The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1873-01-25 00:00:00

•. " VANS x. YANEs."
The above e men has been before the Lords Jestices of
Appeal, and was an appeal from a decision of Viee-Chancel-
for Mallow '

- .
The o'sject of thin snit, which was instituted by "Sir
Frederick Henry Vane. Bart. (heretofore commonly
called Freitrick Henry Vane," against "Henry Ralph
Vane (heretofore commonly called Sir Henry Ralph
Vane, Bart)," and others was to obtain • declaration
that the plaintiff, as the eldest son of Sir Frederick
Fletcher -Vane, decearwel, is entitled to the family
estates in Cumberland and Westmoreland, and to
have an account taken of the relate and profits received
by the defendant H. R. Vane, with an order for pay-
ment to the plaintiff of what should lie found due.
The case ma le by the bill was that Sir Frank Fletcher
Vane, the father .f the plaintiff, before his marriage
cohabited with, and had three children by, Miss Hannah
Bowerhank, the lady whom he subsequently married,
the first of such children having been born in 1701 and
the second in 1795. It was upon the legitimacy of the
third of these children that ths question turned. The
plaiutiff 41,ge11 that pemling Arrangements for. his
father's enarriage; with Mies llowerbank, she was
prematurely ctinFuoi I f the third child, a sin, and
that the marriage did not, in fact, take place until
nearly three weeks after her confinement—viz., on
March 9, 1797. The child thus born, as the pixie tiff
alleged, about thrse weeks before the marriage on
the 9th of March, was baptized by the name of Francis
Fletcher Vane at St. George the Martyr, Blooms-
bury, London, on the 16th of April, 1797, aid in the
entry of his bapt sat lie was stated to have been born
on the 20th of Mara, 1797. As to this entry it
was alleged by the pi tintiff that the resister had
been tampered with and that the date of birth
was added some time after the original entry. The
bill thcfl stated that Sir Frederick Fletcher Vane
brought op Trancis Fletcher Vane, the child thus
born, as his legitimate heir. After the marriage two
other children were born—i.e.. a daughter, and the
plaintiff, who was born on May 10, 1607. Francis
Fletcher Vane married in 1123, and upon the death of
his father in 1832 asenmed the title, and entered into
poseesnion of the family estates. He died in 1842, and
the defendant, Sir Henry Ralph Vane, who was his
eldest eon, and consequently the nephew of the plain-
tiff/ eucceeded him. Lady Vane, the widow of Sir
Frederick Fletcher Vane, did not die until 1866, and
the litaintiff accounted for the length of time whii
had elapsed before he attempted to assert his
rights by the statement that from the year 1826,
when, at the age of 19, he obtained a coneminsion
in the 12th Lancers, down t 4 the year 1866 he had
only been for • • few days at a time at the
family place in Cumberland, and that in that...year be
for the first time became aware through inquiries
made, in coneequence of some remarks let fall by the
widow tif Sir Francis and of. subs queut convennition
with the widow of Sir Frederick before her death,
that there was any doubt as to the lifetime", of hi,
elder brother. The plaintiff further charged by his bill
that th gl legitimacy of Sir Frantiswre ni it only known
to Sir Frederick and his wife, but was disclosed tiy Sir
Fre let ick to Sir Francis, and also that the illegitimacy
was well baneful. Mr. C. G. Beanclerk, the father of the
defendant Dame Diana Otitis Vane, the widow of Sir
Francie, and that Mr. Ileauclerk negotiated the settle-
ment mole on his daughter's marriage with Sir Francis
as the /gent and on behalf of his dangliti-r with full
knowledge that Sir Francis was illegitimate and had no
interest in the estates included in the settlement. To
this bill demurrers were put inby Sir Henry and his
wife, and by his mother, Dame Diana. The Vice-
( 'hancellor overruled the demurrers, and the defend
ants appealed. By the Statute of Limitation', 3 and
4 William 4, cap. 27, 26 years is fixed as the ordinary
pen i el within which a person must bring a snit to re-
cover pr iperty of wliiih some one else has obtained
possession ; but by rectian 26 it Is provided that in
every case of a concealed fraud the right to bring a
suit in equity to recover land of which a person has
been deprived by such fraud shall be deemed to
lace first acarued "at and not before the time at
which such fraud shall, or, with reasonable
genre, might have been first known or cliecocered, pro-
vided that nothiug in this clanse contained shall enable
any owner of lands to have a suit for the recovery of
such lands against any fend Jude purchaser for valuable
consideration who him not alleged in the commission
of each fraud, end who at the time that he made the
purchase did not know arid had no reason to believe
• that any such fraud had bean committed." The ap
peals were argued partly before the Chriatinia Vaca-
tion, the arguments being concluded last Saturday.
The main argument on behalf of the appellants was
that they were entitled to the benefit of the proviso at
the end of section 26 of the statute.
Sir R. Beggallay, Q.C., Mr. Pearson, Q.e., and Mr.
A. G. Marten were for the appellants r ths Selicitor-
General, Mr. Glasse, Q.C., and Mr. Newton Smart
were for the plaintiff.

