Star.
London, England, 1820-03-03 00:00:00

KS.

LAW 12VTELLI6ENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, MARCH S.
TUE MARLBOROUGH GOLD PLATE.

When this cause was last before the Court, we
gave a detailed account of the proceedings. The!
bill was originally filed by the plaintiffs, on account,
of the Noble defendant's having disposed of some of,
the gold plate which had belonged to the late Duke'
of Marlborough, and in which the heirs in remainder'.
had an interest. The motion submitted to the Court
was, that a Receiver should be appointed to take'
charge of the articles specified in the pleadings, or
that the Duke of Marlborough should he ordered to
deliver the said articles into the Master's Office, or
into some other place of security ; and that he should
be ordered to pay into Court the sum of £1,300,
being part of the amount raised by the sale of the
gold plate, and admitted by his answer toliave been
paid to him by Thomas Triphook. The part of the
motion which referred to the payment of the £1,300
into Court was granted on the former hearing; but
that part which related to the appointment of a Re-
ceiver, or other security for the safe custody of the
articles in question, was ordered to stand over, that
the Duke might have an opportunity of filing addi-
tional answers. .Accordingly, an affidavit was now
read, in which his Grace deposed that the plate which
bad been removed froni Blenheim /louse bad been
confideil to Triphook, for the sole purpose of being
pledged, in order to raise a sum of money on his
Grace's life interest in the articles ; and that Trip-
Iwk had disposed of them, not only without his con-
sent, but without his knowledge, and contrary to his
intention. This answer was supported by the affida-
vit of Mr. Pinneger, the Duke's man of business.
Mr. \Viral-, Counsel for the Duke of Marlborough,
contended, that the appointment of a Receiver in this
case would be a cruel proceeding against his client,
as it would be nothing else than placing a spy on all
his actions, without whose consent he would not be
at liberty even to take a book from a shelf in his own
library. Ile animadverted on the conduct of the
Tiusrees, and submitted, that as the evil which had
arisen had nut been sanctioned by the Duke, there
were no grounds for the present motioq.
Mr. HART, on the part of the Karquis of Bland-
ford, and Mr. Straownly. on the part of the Trus-
tees, argued in suirpsirt of the motion. The latter
Counsel repelled the reflections which had been made
ou the conduct of the frustees. ‘'‘ hen they found
that part of the property entrusted to their charge
had been dis:::ipatej by the DuKe of Mai boron!),
they would not have dune their duty if they had not
taken steps for securing the raniainder.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, it was certainly an
extremely distressing case, and the only manner in
which this property e•uild be protected was by taking
cane that it stiouid be lodged in a place of safety,
and the will of the late Duke of MarlbOrough clearly
sheaved where the 'slate was to be lodged.

The LORD CHANCELLOR then left the Court.
COUNT OF KING'S BENCH. MARCH 1.

GRAY V. RABBETT.

The plaintiff in this case was a wine and spirit-
dealer, and the defendant the Captain of the Cape
Packet; action was brought for goods sold'and
delivered. In July last the defendant had bought
of •the plaintiff wine and spirits to the amount of
1:32. 2s. 6J. and in the month of September had re-
ceived on board his vessel another quantity of wine
and spit its to the awount of A:M. 14s. It did not
appear what agreement had been originally made-
b:%ween the parties, but it was proved by the evi-
,ie.ice of Mr. James Si.eenl.ly, who had introduced
the defendant to the -plaintiff•that the goods were to
have been paid for, part in cash and part in bills.
On the is: of October, the defendant caries' upon the
plaintiff, told him he could not pay him in cash, and
wished him to accept of two bills tor t!-ie amount, at
ten maths' date. The plaintiff was surprised at the
proposition, but the deteadant offered to get the bill)
endorsed by such persons as the plaintiff should ap-
prove, and also offered to get a letter signed by wav
of guarantee. Mr. Clay agreed to the proposal.
Itabbett went to procure the ondorsements of the
bilk, but he returned some ume ac ter, and :.aid he
could not accomplish his object. Rabbet: was to
sail in ;dew days, and the plaintitf bad been arrested
the nest day after this interview, on the 1:d October.
Mr. M n Rya TT argued, for :he defendant, that the
roods were bought in the usual course of credit, and
the money was not to be paid till ten months
after the purchase, which was the probable time of
the de;endant's return from tie Cape of Good Hope;
:end he produced a witness to prove that this was the
usual credit given to Captains of vessels carrying
cargoes to thar•place.
The Lino Cu EF JUSTICE otaserved, that the action,
was brought for goods -sold and delivered, and the
plaintiff has always a rigirt of insisting that the pur-
chase was made for ready money : it was incumbent
on the defendant to skew that there was a contract
for specific credit, or that there was a general cus-
tom as to the credit in a pat ticulzr instance. It had
been shewn that, at a time subsequent to the pur-
chase, the defendant had acknowledged that part
was to be paid in cash sand part in bills ; but the
question for the Jury to consider was, what they,
considered front the evidence to have been the mi.,'
ginal contract ?
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
£333. 16s. W.