and detained at
Lima fora considerable time. She arrived at Guyaquil
too late, and without a cargo.
The owners of the St. Patrick brought their action to
recover from the charterer an indemnity for the sum
of 6,000/. The Lord Chief Justice at the trial put it
to the Jury to find whether the delay was occasioned
through the fault of the Captain of the Grant, and di•
rected them, if they thought that it was not occasioned
by the fault of the Captain, to find their verdict for the
defendant. The Jury found for the defendant.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL afterwards obtained a rule
to chew cause why a new trial should not be granted on
the grounds of misdirection by his Lordship in point of
law, and of the verdict being contrary to the evidence.
Mr. SCARLETT and Mr. POLLOCK shewed cause.
Non-arrival must be non-arrival, for the purposes of the
voyage. The Grant had arrived, but after the time

specified, and after the St. P.strick had been chartered
for another purpose, and sailed from Guyaquil. The
proviso making the charter-party void, on the non-ar-
rival of the Grant came into operation.
The ATTORNEY-GENERA I. and Mr.CAmPaaLt. argued
that the defendant became in law responsible for the
arrival of the Grant, and that these was improper delay
on the-part of the Captain of the Grant, his servant, in
stopping so long at St. Place.
Their lordships, after full statements of their views
of the question, refused a new trial: Rule discharged.