The Express.
London, England, 1862-11-12 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

Sittings in Bmwo ha Michaelmas Term.—(Before Lord Chief
Baron Pollock and Barons Bramwell and Channell.)

THE ATTORNET-GLNERAI. r. R1114GT021.-QUISTION UP

Sir Y. Kelly said th;toa----1;e1;ail of the crown he had to
apply for the directioas of the court in this case, which
involved the question whether the crown was entitled to
probate duty on the whole vogue of the property at the
Smoot the decease of the intestate, or when the letters

Ofsitninitration were taken out. 7ln consequence of II;
lapse of time, about 40 years, there was • difference in tho
shape of interest to the court of between 30A01. and
40,0001. Upon that, which was the chief point, the court
gave a unanimous judgment in favour of the crown, but
there was another point rather alluded to than argued upon
which no judgment had been pronounced. It was started
by Mr. Baron Martin, who had iu regard to it expressed so
opinion unfavourable to the crown. The intestate died in
1819, and the person entitled to administration was a lady
residing in America. She did not take out administration,
being probably not cognisant of her rights, and died in
1825. Her husband, who succeeded to her rights, died in
1830. The claimant was the son of this marriage, who now
by his attorney in this country. He made claim,
appeased
lapse of 40 years, to the property in the hands of the
Crown, :thd iu order to substantiate that claim which was ulti.
cutely adjudged in his favour by the Court of Chancery,itwas
necessary he should take out letters of administration in the
name of Elizabeth Cook, who, died in 1825, and also in that
of Ellis Cook, the husband, who died„in 1830. By virtue
of those two grants payment of the property was allowed,
and made, and the crown reclaimed probate duty upon both
grants, but the other side contended that it was only ap.
plioable to one.
The Chief Baron said his impression was that this poict
was waived by the crown, and that the officers of the crown
said they would be content with single duty.
Sir F. Kelly said it was expressly stated at the end of the
case that the crown would not concede this second point,
and the court had not alluded to it in their
judgment. It materially affected the revenue in
• great variety of cases which had already
arisen and might yet occur, and it was therefore the duty
of the adders" of the crown to ask for the judgment of the
court. If their lordships thought that the crown was not
entitled to repeated duty the law officers were bound to
appeal, bat thay considered it would be more respectful to
them not to do without asking them whether that was their
deliberate opinion. The learned counsel then submitted that
the claimant reoeived the money by virtue of two adminia.
teatime.

