Star.
London, England, 1809-04-25 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY, APRIL ,21.

COLONEL HA WOOD v. JOHN HORNE TOOKE) ESQ. AND
SIR FRANCIS BURDETT, BART.
__. - .

This was a hill filed by the plaintiff against the de-
fendants, charging Mr:lli:Ace with having obtnined,
by undue means, fraud, and misrepresentation, from
hem, in the year 1803 i a certain promisiory note of
hand for a sum.of 40001. payable at a certain day in
the year ensuing, for which no good or valuable.con.
sideration was given to the plaintiff. The bill prayed
that this promistorY note might be cancelled, or given
up to the plaintiff:
Mr. HART, of Counsel for the plaintiff, stated, that .
Mr. Home, the defendant, had assumed the surname
of Tooke, In addition to Horne,-in or about the, year
1788, under an expectation of inheriting the whole,
or part of the estate of a Mr. William Tobke, of Mar-
wich, in the county of Norfolk, who died in the year
1808, to the exclusion of the plaintiff, who is the
nephew, and of Mr. John Beaaly Tooke, also:a ne-
phew of the deceased, both. the next of kin, and heirs at
lnw— of the deceased ; that the defendant had. used
undue iquence over the deceased while he was at
variance with his own family, and while the plaintiff
was abroad in a military capacity ; but that a recon-
Gilintion had taken place, and the fortune was be-
qiienthed to the nephews, with some injunction to re-
lieve the limited circumstances of Mr. John Horne
Tooke—that great intimacy took place bettteen the
plaintiff and Mr. Horne Tooke the defendant, in the
lifetime of the plaintiff's uncle, and at his death that
the differences between the plaintiff and his 'cousin
Mr.l3oaliToOke, respecting the uncle's estates and
effects, were adjusted by the aid ancrinediation of.the
defendant Mr. Horne Tooke, and the Messrs. Gau-
ler and Davis, anomie% of Essex-street in the Strand,
who acted, iu common for both parties in 1802. In
the month Of July 1803, Mr. Horne Tooke had, a
few days after sittini.for his picture before Mr. Ople
of Berner's-street, where the plaintiff has a house, at
the request of the plaintiff, desired of the plaintiff a
fulfilment of his promise, respecting the purchase .of
three. annuities of 1001. a—year each, to and for the
use of .the two natural daughters of the defendant,
Mr. Horne Tooke, and iheir mother, which Sir Fran-
cis Burdett, the.other defendant, was prevailed with
lo), the undue inenence of Mr. Home Tooke to grant,
al the bill charged, under a kind of collusion, and
with aview of appropriating the money thus obtain-
ed to other uses than that of providing for the daugh-
ters and their,mother. The bill stated, that Sir Fran- ,
cis Burdett was at the, time of this transaction at '
Sith : and that Mr. Horne Tooke gave out at the
time that Mr. Coutts, the father in law of Sir Francis
Busdett, was. the person negociating for the purchase,
With 'Whom Mr. Horne Tooke stated, on the day of
obtaining the note in question from the plaintiff, he
was in honour bound to keep tin his credit by paying
in the money. That the blank stamp paper produced
to the plaintiff on this occasion, and which he was in-
cautiously induced or fraudulently prevailed upon to
sign by Mr. Horne Tooke's representations, was sup-
posed by him to be fora lesser sum than 40001. which
his pecuniary circumstances could not then afford, and
that further evidence of fraud appeared from the time
it was made payable. A very long string of charges
of fraud, circumvention, and imposition were stated
from the bill against the defendant, Mr. Horne
Tooke, with respect to this very extraordinary transac-
tion, and some charges against Sir Francis Burdett also.
The answers of Mr. Borne Tooke were stated at
full length, both his first and second answer, in which
he deposed, in the most strong and pointed terms,
that every charge of fraud, circumvention, or collu.
'ion, respecting this transaction, was utterly unfoun-
ded, in fact, fiir that the connection he had with die
plaintiff's familY, and with himself, was the conse-
quence of their solicitations, and that the promissory
note. was obtained pursuant to the free and voluntary
offers repeatedly pressed upon him by the plaintiff,
and according to his solemn promises, and that he
had on the, very next day written a letter to Sir F.
Burdett, acquainting him with the whole transaction.
The most positive denial was stated of any manner
of influence being exercised over the mind of Sir
Francis Burdett by Mr. Home Tooke respecting
these annuities, although he adMitted his 'general in
fluence as to friendship over the .worthy 'Baronet's IL.
berality and kindness.—Further bearing to-morrow.
APRIL 2 h—This day, in. the above case, Sir SA-
Att'Ef. *ROMILLY and Mr. HART argued at great length,
that the note' given under such circumstances ought
to. be caneelled.7—Further hearing to-morrow.

