Star.
London, England, 1830-06-17 00:00:00

LAW REPORTS.

VIOE.CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Juwz 16.

STAMM:MY V. GORDON.—Mr. KNIGHT stated that this was a
bill filed by the plaintiff, John Stanbury, in which he stated that he
was agent for conducting contested elections, and that he had into.
rest in the borough of Tregony, in Cornwall with a party opposed
to the sitting Members, in 1823 ; and that there was an impression
in the latter end of that year that there would be a dissolution of
Parliament. That in August, 1825, he was introduced by Sir Wm.
Abdy to the defendant, and in a conversation between Mr. Stanbury
and Dlr. Gordon, it was agreed that the latter should contest the
election for the borough, and that the former should act as his agent
in that contest. Mr. Stanbury, as he then alleges, was referred to
Mr. Scott, as the solicitor for the defendant, and it was further
that some friend of the defendant's should also contest the
agreed
lln with the then two sitting Members, and that the plaintiff
should be their agent in preserving and increasing the interest
and Influence he possessed in the borough, for the purpose of
securing the return of those candidates. The bill then stated, that
sums to the amount of 4,5001. had been paid to the plaintiff, and,
as he alleged, for the purpose' beforementloned, and that he had given
bonds and mortgages on his property for the same, but that those se.
curities were only executed for the purpose of the due management of
the funds entrusted to him as agent. The bill then prayed that the
securities might be declared to have been executed for that purpose,
and that a reference might be ordered by the Muter to inquire whe.
ther the balance in amount was in favour of the plaintiff or defend.
ant. If for the former, that he might be ordered to be paid that
balance, and the deeds and bonds cancelled, or the estates recon.
v eyed. If the balance should be in favour of the defendant
then that Mr. Stanbury might be allowed to redeem on payment
or that balance. The defendant put in his answer, in which he
denied the agency altogether, and stated that the money was ad-
vanced for the plaintiff's own purposes, and the securities taken as
on a mere loan ; and submitted that as to the other parts of the
bill he was not bound to answer, inasmuch as by so doing he
might place himself in the situation of a person liable to pains and
penalties, by reason of the transactions coming within the Statutes
against undue influence in elections. To this answer the plaintiff
excepted for insufficiency, and a reference was accordingly made and
the Master reported that the exceptions were good (140 in numbest),
and that the answer was insufficient. To this Report the defendant
excepted, and the cause was now come on for argument.
The SGLICITOR.GENERAL and Mr. Puavzs were with Mr.
KNIGHT, in opposition to the Master's Report, and argued that
the whole ttansaction was, from beginning to end, an attempt to
obtain a seat in Parliament by means of the undue influence
which the plaintiff possessed lu the Borough, and that he was
willirg to sell that influence to the defendant or any other; that
it was quite clear, whether as agent or not, the whole business
aou!d, it' the defendant was compelled to answer the whole bill,
render him liable to the penalties inflicted by the Act of Parliament,
49 (ho. Il li. c. 118 ; and, therefore, he was not bound to answer
that part.
Mr. HORNE end Mr. WAKEFIELD appeared in support of the
Mattel's Report ; but—
The Vica-CmaxcELLoa thought it unnecessary..no argue the