Mr. Baron Breniwell—With greateubmission, I deny that
is a legal possibility.
Sir Kelly said this was not a cue of conflicting ad-
ministration, but of two suomesive grants of administration,
without which the claimant could not have succeeded. It
was • case of the rapid evolution of property, and on each
evolution the crown was entitled to duty, even if ten hap-
pened in the year.
The Chief Baron said a man was not bound to take his
share of an intestate estate, and if he died without doing
aoything—probably without knowing anything of his rights,
it seemed very odd—not to use a stronger expression—that
a claim should be made upon him in respect of that from
which he had derived no benefit.
The court took time to consider whether they would hoar
the point further argued before they pronounced any
opinion upon it.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Bofors the Judge Ordinary.)
La V. LIE LSD DREW.
Dr. Tristram appeared for the petitioner ; Mx. G. Brown
for the co-respondent.
The parties in this case were married no long ago as the
year 1836. They lived together at Bristol for about eleven
years, and during that time they had two children. In
1817 there was a quarrel, the particulars of which were not
stated. A separation ensued by mutual consent, the fur-
niture and other effects of the parties being divided
amongst them. The respondent went into service,
but soon afterwards began to live with the re.
respondent. James Drew, of 5, Milk-street,
Bristol, pawnbroker, with whom she now cohabited and by
whom she had bad an illegitimate family. The petitioner,
after the separatioo, left the city and went to Liverpool
and other places, where he obtained employment as a
railway porter. He had latterly, however, returned to
Bristol and had opened a shop as a retail grocer. Haying
found that his wife was living in adultery with Drew, sod
was keeping a spirit store with him, he had commenced the
present suit.
The evidence of the identity being defective,
The court adjourned the farther bearing of the case.
WALLACE r. WALLACL—ANOTHER CLANDESTMNARRIAGL
The Quesn'efAdvocate and Dr. Tristram ware for the path
timer ; Mr. Serjesnt Ballantins and Mr. Day for the
ent
rehedpetition was for a divorce, on the ground of adultery
and cruelty ; but the latter charge had been abandoned.
The respondent denied the adultery, and also pleaded con-
donation.
Mrs. Coleman, the widow of a surgeon, said—l am the
mother of the petitioner. In October, 1849, 1 was living
with her at Romsey. On the 22nd of that mouth she
eloped with the resoondeot. I saw her again the same
evening. Her bustand brought her home again, but I
refused to see him. A few days afterwards he came into
my house, but I *refused to see him. On the 11th of the
December following he took my daughter away. I maw
him on that or the previous day. He took her to Win-
borne, and afterwards to Lyme Regis and Pisherton, near
Salisbury. They separated in May, 1861. The letters produced
are in his handwriting. [ln one of these be confessed that he
had committed adultery at Wimborne and Lyme, and be
offered, if he ware allowed reasonable access to his child,
to offer no resistance to the suit. He added, "If you can't
prove adultery, I will even tell you who can." Aato support-
ing his wife, he said that it could only have been spite that
had iodated thyme. to ask it of him, as it was well known that
he had nothing. He protested that he loved the petitioner
as much ss ever mass loved woman, and said that she had
kissed him when she left him ; but he insinuated that ha
mind had been poisoned by her association with her fervent
and other low people. He admitted that he had been to
blame, and laid the fault to fast living and beer.] Mr. Wal-
lace was articled to a solicitor, but he has never followed
his pr.:dogleg. His father made him an allowance of 1006
and 1 one of 401. a year.
Harriet Hodder deposed to baying had au illicit intimacy
with him. The witness said that last Thursday she saw
him on the platform at Salisbury, and that he gave her
some wine, and bagged her not to my anything against him.
Mr. Edward Calvow, superintendent of the police at to
lisbury, had known Mr. George Wallace, the respondent,
for two years and a ball His habits were very loose. Ile
was almost continually drink. Saw bim at Salisbury fig
on the 2204 el Weber? 1861. He was in compeer with a
Mr. May and two prostitutes. When he caught sightof
sigmas, he walked aw. Believed that he had men him
in company with Ruth Worth on the 16th of November last
Believed her to be a prostitute.
Sergeant If 'Gough, of the Salisbury police, gave similar
evidence.
Mary Ayles, of Binoombe, Dorset, said that io Nov,
1861, she was servant at the Somerset Hotel, Weymouth.
On the 9th of that mouth the respondent brought Ruth
Worth to the house, and stayed there with her two nights.
Mr. George Ford, landlord of the Somerset, corroborated
the last 'Atoms.
Mr. Serjeaot Ballantine said that as the charge of cmikl
was withdrawn, he could not further contest the case
There was therefore a decree of judicial separation, sad
the court directed the child to remain in the custody of the
petitioner till further orders.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.;
Ef ix GODDAND.—JUDGMMiT.
The bankrupt was • Custom-house agent, of V peer
TI au( a- Amt., and recently applied for his order of discharge.
His Honour now vivo judgment. He maid the banimipt had
been in business for a considerable period—about lo yea:s—
and bad carried it on with success, making about 600 i.
year. He must have been in goad repute an • merchant,
because the opposing creditor, Mr. Lloyd, said be ha
a high opinion of him, and wished to enter US°
partnership with him. The bankrupt, not want
to let well alone, fell into the mistake of trying
to increase his capital, with • view to butt
more buskins He admitted to Mr. Lloyd that
hs
was not solvent, but he had understated the Unmet of he
debts. Lloyd, who was agent to some marble mires*
appeared to have sought the bankrupt oat sad formed
partnership with him. He advanced first 1001. and after•
wards urger sums ; and he sow estimated that be ha
last 4001. or 5001.—the bankrupt, of course. stating that
it was much less. Mr. Lloyd charged the bankrupt
with contracting this debt without probable exprotobo
of being able to pay it. The court did not think thug ear
so. The bankrupt bad been in business 18 years. rside,g
considerable iIICOOIe ; and such • man could not lin mid to
have contracted debts without expectation of bete; Able 1,
pay them. l'hs assistance of Yr. Lloyd might well lod
him to expect that bia profits would be
sidarably increased, and that be should bare &bow
dant mesas to repay Mr. Lloyd, who hoee
d
about the man, and bad the fullest 000fidi on II
him. It would be straining the act too far to bold thst
such • man had improperly cootnoted debts and it Wu gt
be regretted that in coossquence of the Lord Chancellor.;
decision in " Mew and Thorne." restricting the rover
the court to certain specified offences, there was a (outwit!
ate
" the Part d 'Wooing crediton to to tug owe
within one or other of the defined offences. here there
was no protean for saying that the bankrupt was or" t°
any of those charges, end he would receive as immolate
order ddischarge.
re 11Z Warr AID 1.010. of
This was the adjourned examination sitting in the ca"'
Phillip Butler Watt and Oliver Long, of 'Broken-whtt
Upper Thames-et:vet, shipping merchants. Loon ho
SOODad ; Watt has filed a balanosabeet, showing """acm—
_7,s
debts of 8,8771., with assets el about 2401. Further debt,
of 7,0811. are socured
_by property valued at 11,5 TY.
Mr. Graham, the °Mad • repotted that the,,lebei
Whom contracted in 1861 1862. The bautrupttl .r•••f,.
weal expeaditere had begs 1801. a year for the hot