On Saturday morning the judgment of the Court was..
delivered by Lord duetice Janice, who said, —The
only question we have to &tee mine is, whether the dn.
fendante ought or ought not so put in an answer to the
plaintiff's allrgations. The Court has nothing now to do
with the probability or improbability of the plaintiff's
story with the probability or improbability of his nlti-
mate success at the hearing, nor with any c .miderat ions
of the hazdahip to the defendante, a widow and son,
themselves innocent, in that they are called on to
meet a case of fraud alleged to have been ori-
ginally committed geueratione ago by persons who have
been dead many years. The plaintid'e Cli4o must for
this purpose be takeu to be true se stated by him. After
stating the nature of the case alleFed by the hill, his
L ircinhip said,—UnleAs the plaintiff's case is affected
Icy faire of time, by the operation of the Statute of
Limitations, or by some countervailing equity on
the part of the defendants that caae would seem to
be a perfectly. clear one. It is as grows a fraud as could
well be conceived. Alter referring to some of the area-
mouth adduced, his Lordship proceeded. It appeared to
us throughout this case that the real question is as to
the true meaning of the 26th section of the Statute
of Limit lions. On this two questions were raised,
(1) that the plaintiff had not alleged a sufficient title
under the positive enactment in that section, (2) thiai
the defendants were within the protection iif the
proviso in favour of purchasers. As to the first q_ues•
than, there does not seem to no to be any real doubt. It's
difficult to conceive what would be a coverable fraud
if what is here alleged is not—viz., that a person was
induce I by a deception preetieed on him horn his
earliest knowledge to believe that he WAS only a
younger son when he was the eldest son, or how a
person could be more effectually &calved by fraud of
his estate than by his being designedly by the persis-
tent falsehood and deceit of those about him kept in ig-
norance of his birthright. awls° prevented fri.ni claiming
it. The plaintiff alleges, in so many words, that he never
did know or suspect mail the recent time mentioned
by him anything of the alleged fraud, and we are tin.
able to find in the bill anythiog to show that allegation
to be false, Cr to show want of reasonable diligence on
bin part is aseertaining the truth. That brings us to
the remaining and real point, whether the bill shows
that the defendants are protected by the proviso in the
26th section, whether the proviso means The actu ci
;miasmal knowledge of the purchaser, or whether under
it the actual knowledge ot the agent is to be deemed
and taken as the knowledge of the purchaser. At the
time thin statute was passed it hail undoubtedly been
held by the bight et authority that the actual know-
ledge of the !gent through whom an estate
is acquired is in this Gaut equivalent to the
actual personal knowledge of the principal. This is also
in accordance with the invariable comes Of decision at
Common Law in reg ual to purchases of chattels. No
one dealing through an agent is ever permitted to
allege himself ignorant of that which is actually com-
municated to the agent in the course of the
transactions. The agent in this matter and in the course
of the transaction, acting within the limits of his ageney,
is the slier ego of the principal. It appeare to cc, be-
yond all question, that Ps die law of %him Court itood
when the statute WAN passed, the knowledge of the
purchaser's agent ROW for all purposes treated as the
knowledge of the principal: It .ia•ideo, we consider,
beyond question that in every other case, except
tinder this pectin°, the Court would treat the
knowledge of the purchager's agent an the
knowledge Of the ,purahaemt Was it then • meant
to Make such a material alteration ii the law'
It is said in support of that (acid not without force)
that the words, well known in this Court, "pur-
chsser for valuable considerati en, without notice,"
were designedly not used, and that the words " per-
chaser for valuable consideration, 'who has not assisted
in the commission of such frauds, and who at the time
that he made the purchaee did not know and had no
renison to believe that any snob freed had been com-
mitted," were dee ignedly introduced, to that only those
muchasers should he affected who had actual know-
ledge, and who were in truth making themselves
morally aceomplices in the fraud —in fact, receivers of
stolen pm& lint we think that what the Legislature
really meant to do wee to exclude that constructive
notice which had certainly been carried to a very %tart-
ling extent in many instances, and that it did not
mean to subvert, in respect of one small portion of the
law of this Court, the well-Nettled principles and rules
on which all the Courts have acted in respect of
the relation if principal and agent, and in iespect
of the extent to which he knowledge of the
latter in deemed to be the keowledge of the former.
The Coort had, in fact, held almost in PO many
words that what the agent knows the princi-
pal knows, that the knowledge of the agent
wee sufficient to create mob g
.6./es in the principal.
And we think it reasonable therefore to hold that the
LegYedature used the words in the same Renee, and that
when they sail "*he did net knower flail not reason
to believe," they meant "who did not know or had
not reason to believe, either by himself or by some
agent, whose knowledge or r. mon to beffeve In b/
Fettled law deemed and taken to b • Ids." We think
it would lead to very startling consequences if any
other interpretation were put on the clatiae. It Lu
obvious that If Actual personal knowledge Were re-
.quired every Corporation of Joint-Sto.k Conryriny
might acryoire a go ol title M property, although
otlieens and solicitors Were perfectly tonveraant 7
with the grossest fraud perpetrated by the
mid, in f nit. airy person might deal with iainuidtr
in the purthase of what rh in substance stolen
I property: provided he takes oars to leave the
. whole •dealing from lied to limit in the hands of Lie

