Star.
London, England, 1825-06-30 00:00:00

BOWLS U. STRATIIMORZ,•BURN, AND OTHERS.

.

i
F'

This was a Petition presented by Lady Mary Bowes,
now Lady Mary Willis (her Ladyship having married
a Gentleman at this bar of that name), praying that the
sum of about 4,0001. which had been withdrawn from
the hands of the Accountant-General of this Court in
a fraudulent manner, might be replaced in the Court's
custody.
Mr. HORNE stated, that the petitioner was the daugh-
ter of the late Earl of Strathmore, and that she was
entitled upon her coming of age (on the Bth of August,
1823) to the sum in question. Previous to that date,
Mr. John Ilderden Burn, a Solicitor of this Court, of
whom he (Mr. Horne) regretted extremely to be obliged
to say anything disrespectful, presented a petition to
the Master of the Rolls, alleging that he was Lady
Mary's TI ustee under a deed executed by the Eari of
Strathmore and Lord Glammis (the present Earl); and
by a statement, which was a fiction, succeeded in pro•;
caring an order, %thereby the money was paid out of
Court, and not a farthing of it had found its way to her
Ladyship. Mr. Horne then detailed the allegations
in Mr. Burn's Petition, which was presented on the 28th
July, 1823, and purported to be from himself, as trus-
tee, and from Lady Mary Bowes, an infant; stating that
Lords Strathmore and Glammis had assigned the sum in
question, part of the Earl's personal estate then standing
in the name of the Accountant-General at the Bank, in
trust to Mr. Burn, for Lady Mary's benefit. The ab-
straction of this money could not be by her consent, for
she was then a minor; and he (Mr. Home) could not
conceive a more direct fraud than for persons, with
whatever motive, to concert together in order by a fic-
tion to withdraw from Chancery money kept in its cus-
tody for an infant. The money thus obtained was dis-
posed of, but not for the infant's benefit. A clear case
of imposition,and of breach of trust,was therefore proved
against Mr. Burn,; and the Court was bound to vindicate
its character, or infants would have no protection from it.
The LORD CHANCELLOR expressed surprise that such
a petition should have been entertained at the Rolls'
Coot t. The application should have proceeded from the
next of kin; who would have advised the infant better.
jilr. Scow= said it accorded with the practice of the Rolls.
The LORD Cmanceu.oa.—l must take the liberty to
say, that alterations in the practice of the Courts, with-
(Art the knowledge and concurrence of the Judges, is
very mischievous. 1 found the other day, that it had
become the practice in the Vice-Chancellor's Court and
the Rolls, to order money to be paid out on the appli•
ca ion of a single trustee. In the present case, instead
of ordering the money out of Court, it should have
been ordered to be paid in, if not already in Court. 1
'declare that I never heard of such an order till to-day.
Mr. HORNE never heard of such a practice in Sir
William Grant's time. If it .did exist, it became the
gr eater duty of Solicitors not to abuse the facilities it
afforded. He concluded by praying that the parties
might be placed in state quo.
Mr. SUGDRN, for Mr. Burn, contecded that Lord
strathmore was the teal Petitioner in this case: it was;,
his object, in concert with Mr. Willis and Lady Mary,
to wring from Mr. Burn the money in question, which,
although vested in good securities, they would prefer
to hate in presenti. Mr. Sugdea had not concluded
when the Court rose.
COURT OF KING'S MINCH, JUNE na.
DAVEY IL BARR AND 'VIAND&

This was an action by a broker in the City against
two persons named BAIT and Brand; the latter of
whom was a constable, fur trespass in entering his
house, taking his goods, and committing an assault on
his person.
The defendants appeared separately, Barr by Mr.
*MARRICAT, and Braude by Mr. DRNMAN ; the first hav-
ing justified the assault, and the latter relying, on the
general issue. It was proved that Barr came, with a'
Mob, consisting of 100 persons, to Davey's shop, and
seized a feather-bed and other goods, on an allegation'
that they had been fraudulently removed by a Mrs.
Dowling, from her lodgings, to defeat the landlord's
remedy for rent in arrear. It was stated by the wit-,
neves for the plaintiff, that in seizing the goods, Barr
committed an assault on him, in order to prevent him
from successfully misting the seizure. The parties,
went before a Magistrate, and before Davey bad re-1
turned to his house, Barr sent and took away the re-
:raining good;. The value of the goods was pot accu-
rately proved, but it-appeared that they formed part of
a lot for which 4/. 10:. had been paid.. Ar4nde acted
as a peace•officer on the second visit to the tkouse, butt
' when the assault;

it was doubtful whether he was present when the assault
was committed.
Mr. DIRMAK, for the defendant Brande, offered to prove that
1 i the goods had been fraudulently removed by Mrs. Dowling.
- t , . - The LORD QM/ JCIITICR was clearly of opinion that this defence
could not be set up, unleu notice had been given to the plaintiff
by a special plea. .
# ' Witnesses were then called. for Buz; to prove that he waslust.
assaulted by Davey. 1
Mr. sc. fart, for the plaintiff, r at. considerable length on ,
.
the opposing widener, and preiletiricas. ob the Any as panics'
• for exemplary dassegis. i
. . ,
. - .
~ , ,•
!' 't
•, ...., • - ' ...
.... . _ .