The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-11-09 00:00:00

A KNOTTY POINT TO DECIDE.

In the Roll's Court, the cause of "Lyall v. Lyall" has been
decided, and is a case of interest to trustees alai the public
generally.
The petition presented in this cause raised an fin-
portant question under the Succession Duty Act—
namely, whether the property of persons domiciled
abroad, if vested in English trustees, is liable to nieces-
sion duty. By the settlement dated in May, 1850,
made on the marriage of Mr. Lyall, a domiciled resi-
dent at Sydney, a sum of £1,047 Consols, and the
proceeds of a policy for £2,000 on Mr. Lyall's life were
vested in a set of English trustees upon trust for
Mrs. Lyall in the event of her surviving her husband.
and after her death upon trust for their children, and
Mr. Lyall covenanted to pay to the trustees within
three years from the date of the settlement a further
sum of £l,OOO to be held by them upon the same trusts.
Mr. Lyall died at Sydney in April, 1853, and Mrs.
Lyall died three months afterwards, leaving an only
child, the petitioner, who is also a domiciled resident
at Sydney. The suit wee instituted for the purpose
of administering the truste of the settlement, and Mr.
Lyidl's son having petitioned that the fund stand-
ing Odle credit of the cause might be Paid out to him
as the person entitled thereto, a claim to succession
duty was raised by the Commissioners of Inland Re-
venue on the portion of the fund representing the
money secured by the policy and the sum covenanted
to be paid by Mr. Lyall, it being admitted that the
Consols invested at the date of the settlement were
liable to succession duty.
The case was argued before the vacation by Sir
Richard Baggallay, Q C., and Mr. Hemming for the
petitioner; and the Solicitor-General and Mr. W. W.
Kerslake for the Commissioners of Inland Revenue;
Mr. E. G. White was for the trustees.

The Master of the Bolls, in the course of an elaborate
judgment, said that the distinction between the law as
to succession duty and the law as to legacy duty in
cases of foreign domicile appeared on principle to be
extremely thin. The House of Lords hal decided dust
legacy duty was not payable on personal property be-
queathed by a testator domiciled abroad, and why
should succession duty be payable under similar circum
stances? He had accordingly held in "Callanane v.
Campbell," L. il. Eq., 378, that upon the death of an
annuitant under the will of a testator domiciled
abroad, no suoression duty was payable on the
funds which were set apart to meet the annuity, and
which then fell into his residuary estate. How-
ever, the House of Lords reversed that decision in
April last, laying down the general principle that
where a person, whether an alien or a British subject,
succeeds to property vested in British trustees, he is
liable to pay succession duty, whether the settlement
be made by an alien or a British subject, and whether
the settlement be made by deed or will. Upon
consideration of the authorities, it appeared to him
that the question was left in an unsatisfactory posi-
tion ; still he was bound by the decision of the House
of Lords above referred to, and must hold that suc-
cession duty must be deducted in payment out of the
fund.

BREACH OF PROMISE-DAMAGES £2OO.

In the Court of Common Pleas, at Westminster, the cause
of "Tourney v. liingstiorth " has been heard, and was an
action for breach of promise of marriage. The plaintiff is a
young woman about twenty years of age, the daughter o •
farmer residing near Chilharn and Chartham, in K,nt The
defendant is a young man twenty-seven y,ars old, the son of
another farmer also living in that neighilmrhood.

Mr. Day, in hi s opening speech f.ir the plaintiff, said
there was a groat mass of correspondence, but, as he
WAS not sympathetic, he would not read inure than two
of the letters. It appeared that the defendant had at
flint addressed the plaintiff as her Royal Highness
Princess Alice of Perry Farm, and had given her an
engaged ring and his portrait, but had at last declined
to m..rry her on the ground that he had a father, on
whom he depended for his means, and who objected to
the engagement. . .

Miss Tournay was called, and proved a privut facie
case. Two letters were read, in one of which the de-
fendant gave her an account of his purchasing some
beef for a pudding, signing himself Your loving
tiarr;s ;" in the other he declined to continue the corres-
pondence, and stated that he wanted means to marry.
The action was practically undefended ; but Mr. Biros,
in mitigation of lamages, urged that the breach of pro.
noise complained of had been occasioned by the inju-
dicious and precipitate conduct of the father of the
young lady, who had threatened an action and con-
sulted an attorney too soon after the quarreL The
learned counsel made a most humorous speech, and
called the defendant, who stated that he had no means
of his own, that he managed a farm for his father, who
gave him k. 30 a year, his food, and a horse to ride, and
who bad threatened to withdraw all his support from
him &he persisted in marrying Miss Tournay.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Da.
mages, V2OO.