agelit. We have arrived, therefore, at the oonclusion
that the averment. in the bill that the father, as the
agent and on behalf of his daughter, nezotiated the
marriage settlement w 1,1), full knowledge that 12,r in.
tended husband was illegitimate, Le a .-ufticient aver.
went to preclude the daughter from setting up the bar
ofTurchase for valuable consid.ration under the 26th
section of the Act, "and that the eon, who only claims
through the same settlement, is in the same pr.sitiou,
and is equally affected with knowledge through the
knowledge of his mother's father and agent. The de-
fendants moat put in an &rimer, and the ppeals will
be dismi-And, with rods.

DEATH OF LORD LtTTON.
Lord Lytton died on Saturday (tie 18thl at Torquay,
his usual winter residence, having" been only seriously
ill since Wednesday. Fortunately, hie ton waii sum•
moped in time to be present. Tbe deceased Peer was
the son of General William Earle Bulwer, of Woodal.
ling, and Ileyilon Hall, Norfolk, by the only dauzhter
l'hd heiress of Richard Warburton Lytton, of Kneb-
.vrasia, Hares. if. man born in 1806, mid married, In
1827, Rosins, daughter of the late Francis' Masey
Whseler, of Lizzard Connell, comity Limerick.
, The dememod peer Serirecintecf St. Ices in 1831, Lin-
coln from 1822 to 1841, yid Herts from 1842 to 1868.
He ssrveil aa tecretary of State for the Colonies from
May, 1858, to June, 1859.
In 1844 Sir Edward Bulwer assumed the name of
Lytton in compliance with the forms of his mother's
will, and in 188t1 was created a peer.

He is succeeded ty Lis eon Edward Rohr, wbo
wee born in 1831, And marr ed in 1864 Edith, daughter
of the late Ibm. Edward Villiers. The present peer
has been in Her Majesty's Diplomatic service since
1849.

