Court Of Chancery, Thuesd...
The Times, 1824-04-02T00:00:00

Wr. fIfoNE moved that the sum of 2Z2,0Wl., which had been paid into ('ourt by the plaintiff, lViss l lellish, might be transferred to the defendant Mr. William lleUish. Thc plaintiff had filed a bill against her uncles, who had been her guardians, to account for the rentx and profits of her estate. Three accounts had been given in, csled- 'i Thc Minority Account," "The Settlement Account," and "Thye Najorits Account " On the last of these accounts there appeared te. be a balance of 22,0001. duc to lr. Wim. Mellish, for which he brought his action against th estate. Miss IVleUish filed a bill for an inunction to restrain the action, until the account was investigated. There then existed a doubt as to whether Aliss Alel- lish took an estate for life, or an estate tail, in the Hertfortdshire pro. perty, under her father's will; wbich question materially affected several items of the expenditure stated in the minority account, which would be objectionable or reasonable according to the estate she took. The ViceXChancelor enjoined the proceedings in the ac- tion, on condition that Miss eleish paid over 14,0001. personally to 'lr. W. Mellish. Miss Meiish appealed from this decision to the l,ord Chancedlor, who decided, that the whole 22,0001. claimed 'by Ar. Wo. Aleishshouldbepaidintoourt; that conveyances .or the estates purchased by her uncles on Miss elhiab's accont, daring her minority, should be executed by them, but lodged in C,ourt as a security for whatever balance, if any, might be due to them on the minority acrount; and also, that acasc3hould be drawn up for a court ot lav to decare wlhat interest Aliss Mellish taok in the estate in Hertfordshire. That was accordingly done: the case was argued before the Court of King's Bench which held that she took %n estate tail. That decision removed nll question'as to the minority account; for there was no dispute as to the amount of the .expenditure, butmerelyas to the propriety of it. There was, there- tore, now no reason to retain the money due to 3l-. Mellish on the rnsjority account any longer. Upon Miiss i'lellirth's coming of age, shb executed a release to her g-rU- of th,.. ,.i.nt or_ count. There. was, therefore, no guestion with respect to that; and aK it- was decided that she- rtok an estate absolutely in the UErCndsfvhite property, which reinoved all objections to the itens of:tl, uccount, there~ could be no reason why this motion was tios, lr.znte.ndeed*, the motion was to the intercst of all par. ties,atuorgc vi hons it was meest desirable that all litigation should beD put an end to, and hatmnony once more restored. The SOLrCxTOa-GE:x]C>AL would be most happy if the dif- ferences between these parties were terminated; but he apprehanded! that the motion of Mr. Horne was not calculated to produce that effsCL The defendante eitated, that having hat the management of this lady's estate, the letting of the house, the receipt of the rents and profita, and of the personal property the result was, that a sum of 11,0001. was due to them on tie minoritvaccount, and 22,0001. on the mniaority account. Undoubtedly, the question of expenditure depended in some respects on the nature of the estate ske took; for instance, in respect to such items as 3,0001. for plantations, &c. But there werealsootherobj ections,or. the scoreofmismanagement or extravagance ; and therefore the whole of the miaorltv account was subject to many questions. The Vice-Chancellor coneeived that Be coald separaite the balance due to this gentleman from the other account; but the Lord Chancellor dcrided that the accounts coulti not be separated, and ordered that the money should be paid into coutL The King's Bench having' declared what estate the plaintiff took under her fatlier's will, it might be said that many items of ex- penditure which at the time thev took place were improper, would now be allowed, as it was decided that she took an inheritable estate; but there were many other items not affected by that decision. It vopuld be most desirable to save further time in this case; and there- fo,e, what he Sithe Solicitor-General) wished for was, to have an on- portpnity of considering in what way the same order might be made upon this motion as would be- made on the reneral hearing of the cause. He was sure that the Court would not orderall the maonay paio into Court to be paid over to one party, and leave the other to settle the disputed points. Such an order would be unjust gnd oppressive. The whole account should be settled