Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1829-07-21

port in this State that high power OF Chancery, which
goes to set aside previous agreement voluntarily en-
tered into and Of long standing
In support of the bill Messrs Nichols Rand and Writ
were counsel and for the defendant Mcssrs Warner,
t;orham and WEBSTER
The commenced on Tuesday the sixteenth, |
and all that week taken up in the reading oil the
bill and answcrthe opening statements OF the coun-
sci and the reading of the evidence. may be easily
imagined that case in which five days arc consumed
simply preparing aud presenting the points Tor argu
ment, scarcely admits OF very compressed report
To attempt to give sketch Of the evidence, would only
be do the parties manifest inustce Tor, nothing short
Of the fullest report would put the public in possession
Of all the facts and question.
IL il sufficient, therefore, simply 10 state, that Mr.
Brooks opened private insurance office in Boston in
the year l7S9; in which Office Mr. Hubbar was accus
underwrte; that in the year 1874 the parties
entered into private copartncrsp Mr. Huboart to bear
receive fourhs and Mr. Brooks one-iourth OF
all losses gains upon all the policies underwriten in
that Office by Mr.. Hubbart. This partnership continued
until the year 1S0S when il was closed. In January
1908 Mr. Hubbat died; aud the 4h OF April Of the
same year, Mr.. Brooks settled by compromise with Mr.
the same time, the whole account, and making il his
with all its advantages and disadvantages. in the
same il he had been the original underwriters
instead of Mr.. Hubbart.
The bill now filed is to set aside that settlement
the general ground that Mr. Brooks being active partner
VOL general partner, or at least AGENT was bound
at the time of settlement to have given the parties full
clear detailed and crcumstana account of the state OF
affairs without waiting for examination their part,
And that without intending impute the least intention
al fraud deception TO Mr. Brooks STILL in the state
nents made by Mr. Brooks, many important items,
which he either knew ght have known were omit
ted.
TWAS assumed the part of the plaintiffs, that the
settlement made entirely on the basis Of a state
ment OF the made out by Mr. Brooks for
MIR. Hubbart. twas then urged that in this statement
no mention made by Mr.. Brooks Of the Spanish Claims
since received and of which Mr. Hubbars share would
have been $685. of the claims on France, which
now nomnally about s64 $780, and that nothing
allowed for interest on the large Of money
Mr. ,,If
time previously TO the decease of Mr. Hubbart. That,
in the statement given there and omissions:
that errors made in the deductions as to bad and
outstanding debts; and that the list Of unsettled claims
for which abatement allowance made Of about
$4,000, calculated to misead.
On the part of Mr.. Brooks, il answered that the
settlement not made by the heirs solely upon the
statement furnished by him, for that they had employed
an agent examine the books and accounts for them
selves all which completely open to him, and up
on whose report they acted That the Spanish claims, il
mentioned at ALL were mentioned not worth much, as
the fact at the time, and rohingbut fortunate
currencc OF circumstances ever did enable him TO real
izc any thing from them That the French claims are
as yet unsettled and perhaps worth nothng.-Dut that
all the knowledge respecting both Of these claims
the books and open to the inspection of the agent and
indeed, was perfectly public and in the possession oil
every body That as to interest, none ever known
have been paid by office keeper money in hi,
lands expected from him by the underwriters
That the errors and omissions small sums scatter
cd through the numerous books of 40 years standing
that here he acknowledged errors, not in the books bu
in the list of bad debts, to the amount of about S1l00
at the time urging that there might be OF
the other side and that, being settlement by compro
mise, perfect accuracy was not pretended expected
That the unsettled claims against the partnership
correctly and, with sufficient fness, represented at tina
time Ii was finally objected to the whole bill that the
Statue OF Limitations was complete bar unless upor
proof of fraud, which the counsel contended com
pletey out of the case; and further that fraud
charged in the bill.
IL would be, for many reasons, improper TO express
any opinion at present upon the final result of the
whatever opinion might entertain. Ii may, how
ever be proper and il certainly Justice to state, tina
although from an Inaccurate statement of the case
from partial hearing of the remarks of the openin
counsel for the plaintiffs and from ignorance of the tech
nicatics of the law might infer that charge of actuu
fraud had been made, Mr. WRIT, expressly, disiHeti
f"''''o P'''i oOuIu saJIsiIcd mIhI
oi the truth OF the charge, had il been made As
stands, however, the charge is simply of cons,,ct,
fraud; that is, of not coming toward with full and mi
mute disclosure OF all facts when the other party
cd The responsibility of investigation and all he ac
counts &c were as fully open them as to Mr. Broo
himself ~ 49, D'ooA'
Mr. Webster occupied the whole sitting Of Mon5s,
and iuesday.-Mr Writ followed on Wednesday, an,
Concluded ca, about twelve o'clock Thursday During
an these four days the Courthouse was crowded an
among the audience there were nearly a hundred i
dies The opinion of the Court has not as vet been va
, ported. " - FS'O"0Ai &c