case farther; although it was true, in a cue where an answer will,
as to part, render the rty liable to penalties, if it fully answers
the cue made by the bill, the defendant may answer the part which
will not have that effect, and refuse to answer the remainder, and
need not plead (as in other cases) to the bill altogether; yet here
the part admitted was so interwoven with the whole subject matter
of the bill, that he thought the defendant, having admitted part, and
only denied the agency for the election, he was bound fully to an-
swer the plaintiff's bill; and, therefore, he overruled the exception
to the Master's Report.
CODIIINGTON T. CODRINGTON.—This was a bill filed for the
purpose of setting aside a deed, and it stated, that by a settlement
made in 1764, Sir William Codrington and his son William had a
joint power of appointing the fee simple of very valuable estates;
that in 1776 the father prevailed upon the son to exercise that
I power in consideration of 66,0001. by which the father became
tenant in fee simple, and the bill prayed that the deed might be set
aside, on the ground that it was obtained from the son by the
undue influence of parental authority, and by fraud—the son
being in great pecuniary distress, and the consideration being
inadequate.
The defendants, by their answer, admitted the existence of the
deed, but denied the fraud, and insisted that the plaintiff had no
ground for equitable relief. The plaintiff then amended his bill,
and prayed a discovery of the fall contents of the deed executing the
power of appointment. This the defendant refused to show, on the
ground that it contained his title, and that the plaintiff; patting him-
self on his equity for relief on the ground of fraud, would have no
right to see the title deeds of the defendant. Exceptions were taken
to the answer, and the Master reputed that the answer was suffi-
cient ; to this report the plaintiffexcepted.
Mr. KNIGHT and Mr. ldata. appeared in support of the excep.
tion, and argued that the Master's report was wrong, and that the
defendant ought to show by his answer the contents of the deed, in
order to enable the plaintiff to discover whether his remedy was in
equity or at law.
The SoraciTon-GEfrznaL, Mr. PEPTS, and Mr. ALLISON,
argued in support of the report, to the effect, that inasmuch as the
plaintiff could not, by his bill seeking to set aside a decd on the
ground of fraud (not alleging anything against the legal validity of
the instrument), move for a production of it, he could not, by a
course of this sort, get out of the rules, and amending his bill, get
the whole substance of the deed, when he could not have compelled
' the production of it. The plaintiff stating the deed in his bill to be
a good legal instrument, but seeking to set it aside in equity, and
the defendant admitting the deed, it was his title deed, and, there-
fore, the plaintiff had not any interest whatever, was shown by his
bill, for the relief he prayed.
His Hoxoua decided that the plaintiff, relying on his equitable
right, and not suggesting a word against the legal validity of the
deed in question, had not shown a case for the Court to go out of its
usual course in protecting parties in the possession of a security foe
their title deeds. He, therefore, overruled the exception.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JVNE 16.
Sittings in Banco.
Dorroua v. OXENNEN.—This was an action on a Bill of Ex-
change, tried a few days before the first day of this Term, before
Lord Tenterden. The keeper of an hotel at the West end of the
town, which the defendant frequented, was called to prove the hand.
writing, but he failed to do so, and the plaintiff was nonsuited.
Mr. STEER now moved for rule Niel for a new trial, and stated
that they bad numerous witnesses to prove the handwriting, but
they did not subpwna them before, as they had no idea that the ho.
tel keeper would have failed.
Lord TINTERDEN adverted to the circumstances that the se.
Iceptance was " accepted, payable at a certain place in Bond-street,"
without any signature or name, and called for an Act of Perlin.
ment to see whether that mode of acceptance would do ? Having
looked at the Act, he said nothing more on the subject—pule
granted.
Elam,' v. BROOKS AND ANOTNER.—This was an action
brought by the plaintiff; Jonathan Eikey, against the assignees of
his brother, John Riley, a Huddersfield merchant, who became
bankrupt in 1820, on an indemnity granted by them to him, on
certain conditions, which he performed, against all the liabilities
which he might have incurred for the bankrupt. The plaintiff had
become bound in three bills of exchange, along with his brother, to
Bross and Co. amounting in all to about 1,9001. Bross and Co.
I sued the plaintiff on the bills, and bad a verdict for 1,9661. which
he paid, and then brought his action against the assignees on their
guarantee, and had a verdict against them.
Mr. CaxeniELL had obtained a rule to show cause why the vu.
diet should not be set aside and a new trial granted, and
Mr. POLLOCK now showed cause against the rule. The only
question was—whether the plaintiff rendered himself liable in the
bills without consideration front John, or only in discharge of a
debt due by him to John ?
The Court took time to consider.
SCOTT V. DEIIAY.
This was an action brought on a judgment obtained in Jamaica
for 1,836 L 10s. Bd. currency, against the defendant, a banker, in
London. The action was tried at Guildhall, before Lord Tenter.
den, upwards ofa year ago, and a verdict was taken for the plaintiff
for the difference between 13111. 13e. 6d. sterling, and 11021. I Is.
3d. sterling, with leave to the defendant to move the Court to set
aside the verdict and enter a nonsuit.

Mr. CAmPsELL'lhad obtained a rule accordingly ; against which
the ATTOIWEY.OEXZIAL and Mr. HISBERT now showed
cause.