COURT OF KINQ'S 13ENCH, APRIL tit
PRICE OF CORN.
TUE KING V. PALSGRAVE AND SEVEN OTHER&
This cause is of incalculable importance to the
Public.--Sometime in the autumn oflast year, a num-
ber of persons who wCre in the habit of dealing in
corm" in. Norwich Market entered into a combination,
pursuant to wlrich they came to and published certain
resoltstiOns to atter the mode of payment for corn
they should hereafter buy, which had a tendency to
erjainc the. price, of that necessary article of. suste-,
nee fur human life
.; and that the law 'denominates'
Conspiracy,"_ 'and consequently prohibits. Upon
*eh Mr.GAAUtow moved for and obtained a rule
‘ ' anew cause why a criminal information should net
41
beyl againit them for such cOnspiracy. The =tile
Is enlarged wail this Term. and this day.

The ATTORNEY GRA/RAN by way of shoving:
cause why the rule shohid riot be made absolute,
stated, That he had an affidavit stating there had
been a meeting held at NorwiCh, at which were pre-
sent all the persons (except one, who assented to the
result of it) who had entered into this combination,
and published the resolntions objected to. They had
determined that they would not act on the said reso-
lutions ; but would, in future, pay for corn accord-
ing to the old custom of the market. Ly which they
gave up the credit which they had of late required,
and which had a tendency to raise the price of corn ;
and therefore upon undertaking to do this (which
would do away all the mischief) there would appear
to the Court, they humbly hoped, no necessity to
proceed further in any prosecution against them.
Mr. GARROW.—" I did not seek for a criminal in,
formation against these corn dealers, in order to ob-
tain merely a promise that they will, in future, con-
form to the law of the land ; but as they have con-
spired to commit a breach of that law, and have
published the result of their conspiracy, it behoves
therh now to redeem themselves by some act of sub-
mission and public acknowledgment of their error ;
if they do, I shall not press this prosecution."
The ATTORNEY GENERAL.—" I think this an act
of lenity in my Learned Friend ; I mean in his stat-
ing this case as he has done ; and my clients should
shew that they are in earnest. They have taken steps
for that purpose, by rescinding their former resolu-
tions, and I have indorsed upon my brief what will
be communicated to my clients ; and 'hey are the
terms on which I venture to pray the Court to en-
large this rule ; that the party may have an opportu-
nity of learning what, in my judgment, the Court
will expect of them to do ; that is, to publish an ad-
vertisement in the same paper in which they published
their resolutions, stating that they have abandoned
those resolutions, and that not colourably, but really
and kaa id s ; and that if that be not done, the
Court will make this rule absolute."

Loan CHIEF JUSTICE.—" You have given to your
clients ♦ery good advice, and if they do not adopt it,
ibis Court will give them a hint of a stronger sort."
Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL.--1-" I think it my duty
to advise my clients to observe the law."
Rule enlarged until within four days of the end of
this Term only.

APRIL 24.

CITY OF LONDON v. THE LONDON DOCK COMPANY,

The long pending trial of the-right of the City Of
LOndon to gauge all goods coming into London
Dock, was determined, by a sitting at Bar, against
the City of London ; the words of their charter, the
city and liberties," being determined to extend only
within the bars If London. By this determination, it
is said, the City of London will lose 770,000 a year.