Star.
London, England, 1817-07-24 00:00:00

ILLL'3IIIIVIATE CHILDREN.

ROBINSON AND OTHERS, AtzSIONEES OF WM. ALEXANDER
REED, AN INSOLVENT; v. WILLIAM ALEXANDER REED,
WEDDERBURN, AND 011IERS, TRUSTEES OF THE SAME.

Lo this case, Sir SAMUEL RomILLY stated, that this
was a Bill filed by the Assignees of William Alex.
Reed, an insolvent, in consequence of the following
circumstances :

A Mr. Reed had acquired a considerable fortune
in the East Indies, and was !lit father of several ille-
gitimate children, of whom the insolvent was one.
The father, the testator, nominated the other defen-
dants as his executors and the trustees of his sun, who
being then only sixteen ye4rs of age, was by them to
be put into a mercantile house; for which purpose
the testator left £lOOO, and in thit place he was to
remain for three years, he being allowed a small sum
during the first year, and a double allowance the se-
cond and third years, and on arriving at the age of
nineteen he was to receive the balance. In the same
will he gave in trust to his executors £lO,OOO, which
was to be given to his son at the age of twenty-six,
and mean time to be under their controul, and to be
given only provided the said son conducted himself
in a proper manner. In the year 1815, the young
man became insolvent, and took the benefit of the
Act, appointing the plaintiffs his assignees, and sta-
ting in his schedule that he expected the said sum of
eglo,ooo. By an order of the Master of the Rolls,
that sum was paid into Court, and he had improperly
hof an order that the interest of that sum be paid to
imself. The object of the present application was
for an injunction to restrain the insolvent from re-
ceiving the interest of that sum, and that the said in-
terest be paid to the assignees of the plaintiff, for the
benefit of his creditors. Such a motion, he had no
doubt, would-appear to his Lordship to be absolutely
just, and essentially necessary for public equity ; for
it persons were allowed to take the benefit of the In-
solvent Acr, and permitted to live, after such a step,
in luxury, on what was not their own, but in truth
the property of their creditors, then the benevolent
intentions of the Legislature of the vountry would be
done away with; for surely the law was meant solely
for protecting the debtor, but at the same time for
doing justice to the creditor.
Mr. CoLunson made a few observations on the
same side.

Mr. Leto', on the other s;cle, contended, that as
the defendant, his client, was depending on the trus.
tees, if they felt his conduct had in any /view been
improper, they were by no means bound to give him
a shilling, according to the testator's will; yet if a
man was imprudent in early life, as indeed was too
commonly the case (for who on the first introduction
to the stage of public enjoyments did not, in some
instance or another, act imprudently), and if he did
atterwards correct his conduct so as to gain approba-
non, would his Lordship think it proper to visit him
with the sins of early years, if the trustees thought
proper to overlook such conduct, and to carry into
execution the will of the testator ? He knew his
Lordship too well to suppose he should do so, and he
trusted, therefore, that the order of the Master of the
Rolls be confirmed.

Mr. AIIIIRCROMRIfy on the part of the trustees, ex-
pressed their willingness to submit to any order of
the Court, and at the same time their anxiety to per-
L'):iscientiously the duty with which they had
beep invested by the deceased, whose son they could
not wish to ste in any kind of distress, while they
had funds in their hands sufficient to prevent such
ss. Yet they would not sanction his juvenile
irtdi. —Pons, and give the money to be squandered
which had been left for other tad better purposes.

They in truth wished to act as his father would have
done, and as his best and true friends. It would be
for his Lordship to decide in the case, as there were
no legal heirs, the children being illegitimate.
The LORD CHANCELLOR.--:4 I
want to know if
the Attorney. General has been served with notice of
this c ise ? as it is impossible for me to decide unless
the Crown be represented. Let therefore notice be
served on his Majesty's Attotney•General."
Further discussion postponed.

EDLYBUI?GH, JULY 20.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY.