The Express.
London, England, 1847-11-06 00:00:00

Before the Muter of the Rolle..

Dlrine V. IlOreiteiss.—Oirr INTER %%Togo—Timothy
Davies who formerly was steward of Lady Boyne, by his
will, made in 1836, gave his residuary estate to his sister,
Sarah Dickens, and he appointed the defendants, Hotchkiss
and Fletcher, his executors. This suit was instituted by the
plaintiff, as the personal representative of Sarah Dickens, for
a general account and administration of the testator's estate
against the executors, and also against Sarah Maund and her
husband. Two questions were raised. One was, whether
certain memorandums, signed by M. Dickens, or on her be-
half, did not amount to a settlement of accoutre with the
executors ; and the other was, whether Sarah Maund was
not entitled to a promissory note given by Lady Boyne to
the testator for 4001., and to two Austrian bonds for 1001.
each, as a gift inter wives from the testator. It appeared,
from the answer of Hotchkiss, that about ten weeks before
the testator's death, which took place in October, 1836,
the testator in hie presence expressed an in!ention
to give the promissory note and bonds to Sarah Maund, who
was his fellow-servant, and attended him in his illness; and
that he then gave her a key of a small desk in the room, and
told her to take out the documents in question, and keep
them as a present from him for her kind feeling and atten-
tion to him. And that Sarah Mound accordingly took out
the note and bonds, and had kept them ever since; and!
Hotchkiss denied that be ever had possession of them. The
promissory note, however, had upon it an indorsement,
signed by Hotchkiss, to the effect that the testator gave the
note to him, with a direction that he was to give it to Sarah
Mimed. Hotchkiss, by his answer to the amended bill, ex-
plained the discrepancy between the statement in his former
answer and the indorsement on the note, by stating that, on
recollection, he remembered having the note in his possession
shorly after the testator's death, for the purpose of writing
the indorsement on it, which was intended as an authority to
Lady Boyne to pay the interest on the note to Sarah Maund.
On behalf of the plaintiff, great stress was laid on the discre-
pancy between Hotchkiss's statement in his answer,and the in-
dorsement on the note.—Messrs. Kindersley and Renshaw
appeared for the plaintiff ; Messrs. Roupell and Gimlet for
the defendants.—The Master of the Rolls thought the plain-
tiff was entitled to a general account ; but on the other ques-
tion he thought the circumstances, and the state of the evi-
dente, required that further inquiry should be made, either
by examining Hotchkiss upon interrogatories before the
Master, or by means of an issue; and he left it to the parties
to arrange, if possible, what course should be taken for the
purpose of such further investigation.

Before the Vice-Chancellor of England.
GILLESPIE O. BARNEWALL.—APPLICATION FOR IN/ NC-
TION TO APSTRAIN AN ACTION AT Law.—An injunc-
tion was applied for in this case to restrain the defendant,
who represented the Commercial Bank of London, from pro-
secuting any actions against the plaintiff. It appeared that a
society was formed in 1812, called the Colonial Society; that
in 1811 the funds of this society becoming inadequate to meet
the demands upon them, they borrowed 4,000/. from the
Commercial Bank. Subsequently the society was broken
up, and the sum borrowed trom the bank remained unpaid.
The bank then brought an action against Lord Mount-
caahell for the whole amount due from the society. These
proceedings were settled by Lord Mountcashell giving his
bond for the amount, and an agreement was entered into
between Lord Mountcashell and the bank that actions at
law should be brought against the defaulting shareholders in
the company, and that such actions should be brought in the
name of the bank, but any money recsvered should be set
off against their claim upon Lord Mountcashell. In pur-
suance of this agreement an action was brought against the
plaintiff, Mr. Gillespie, who was one of the members of the
society, for tlvi recovery of the whole amount. The injunc-
tim now applied for was to restrain this action, on the
ground that the plaintiff had actually paid much more than
his share of the liabilities, and that the only proper method
of proceeding was by filing a bill to have a rateable contri-
bution by all the defaulting members of the society.—Mr.
Bethel and Mr. Lloyd appeared in support of the motion,
and Mr. Stuart, Mr. Hall, Mr. James Parker, and Mr.
ilagihawe for the defendants.—At the conclusion of the
arguments the Vice-Chancellor reserved his judgment.

Knight Bruce.

CALLOW O. HOWLE.—WIFE.S SEPARATE PROPERTY.—
This was a suit instituted by a solicitor against a husband
and wife and the trustees of their marriage settlement, to
have the amount of his bill of costs, incurred with reference
to the wife's separate property, declared to be a charge upon
it. The items principally relied upon were charges for the
preparation of deeds appointing new trustees of the settle-
ment and in taking proceedings against tenants of some
leasehold houses settled to the wife's separate use. The
husband had become bankrupt, and the plaintiff had gone
in under the fiat to prove for the amount of his claim.—Mr.
WigrAm and Mr. Younge supported the bill.—Mr. K.
Parker and Mr. Spurrier appeared for the husband and
wife, and Mr. Russell and Mr. Hardy for the trustees.—An
objection was taken to the joint answer of the husband and
wife being read in evidence against the wife, but was overruled
—The Vice-Chancellor said that the wife was not proved to
have, either in writing or verbally, charged her separate
estate, and that, in his Honour's opinirn, the mere circum-
stance of the business relating to the separate property was
insufficient to make it distinctly liable for the costs. The
bill must be dismissed with can as against the trustees, and
without costs as against the husband and wife.