When the action wu brought, the 1,1021. 11s 3d. was paid into
Court, which sum wu deemed by the defendant equivalent to the
1,8361. Jamaica currenc The plaintiff', on the other hand, in-
sisted that the equivalent to the 1,8361. currency was 1,3111.
13s. &I.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL, for the plaintiff, put the cue in
this manner. The difference between the sterling money and
the currency was as seven to five —.that is, 1001. sterling made
1401. currency; and, therefore, if one were to take 100 sore.
reigns to Jamaica, he would get there for them 1401. currency.ll
Such, he assured the Court, on his own authority, was the
fact. When, therefore, the plaintiff had judgment for the 1,8361.
currency, being a debt due to him In Jamaica, and which he was en.
tided to demand there in specie if he chose, he was entitled to re.
cover here as much as would make up the 1,1;361. currency in speck,
and that was the 1,3111. 13s. 641. He might employ the money in
Jamaica, or he might remit it to England in specie, and then the
difference in the exchange would be the amount of the freight and
insurance. But then the defendant insisted that, besides the con.
version of the currency into sterling, he was entitled to deduct 19
per cent, being the premium on good bills in Jamaica on London;
and this, which had nothing at all to do with the exchange, was the
cause of the confusion introduced into the case. The position taken
by the defendant took it for granted that when the money was re.
covered in Jamaica, the plaintiff would have been obliged to
remit it to England by bills. But what right had he to sup.
pose so? No right whatever; and when debtors obliged their
creditors to follow them to England, they were bound to pay,
as they must have done if the payment had been made in specie
lin Jamaica ; and this was all that the plaintiff claimed in this
rinstance.

Mr. Justice LIT TLEDALE—Suppose the currency of both coun-
tries had been of the same ♦alue, the premium on the bills would be
the same.

The AT ToaxEr.GENzaAL—To be sure it would, and that pre-
mium depended on the credit of the parties, the length of time to
elapse before payment, and the difficulty of procuring bills, when
so many more remittances were usually made from the one country
than to that country from the other.
Mr. CAYPSELL, for the defendant, °lnterred, that if one were
to get a bill in Landon for 1,1021. on a Jamaica banker, he would
get from the banker the 1,8361. currency, and it was on that prin.
Iciple only, u the defendant contended, that he was bound to pay.
The COIIIIT took time to coo►ider.

STATUTE Or LIM rATIONSJUDOSIIENT.
NO /MERIT V. SUNNING&

This was an action on a proctor's bill for 2361. The bill was for
business done for the defendant in the Admiralty Court, relative to a
prize vessel, called the Woodbridge, as to which the judgment was
given in July, 1822. The action was not brought till September,
1828, and the defendant pleaded the Statute of Limitations. There
was one item for 11. in the account for perusing and answerinf a
letter relative to the business after the judgment, to which the Sta-
tute did not apply, and this, as it was contended for the plaintiff,
took the whole of the bill out of the statute.

Lord TILI/TERDEN was of opinion that the plaintiff could only
recover for 11. and verdict accordingly, with leave to move the
Court to enter a verdict for the whole sum.
_

The motion having been acconlingly made, and the rule granted
and argued,
Lord TENTEIDEX said, that he remained of the same opinion as
at the trial, and thought that the rule ought to be discharged. The
Proctor's duty was at an end when the judgment was given, and he
had a right then to have his bill paid, and ought to have brought his
action within six years from the time of the judgment. It was quite
uncertain whether, after that, the Proctor should have anything to do,
and there would be a danger of rendering the statute in some mea.
sure nugatory, if the 'addition of an item for some accidental business
after the judgment should take the whole out of the statute.
The rest of the COURT concurred. —Rule discharged.
IX THE MATTER OF THE C0311(18810XXIS OF SEWER/ OF

THZ TOWER HAMLETS DISTRICT.

Mr. CAMPIIICLL moved for a rule for a Certiorari. to remove the
proceedings of the Commissioners of Sewers for the Tower Hamlets
district in the imposing of :meson certain of the inhabitants into
this Court, with a view to their being quashed. These Commis-
sioners, as their Lordships might remember, bad many disputes
with the inhabitants of Hackney Level about the draining of the
district. One objection to the rates was, tint they had been made
for work done and to be done, whereas the assessment was only
for work to be done. A sum of two thousand pounds was re-
trospective for work done, and a sum of 2,0731. was prospective

for work to be done; and besides this, 1,8001. was imposed to de-
fray the expenses of the duties with the people of Hackney-Level.
Another objection was, that the rates were not imposed on each of
the people in proportion to the advantage which he would derive
from the works—and another was, that hundreds had been rated
who could derive no advantage at all from them. He had, besides,
affidavits that the work for which they had imposed rates to the
amount of about 6,0001. could be done for 8001
Lord TaxnEanzw—We cannot Inter into the consideration of
amount, and therefore you cannot have a rule on the last ground,
but you may take it on the others.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY s and state in your rule the grounds on
which ft is granted, that they may know precisely to what they
have to answer.

ExpaßT HOLLIS.ThiII Via an application OD the part of
llolles, an inhabitant of Colchester, for a certiorari to remove into
this court the proceedings against him on an accusation of stealing
dead bodies.

The application was made on affidavits of an ap lon of
partiality in the magistrates, and persons whose office rtte:sto sum-
mon the jurors, and in the persons likely to be jurors. Rule granted.