Commenting on the death of Lord Litton, the Obieroer
sa}s

Amidst the public men of our time there WAR pro
b illy no one whose name was known so widely, Cr
in so many departments of letters and public life, as
that of Lord Lytton, whose death it falls to us to
announce. Noveliet, poet, dramatist, orator,
statesman, he obtained in every branch • reputation
which would have sufficed to stamp him as a man
of signal note. We have had,: and we still have
men atimaget us who in each of theselwallur of We have
attained an eminence higher than that of the nobleman
best known to the world by his old name of Bulky. r.
There have ben amidst the men whose names will be
remrded in the annals of our day greater orators,
greater statesmen, greater poets certainly, novelintp
and dramatists of at leant equal fame. But it may
be fairly eaid that no other man in one generation,
or, for that matter, in amyy a preceding one, ever
attained such a height of eminence in no many an
such varied pursuits. In any record of the literature,
politica, and social life of our time, LordreLyttoe
must infallibly occupy a prominent position. I
may, perhape, be said that if he had devoteq
himself to any single pursuit he might haw
attained therein a more larting tarps than posterit
will possibly accord to him. In one.senee he may mit
doubtedly lie said to have been ad amateur author;
dramatist, and iiilitician ; but yet we: doubt whether
such criticism is sound. It is not easy to say exactly
in what lay the especial bent of Bulwer's genius. Toe
real pre-eminence of the man lay in the fact that,
whatever he turned his hand to do, he did alumet as
well as the recognised masters of the craft. To him,
more than to any other modern Englishman, the
ii ii it Ii tiqit qusel non °rim vit is especially Amalfi
cable. Its wrote no wed that the world looked
noon him as a student and a man of letters. He
spoke so well that his contemporaries scarcely gave
him credit for the student-like ability and learning
which he poesessed. Ile was so thdrclughly a man of
social fashion that his associates hardly realised his
worth as an author and a statesman. In more stirring
times, Lord Lytton would probably have played an
active part in public life. In our own days it is in
France only, to statesman-authore of the Lamartine
and Chataubriand typs, Oat we can look for any
parallel in versatility of genius to tne author of "Pr
ham," sometime Secretary of State for the Colonies
un ler the late Lord Derby's Government.
We believe, however, that Lord Lytton's most last-
ing fame will be that a .cruing from his novels. It is
now nearly half a century since "Pelham" first startled
the w irli with its brilliant audacity. Whatever the
literary and artistic defects of the bv3k may he,
assuredly it is the most strikiug work of genius
ever produced by a man of one.and.twenty. The
series of nose's, of which " Pelham" wan the first,
consisted of• a long lot of lomances, ali of which
have achieved a vitality far beyond that of ordi-
nary works of fiction. "The Disowned," " Dere.
IN ex," '' Paul Clifford," " Rieu zi," " Emuene Aram,"
"The Last Days of Pompeii," "Earnest Maltravers,"
followed each oilier in rapid succernion. Probably no
English writer of fictii n has been so widely translated,
no much read, and no generally admirei in foreign lauds
as Bnlwer. It may he Paid with truth that the rem
trtkmnimf Scott stair is far higher abroad amidst students
of Eogli h literature. But in the days when the
author ot " Waverley " wrote, England was
almost a tcrra incognita to the Comtinent ; and
there was alisdi no much in the Abbotsford
Chrinicli " of local sod native humour, that to ap-
preciate them at their true worth refilled an intl.
mate knowledge of English life and manners which
few foreigners can possess. It was characteristic of
his versatility of genius that at a period of life when
most men's style becomes stereotyped, he changed the
whole mariner and fashion of his fictions. "Lucretia;
cr the Children of the Night," was the last of the
series of that sensational school of romances of which
13ulwer may in many respects be regarded am the
founder. Then followed the "Cartons" and "My
Novel," in which was opened a new vein of fiction,
founded upon the well.nigh forgotten traditions of
"Tristram Shandy" and the "Sentimental Journey."
As an epic post Lord Lytton stands hduli amidst the
verse w errs of our time. And the hold which "the
I Ady of Lyons "and " Money" have ret lined thronAli-
.sat a long perio 1 of years upon our ktage suffices to
show that if Lord Lytton had made playwriting his
especial study, he tuight easily have ranked high amidst
, English dramatists. Indeed, it is scarcely too much to
may that the only plays of our time wide& are likely to
live permanently in the annals of the British drama
are those which owe their origin to the owner of Kneb-
worth.

Lord Lytton was approaching fifty More he com-
menc ri hie political career. By a *tries of speeches
remarkable ttr their ornate eloquence he attained in a
very short tine' a posititoi in the Rouse of Commons
which most tees' lie ruen gulp acquire after a long course
of years. Ills tenure of office as a Cabinet Minister,
though very brief, was by no means undistinguished.
British Columbia owes its independent existence in no
Mall part to the policy inaugurated by Lord Derby's
Secretary for the Colonies in 1858. As soon, however,
as Lord Lytton had made his mark &ea statesman, he
retired from a pursuit which to him was far lees con-
genial than that of letters. Up to the last, in spite of
ailing health and domestic troubles, he continued to
astonish his contemporaries by the display of an ap-
parently inexhaustible vigour, which age seemed to
to have no power to tame, and success do tendency to
dull.