Star.
London, England, 1811-01-23 00:00:00

LAW INTILLIGENCE..

COURT OF CHANCERY. JANUARY CR
LI:NATIC PILTITION.--IN THE MATTER OF MRS. E. LEITH.
This was a matter which came before the Court in
the Master's Report, describing a Mr. Harvey as a
proper person to be the committee of the lunatic.
Sir S. ROMILLY stated the case with his usual elo.
crence. He observed that Mrs. Leith was a Lady
who, about sixteen years ago, came into possession of
a considerable estate, supposed to be of the value of
.44 or .415000 per annum, by the death of a brother,
who died in the West Indies. She unhappily fell un-
der mental derangement, and in that case Major-Ge-
neral Hay, an officer, residing in the neighbourhood
of Aberdeen, was appointed the committee of her
estate, and Mr. Harvey was appointed committee of
her person. The Lady was lodged at the house for
I,inatics, kept by Mrs. Holmes, at Islington, on a
stipend of £BO per annum. Several years elapsed,
daring which General Hay gave in no account of his
trust, and he was never called on so to do by the com-
mittee of her person, in consequence, it was presumed,
of some intimacy between them, and it was not until
1808 that Mr. Leith, who was one of the next of kin
to the Lady, interfered, and on his mere suggestion,
the allowance to the Lady was raised from 3680 to
ril7o. On application to the Court, Colonel Hay
was removed, and ordered to account for his trust.
At the same time it was referred to the Master to ap.
point a proper committee to her estate. General Hay
did not account,And it suit had been instituted in the
Court of Session, in Scotland, to the determination of
which every possible impediment had been opposed.
The Muter had reported Mr. Harvey a proper person
to be cohnuiuee of the estate.
Sir S. ROMILLY contended that Mr. Harvey, who
had been so negligent in calling the committee of the
estate to account, was very unfit to be placed in the
same situation. It was of the first importance, that
persons who fall under so heavy a calamity as that of
insanity, should have all the comforts of life which
their fortune aiorded • them. If their estates would
not admit of those comforts, they must submit ; hut
this was the case of a Lady entitled to considerable
income not plated in a comfortable establishment,
but in a receptacle at Islington, where she was in the
habit of seeing persons likely to increase her malady.
Sir ARTHUR Peso? said. that the estate of the lu-
natic was in mortgage, and nit productive till lately,
and. that Mr. Harvey had no wish to have the con-
troul of the lunatic's estate, unless with the approba-
tion of the Court.
The Loan CHANCELLOR intimated, that if the Court
of Chancery could endure that a Committee of a lu-
natic could suffer fifteen or sixteen years to elapse
without Accounting for the lunatic's estate, and to
keep her at a common madhouse on a stipend of £BO
a year, the public ought not to endure the Court of
Chancery. His Lordship therefore Said, that he could
not think of suffering Mr. Harvey to have the care
of the lunatic's estate. With respect to Mr. Leith
being the proper person, there were some circum-
stances relating to an anonymous letter which his
Lordship would consider of, and in the mean time he
directed that Mr. Leith should make an affidavit
whether he was the author of the letter imputed to him.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY afterwards stated that Mr.
Leith was not the writer of the letter in question ; and
' he also observed that an account had arrived from
Scotland, that Major-General Hay had been ordered,
in the Court of Sessions, to pay all costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JANUARY It.
RUDDER AND CO. v. SMIDTZ.

The plaintiffs are silversmiths and jewellers, carry.
big on business in London and at Birmingham, and
the defendant is a Dutch merchant. It was an action
brought to recover 4270 for jewellery goods sold and
delivered to a man, named Buller, a bankrupt, on
whom, it was alledged, the defendant had given the
plaintiffs a false character to obtain credit.
It appeared in evidence, that the defendant called
of the plaintiffs in June 1809, and said he had a
customer to recommend him, who, to use his own
wJrds, was a good man," and in a day or two af-
terwards brought Mr. Buller in his hand, to the plain-
tilfs' warehouse, and they looked out together goods
t the value of £127, and in the month of August
f)llowing they called together again, and selected
more goods, to the amount of £l4O odd.
The Court asked the witness whether the plaintiffs
'ware to give the defendant any pecuniary conside-
r4tion for recommending them this customer ? to
'which he replied, that his employers were to give
him 10 per cent. on the goods sold, and he had been,
that proportion, paid for the goods purchased by
Mr. Buller.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH here interposed and said,
"That this was a covenant the law would not en-
dure. It had the appearance of a conspiracy to de-
fraud a third person, because Buller would have to I
pay, and was actually charted, with all the inctins.l
brances so charged upon the property sold. It was
hard that he should pay 10 per cent, for being intro-
duced to the plaintiffs."
Mr. GA:tROW called Buller, to interrogate him as
to his knowledge of this millrace between the plain-
tiffs and defendant, and he completely disclaimed
any knowledge of it.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH—g, Then I hold this action
is not maintainable.
The plaintiffs were accordingly nonsuited.