The Statesman.
London, England, 1815-02-11 00:00:00

Lilt !NTS LLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, FEB. 10,

BOOTLE r. BLUND ELL.

•
This wu a motion for a new trial of a►► issue from
the Court of Chancery, lately 'tried at Lancaster, re-
specting the validity of the will of the Defendant's
father, which excluded his son and heir from the in-
heritance, that is very considerable, and devising the
same to the Plaintiffs, his next of kin.

The Plaintiffs filed their bill against the heir to es-
tablish the will, whereupon an issue was directed and
tried between the parties, with special directions.—
On the trial the Defendant's Counsel, after hearing one
only of the three attesting witnesses examined on the
part. of the Plaintiffs, together with a rational letter
of the testator to his son at the time, or in two or
three days after, acquainting him with what he had
done, and his desire it would be so, gave up the de-
fence, without putting it on the Plaintiffs to examine
the other two subscribing witnesses. There was a
•erdict found for the Plaintiffs in affirmance of the
will, to the satisfaction of the Judge who presided,
as ap;wared from his report. The no►elty and im-
portance, as well as difficulty, of the case called
forth unusual exertions at the bar yesterday and this
morning, when the arguments terminated in a most
clear and energetic reply by Sir S. ltomilly, the lead-
ing Counsel for the Defendant, in support of the
motion for a new trial, against the arguments of the
adverse Counsel yesterday against the application.—
There being no precedent to be ((road on either side,
the difficulty was great.
After an elaborate dissertation his Lordship de-
sired time to consider the Judge's report, the most
difficult part of the case.—Judgmeut was deferred.

COURT OF KING'S RENCII, Fes. 10.

TAYLOR AND ATHENS, ASSIGNEES OF WALSH, V. SIR

THOMAS PLOMER.

Lord FaLLINIOROUGII this day delivered the judg-
ment of the Court in this case, which was an action
of troves., brotsght by the Paituiffs, the Assignees of
Mr. Walsh, a bankrupt, to recover from the De-
feudant, Sir Thomas Plomer, Vice-Chancellor, cer-
tain certificates or securities for shares in the Ame-
rican Stocks or Funds ; certain shares in the Three
per Cent. Funds of this country; a Power of At.
torney, authorising the transfer of either or both of
thole securities; and a quantity of doubloons, to the
value of 5001.0 r 6001. a verdict was found for the
Piaintiffs, for the computed sum, subject to the
opinion of the Court, on a case reserved. With the
leading features of this case our readers are already
well acquainted, they not being ignorant, that the
Baukrupt, having been consulted by Sir Thomas
Planter, on the 2d of December, as to'the propriety
of selling certain Stock, which he held in the British
Funds, in order that he might be ready to make good
eh purchase money of an estate, the price of which he
bad stipulated to pay on the 4th of that month; did, in
constvence of the advice he received from the Bank-
rupt, 511 out to the amount required. The money,
however, not being required for this purpose, the
Bankrupt, on the 4th of the same month, at the de-
sire of the Defendant, paid in the amount, being
21,5001. into the hands of the Defendant's Bankers,
Messrs. Goslings, to the Defendant's credit. Having
been advised by the Bankrupt to lay oat the eoper-
fissoas sum he that had ie. !MAN de of his Bankers,
in-fa. port-hese of Exchequer Bills, the Defendant
agreed to this suggestion, and on the sth of the
some month, gave to the Bankrupt a draft on Gos-
lin_;s and Co. his bankers, for the sum of 22,5001.
to be invested in the purchase of Exchequer Bills;
but he did not authorise the Bankrupt to employ the
sum so intrusted to him to any other purpose. This
sum the Bankrupt received in twenty-two notes of
one thousand pounds each, and other smaller notes
to make up the amount. He purchased, how-
ever, Exchequer Bills, to the amount only of
about 60001. which he lodged with the Defendant's
bankers. He called upon the Defendant in the af-
ternoon of the same day, and told him that he had
deposited the 60001. worth of Exchequer Bills in
the hands of the bankers, and that he had left with
then a sum equal to the balance, which was not
true ; but, on the contrary, it appeared, that he
had, no that day, bargained for certificates in the
American Funds, &c. for the greater part of the dif-
ference. Had paid to his brother one of the Mal.
notes, receiving from him the difference between
that sum and 4001.; that being ruined, he had, on
the 2d of the month, conceived the intention of re-
tiring to a foreign country ; had on that day given or-
ders for a quantity of American Stock, for which
he had no means to pay ; that on the sth of De..
cranber Inc quitted London for Falmouth, having
emumitted an act of bankruptcy on that day. The
Bankrupt was followed by the Defendant's Solicitor,
and delivered over to him the property found upon
him; a deed of assig-ment was also executed by
the tankrupt to the Defendant on the same day, by
which he made over to him the sum of 15,0001. and
a Warrant of Attorney, to confess judgment for that
sum. Being indicted for felony for this offence, the
Bankrupt was found /witty, but a case being reserved
for the opinion of the Judges, be was pardoned with-
out any judgment. The question was, if the Plain-
tiff was entitled to recover wholly, or in part.—
Now, upon considering the whole circumstances of
the case, the Court was clearly of opinion, that if
:Jay property was originally covered with a trust,
no change of circumstances could give to the
Assignee of the Vector, any right beyond that
hich the factor himself formerly enjoyed. The
::buse of a trust could give to the abuser of
it no right eifich he did not formerly possess.—
That being guilty of a tort could give to a man a
right which he had not before, would be mischievous
in principle, as was urged in the course of the argu-
ment. Supposing A. to be entrusted by B. to pur-
chase a horse for him, and that A. instead of a
horse, purchased a carriage, would not that carriage
be equally the property of B. being purchased with his
trust-money, as if A. agreeably to the terms of the:
trust, had laid it out in the purchase of the horse.
which he had been commissioned to purchase for B.?
Property of whatever description still followed the'
purposes of the trust to which it was originally
destined, till it could be no longer discovered to be
the produce of the same fund ; ear.marking of pro-
perty was a distinction more of fact than o law.--
Money, if suffered to get from the hands of the prin-
cipal into the undistinguished and uudistinguishable

Mk