The Express.
London, England, 1853-12-16 00:00:00

YAttalAN 0. V

The testatrix in this cause possessed, under her marriage
settlement, a power of appointment by deed or will; in de-
fault of which the settled property was to go among the
issue of that marriage. She exercised this power by ap-
pointing the property in settlement to the issue. Toe
question was whether (thasmach as the paths is whose
favour the appointment was made, were not mere eolith.
teen or strangers to the deed, but the objects of its bounty)
the property appointed was subject to the debts of the tee.
tatrix. The east was not concluded at this sitting of the
coact.
Mr. Daniell, Q.C. . • Mr. Olean, QC. ; Mr. Wilcock,
Q C.; Mr Bally, QC.; Mr. Follett, Q.C. ; Mr. Green,
Mr. Smythe. Mr. Veber, Mr. Leonard, Mr. Nalder, aid
Mr. Ward appeared for the parties.

111///1,161,1 11.
01 Mail.

70 ST. toax's,

la this ease Mr. Faintly, by his will, left a sum of
20A0f. to four trustees to found three fellowships in 'Mag-
dalen Coliege, Milord. This college, however, declined
the gift, which was then offered to St. John's College, and
accepted. The matter came before the court on a former
*amino upon petiain, when it was referred to the Master
to prepare a scheme, and it was decided that when that was
done the bequest should 'gnu be offered to Magdalen Col-
lege The schema bad been settled, and as this college
still adhered to its refusal, an applieatieu was now made to
the court to confirm the scheme for the benefit of St.
Jobs's.
Mr. Follett, Mr. Stay, QC., and Mr. Wicket, appeared
for the parties.
The Vico•Chancellor confirmed the scheme accutdingly.

VICII.CI 1 MU.OI Om nem 1110A11V.
WMIII V. /MR RAW. 01 101101 V.

This cans is a remarkable instance of the iaseturity at-
tendsat on the dedaction of title to au estate, and shows
tbet an apparently peaceable and undisturbed possession for
40 years of an estate, even with the aid of an old outstand-
ing tenure, will not protect a purchaser against claim in
cerain cases. The following is a brief outline of the facts
of this cam--In 1799 a lady, the guardian of an infant te
nant in tail of an estate, purchased the land tax thereon out
of his personal estate, buti she did not comply with the pro-
•isions of the act so sa to make it • legal charge on the in-
heritance. The certificate of redemption showed that it
was a purchase by the guardian for the infant. On his
death, under age, hi, guardian became his administratrix,
and in a snit by her of Ware v. Polhill" (reported in 11
Yen', 267). L-.ird Eldon declared the Tent charges to he
vested in the administratrix, and he directed proper
deeds to be executed by the then t for life,
and also by the then tenant in tail in remain-
der, on his attaining 21. This was imperfectly done.
They by deed charged their estate., but no recovery was
suffered, and the charge was ineffectual at law against per-
sons the severally entitled in remainder over. Both the de-
fendants, the tenant for life, and tenant in tail, died, and
the remainder man, entitled on the determination of these
estates, after he had entered into porsesaion of the estates,
settled* pact of them. In the year 1842, the administratris of
the infant tenant for life being dead, a npresentathe of the
infant filed a bill against the person entitled under the at-
tains% sad la the taw at" Wan v. Polhill" (6 De ass

and Son% 446), the court dewed tat thereat charge wet
as. • irectual ineumbrane, en the estate in settlement. The
tenant in rens euider, tx,ides settling parts of tee estate. re-
v...scaly noiripei•eil the other rut., met in the year It-35
add portion of the property to Lad Arden, the father et,
the present defend: at, and conveyed it expressly " free et
lahil tea -to his lord.hip. L .rd Ardis had no len‘wie dge
of the decree by Lord Eldon, and on the investigation of
the title hie solicitors bound that the land tax had been re-
deemed is 170, and it was assumed in the absence of all
notice to the contrary, except that the redemption was
e solvated to have been by an infant, that the
land tax hail been merged. His lordship paid his pur-
chase ennui, and not only took the vim eyance but,
obtained the assignment of an old attendant term to a
matte to protect his title. He entered into the actual pm-
session of the property, and in 1842 be first received an in-
timation of the claim of the pl iintiff to a rent charge fur
671. ls. per annum, as representing the land tax, pay-
able out of the portion of the estates which he had par-
shame'. The present suit was instituted to enforce such
claim against the present defendant, the son and heir-at-
law of Lnrd Arden.
Mr. Glasse, Mr. O. L. Russell, and Mr. Ware were in
support of the plaintiff's bill ; Mr. Malice and Mr. Raw-
linbun were for the defendants.
After a lengthened argument the Vice. Chancellor de-
cide d that the plaintiff was entitled to the rent charge.
The result of this decision is to fix on Lord Egmont's
estate a rent charge of 671. ls., although, in 1835, he pur-
chased it as free from the Mad tax whinh that charge
represents, and although, for anything that his advisers
knew, the charges had ceased in 1799. It is believed that
in the present state of the law it can hardly be doubted that
the decision is entirely correct ; but a reference to the de-
tails of this ease will afford valuable subjects for considera-
tion in the changes now in contemplation in the law, by
which the title to real property is held.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—YESTERDAY.
smuso. AT NUN ►DIUG AT 4tILDBALL.7IIIPOSAI LOAD CADIDILL AND

A I.PM 141. /CRT.
HOLLAND V. 701.-PATENT CASE.

Mr. Crowder, with Mr. W►bster, appeared for the plain-
tiff, end Sir F. Thesiger, with Mr. Hindmarsb, for the de-
fendant.
This was an action brought to recover damages for the
alleged infringement, by the defendant, of a patent taken
' out by the plaintiff, in 1840, for improvements in the con-
otruction of the steel frames of umbrellas and parasols. The
chief improvement claimed by the plaintiff was the substi-
tution of hollow steel tubes for the ribs and stretchers of the
framework, instead of solid strips of metal. The defendant
was said to have infringed the patent by making ribs and
stretchers of troughs or unclosed tubes, the difference be.
mean the two being, in fact, only a eilourable difference.
The plaintiff had taken out a second patent in 1850 for an
elliptical instead of a circular tube. These inventions were
spoken of by the various witnesses for the plaintiff as cont-
Inning all the esseatial requisites of an umbrella, viz,
strength, elasticity, lightness, and small bulk. The im-
proved umbrella bad obtained a prize at the Great Ezhibi•
lion of 1851.
On the pert of the defendant, the novelty of the plaintiff's
invention, and its infringement by the defendant, were
denied, and witnesses were called to show that the defend-
ant's ribs and stretchers were stronger than the plaintiff's,
but not so flexible, and were less liable to break. It was
also contended that patents, which had been taken out by
Price, Sangster, and other persons, previous to 1840, were
similar in principle and in effect to the plaintiff s patent.
The defendant bad himself taken out a patent in 1862.
Mr. Crowder having replied,
Lord Campbell, seeing that it was half-past six, said the
case was one of considerable importance to the parties, and
requested the jury to attend tomorrow (this) morning,
when he will sum up the evidence, and submit the ease to
their consideration.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—TnnaDay.

wee Pl3l PANS IX

•••• • 001U10111

AND ANO-