Star.
London, England, 1828-04-16 00:00:00

DIMES V. SCOTT.

The testator, a Mr. Percy left his property to trustees,
with a direction to sell it, and -invest the produce in
Government securities. The testator died in the %Vest
Indiei. Part of the property consisted of a decennial
loan. The interest of the property, after it was thus
invested, was to be paid to a certain party, and the
remainder was to go over. The trustees did not part
with the decennial loan, but paid the tenant for life 10
per cent. in lieu of the interest the testator had looked
to; hence the question, whether this was a proper com-
pliance with the testator's direction? His Lordship's
judgment was negative, and therefore he directed the
difference to be paid to the tenant for life, between
the 10 per cent. and the interest that would have been
produced by the directed sale and investment within a
proper time of the death of thelestator. This confirmed
the judgment of the Master of the Rolls.

VICE•CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Alma. 15.
INJUNCTION.—LEIGH V. STRNTFORD.
In this case the bill was filed for an account of the
testator's property and effects, and it prayed that in the
mean time the defendants might be restrained by the
order of the Court from selling a certain house, or from
otherwise making away with the property of the testator.
It appeared that the testator left all his property to his
wife, one of the defendants, upon condition that she
should not again enter into the matrimonial state, and
in the event of her second marriage or death, the testator
devised the property in question to Elizabeth Leigh the
elder, and Elizabeth Leigh the younger, his wife's
mother and sitter. Notwithstanding th provisions in
this will, the testator's widow had since married the
other defendant Stentford (as we understood the name),
and the plaintiffs conceiving themselves to be now en-
titled to the property, filed the present bill.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR granted the injunction.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, GUILDEALL, Aram 15.
HARVEY AND OTHERS V. KAY, BART.
This was an action for goods sold and delivered, and
upon a bill of exchange, drawn by Rowland Wilks upon
the Directors of the Cornwall and Devon Mining Com-
pany, and accepted in their name by the Secretary. The
defendant, Sir William Kay, was sued as one of the
Directors. The necessary proof of the acceptance, and
that the defendant bad acted as a Director, having been
given, Mr. CAstraiu.L, for the defendant, stated that
the defence to the action (which went to a part only of
the demand) was, that one of the plaintiffs, William
Reynolds, was himself a Director of the Company up
to a certain period, and that the bill in question (which
Was for 661.0cid) was not drawn according to the custom
of merchants.
To prove this case several letters of the plaintiff Rey.
nolds were produced, in which he alluded to the sale of
30 shares held by him under the Company, and which,
under the deed of the Company (drawn by Mr. John
Wilks, the late Member for Sudbury), could not, it ap.
peered, be transferred except under certain regulations.l
On the part of the plaintiffs. evidence was adduced
to rebut this case, but before the whole of it was gone
through.
Lord TINTERDEN suggested, as it was clear that the
plaintiffs were entitled to recover for the value of the
goods sold subsequent to the transfer of the shares, that
a verdict should be taken for the whole amount claimed,
subject to the opinion of the Court above on the points
of law raised on the part of the defendant.
This being acceded to by the Counsel on both sides,
a verdict was entered for the plaintiffs for 1541. 2s. 7d.
with liberty to the defendant to move for a nonsuir, or
to reduce the sum to 721. being the value of the goods
which it was admitted the defendant was liable for.
WHEELER V. WEST.
This was an action on a bill of exchange for 1,0001.
drawn by a person named Atkinson. and accepted by
the defendant. Evidence was adduced to prove the
handwriting of William Avery West, the defendant, to
the bill in question.
Mr. Baouocast then addressed the Jury for the de-
fendant. He said, a grosser case of fraud never came
into a Court of Justice. The defendant was a respect.
able young Gentleman, who had only come of age on
the 17th of August last. The bill in question was dated
the Slst August, and the circumstances under which it
was obtained were aciollow :—Mr. West wanted more
money before he came of age to purchase a commission,
which his guardians did not deem it prudent at that
time to advance. He became acquainted, however,
with a sporting Gentleman. a Captain Atkinson, who
promised to accommodate him with the sum he re•
quired, and as a security took four blank acceptances on
the proper stamps. This was long before Mr. West be
came of age, and the money not being forthcoming, Mr.
W. applied for the blank acceptances, and Captain At-
kinson took some papers out of his pocket, and threw
them in the fire, saying, the acceptances, I have
had trouble enough with them.".—Mr. West thought
the acceptances were destroyed, and that he should heat
no more of the transaction ; but he was subsequently
called upon by the plaintiff Wheeler for 1,0004 the
amount of a bill filled up by Atkinson, and for which
the defendant had given a blank acceptance. There was
every reason to believe that Wheeler was acquainted
with the circumstances under which Atkinson became
possessed of the bill in question ; and if the Jury were
efsspinion that he was so informed, or that he bad not
given value for the bill, they were bound to find for the
defendant. Proceedings were filed in the Exchequer
against Atkinson, and subsequently against Wheeler,
who stated in his answer that he had given 3001. in cash
to Atkinson. and sold him thirteen hogsheads of claret,
at 85i. a tan. As to the claret, it would be proved that
it was still in the London Docks, in the name of.
Wheeler ; that it was never worth thirty-five shillings
a bogibsad, and that it had been offered, and could
mat be sold for 151. a hogshead. If these circumstances
wet. pond. the Joy could hare no hesitation in