between the parties before the money was paid. ,Mr. PEPSs followed on the same side. Without wishingr to say any thing, to hurt the felings of the opposite parties, he could not help4observing that there wasa great deal in this account which re- quired explanation. This lady's father died in 1798, leaving hera sum of 3,0QOb., an estate in Hertfordstiir and portions of other estates, in which her uncles had also an interest. On her-coming of age in 1817, she was desirous of going to the continent,and calfed upon ler guwrdians for an account. This she did not obtain; bu' Te- ceived-ar.axsurance frmn them that her net income amounted toJ 6,00OL per aen. Upon that assuranceshe wentabroad, first requesting her uncle tocoetinue themanagementofherproperty. Sheremainedon the coatinent-forrthreeyears, during which period shedrew something under 15,000L, whIch was at the rate of a thotand a year less than what thedefendaant etabDd to be the amount of her income. What was ber surprese, therefore, when presented with an account upon ber returrn, upon-which, insteasd of having an accst,iulafion of 3,0001. to receive from'heruncle, he -brought her in his deltor to the amount of near 23,00L, as the. ccess of the expenditure-beyond-the iinount of her income dlurinzthose three years. She constdered this a verv extraordinary result, and of course hesitated to receive the ac- count, ucon- which Mir. William lellish instituted an; ac- tion against her for the recovery of this sum. The guar- dians also, claimed a balance of 11,0001 on' the minority amount; but the action was only brought on tie majority account. The.l,or. Chancellor considered the two accounts so blendtd, that he granted the injumction to stay the actiori until both aceounts.were settled; but the plaintiff would get nothing by that injiurction if the money was p3id over to the defendant. Indeed, she would be in a worse situation than if the action bad proceeded; for she would have hlad an opportunity of goin2 into the account before a jury. j,,r. RonaaE replied. His leamed friends seemed to have for. goteen.iat:the rction on the majority account was not bwught by the grxrd;r,ns, who liad nothing to do with it, but by Mr. William 31 ellish oitl, who hi;i ecpended mniey out of his own pocket on ifss iUellislts property, afdf 4nswered her draughts to the imount of upwards of- 21 ,000I. At illeyents, thee was no, question about the miin ordered by the Vice-Ch=.1Fellur to be paid to the de- fendant; tot-that was-clearly proved so haNet:tcen received, and in- deed add itted by tbe pleadlngs in the cauise. - The L6RD CrUtNsC-ELr,OR asked, if Mlr. Mellish hg4 been au- thorized -during-those three yearsi to receive the rents anr o6t8 I MTr. P?ePYs said, he had admitted that. fr. Hosaxr proceeded, -and stated, that the guardians had ex- pended 14 ,000L for purchasesi all which this Iaay adopted on her comning oF age.- Sheadmitted thatshehad received remittances to the amount of'naar-l5,00L. Alr. PEPYs.-Yes ; but oat of her owrn6,0001. a year. M1r.I{Ionsr , after somne`furthetargament, conclwled by pressing the Conrt to Rrant his notion. The Lowst CMANs"LT.LO said,- there-ought 'to be but one wieh aihongst nUhctse parties, which was to-put an end to this litiher tdon. The tehtlement account he put out of fire question 'the Solicitor-Sendral had said thatMllIissa- fellish hing beeli declared to be leanantin tail, removed someof the objections to tne expendi ture, -bat that.others still existed > and :liat he fisbed for time to consider vwbmether an order miRlit iot beimadc ivhicn would save the necestity-of proceeding with the cause. Undauhladly, any tme that wouldP be occupied irP devising a-mode of accelerating the-ter minationt of-these dispdfWWdihId be well applied, and it iould be thetefore deelftb]c thant he- (thei Solicito.General) qid HO e -i thought a great saring might boeffeed to C lparties? ,f they could find some p&easOW8t of court torlookinto thA account. - The SOIiIXI61rAGE1EsL had only sald, that in consequence of the decision ofthei Coii of ling'slltnch,.sot ofthe it0msof the aependiture might ie osldwed, wiuidt wouldnot otherwise have been sanctioned, - - The LotD CIA.,iLLon. thlought-it would be desirable if the Sohicitor-qenerit would sepatdte those ; swhich were notobjectid to, and the o',hers mightthens be eiargue befdre the Court-at once, withlout going to thc iQaster; is Jn nUliaelihood be vrould have ul- timately to hear e1iEii dfgued, lioewthstafrding thb iNast6r's de- cis oio .'i- * -- COURT OF C ANCERY, THUESDAY, AWERL 1. MELLISH V. MELLISH.