The Express.
London, England, 1847-07-13 00:00:00

EQUITY COURTS.
Before the Master of the Roils.

FENWICK V. CI7IE.ENWILI.I.-17A1111.117 OP TRUSTEES.—
On the marriage of Miss Elizabeth Cuthbertsoe, in 1806,
with Barnabu Fenwiek, a sum of 6,0001. Comols belonging
to the lady, and standing is her name, was agreed to be
settled on the husband and wife for their respective lives,
and then it was to go to the children. A mutual covenant by
the parties to the settlement was entered into for the trans-
fer of the fund, on the solemnisation of the marriage, to Messrs.
Wm. Cuthbertson and Wm. Thomas Greenwell, as trustees
of the settlement. No transfer of the fund into the trustees'
names was ever made, and about nine years after the mar-
riage Mr. and Mn. Fenwick sold out the stock and appro-
priated the proceeds. There were eight children of the
marriage, and this bill was filed by, the youngest of them
against the trustee Greenwell, and the personal repre-
sentative of Cuthbertson, who was dead, to compel a
restoration of the trust fund. It was charged as a
breach of trust that the trustees who had executed
the settlement had emitted to secure the fund by pro-
curing a transfer of it into their own names.—TheMuter
of the Rolls was of opinion that the trustees having executed
the settlement, and thus taken the trust upon them, were
bound to protect the fund, and that their neglect to procure
a transfer into their own names amounted to such a breach
of trust, as made them liable to restore it, and he decreed
for the plaintiff accordingly?

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 13, 1847.

WOOD V. LORD LONDONDERRY. —TITLE TO RENT FOR
WAY-LEAVE.—In 1823, Lord Londonderry was deshous to
connect his collieries in Durham with &alum Ha our by rb
railway, and he entered into agreements with the our
owners of property for leave to pass over tb.eir lands. And
amongst other proprietors with whom he contracted was a
Mr. Hutton, who possessed a farm called Deen Park
and another called the Warden Law Farm. These
farms were principally copyhold, situate in the manor
of Houghton-le-Sprang. Mr. Hutton contracted, in
May 1823, to !rant a lease of way-leave to his
lordship ever the farms in question for 63 years, but his
lordship was to have power to determine the lease at any
time by giving twelve months' notice. The railway was con-
structed, but no lease was granted in Hutton's lifetime, and
on his death a suit was instituted in Chancery to administer
a will which he had made of his real and personal estate,
and whereby his real property was vested in trustees. lJn
der an order of the court an inquiry was directed before the
master as to the propriety of granting a lease in conformity
with the agreement of 1823 ; and at appearing upon this
inquiry that Hutton was in fact tenant for life only of the
greater part of the farms in question, which were settled on
his wife for life, who survived, and that the Bishop of
Durham was lord of the manor, and could not grant a licease
to lease for more than 21 years, it was arranged that a lease
for 21 yearn only should be granted as from May 1823, and
that application should afterwards be made for license to
renew for two successive terms of 21 years. The wife and
trustees of the settlement and will joined in the lease, and
the rent reserved for the way-leave was 4001. per annum.
This lease, which was dated in August, 1833, did not contain
a covenant to renew the lease at the end of the 21 years, but
it recited the agreement of 1823, and the difficulty that had
arisen in granting a lease of 63 years, and that it was in-
tended instead thereof to grant three successive lease* of
21 years. On the death of Mrs. Hutton the farms in ques-
tion were sold by order of the court, and Warden Law I. arm
was sold in a distinct lot, and 1821., the proportion of the
rent of 4001. appropriated to it, was sold in another lot. The
former was bought by a Mr. J. Gregson, and was afterwards
purchased from his devisees in trust by the defendant, Mr.
George Gregson ; and the rent of 1821. was bought by the
plaintiffs, Messrs. Philipson and Wood. In May, 1844, Mr.
0. Oregson entered into a new agreement with the marquis
for a lease of way-leave for 63 yeas, at a rent of 2521., and
the marquis agreed to put an end to the agreement of 1823
by giving the requisite notice. There was some difference
in the terms of this lease from that of 1833. A question
subsequently arose, whether the plaintiffs were entitled out
of the rents reserved by the agreement of 1844 to
the 1821. which they had purchased. It was contended
for the plaintiffs that they had, by reason of the agreement
of 1823, and the arrangement that was made for granting
three successive leases for 21 years each matted of one for 63
pun, and of which arrangement Gregsen when he pur-
chased had notice, acquired an equitable title to the benefit
of the agreement of 1844 to the extent of 1821., part of the
rent thereby reserved. This, on the other hand, was op-
posed by Gregson, who contended that the lease of 1833 was
substituted for the agreement of 1823, and that the latter was,
under circumstances, at an end, as well as the lease of 1833.
The liability of the marquis to pay the rent was not disputed,
the only question being who was entitled to the benefit.
The Master of the Rolls was of opinion that the plaintiffs
were entitled to the benefit of the agreement of 1844 to the
extent of 1821. out of the rent thereby reserved ; and he de-
creed accordingly.

Before the Tice-Chancellor of England.
BOURNE r. DUFAER.—CONBTRUCTION OF A WILL:
suit was instituted for the purpose of establishing cer-
tain breaches of trust committed by a trustee of the marriage
settlement of Mrs. Bourne upon her marriage with Mr.
Williams, her first husband, and a question was raised upon
the will of Mr. Williams, who gave the residue of his per-
sonal property to his widow for life, and directed that she
should be at liberty to retain his house in Chester-terrace,
and the furniture, as long as she pleased to reside in the said
house; and if she should not require it, the house and fur-
niture were directed to he sold, except such part of th
furniture as she should retain for her own use. Mrs. Bourne
having discontinued to reside at the house in Chester-ter-
race, it was sold by the trustees, together with the furniture
therein, except such part thereof as Mrs. Bourne thought fit
to retain, and the question was whether she was entitled to
such furniture absolutely.—The Vice-Chancelkr held that
the widow was entitled to the furniture absolutely.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
Before Mr. Under-sheriff Batellell and Special Juries.
BROMLEY C. TRI EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY COM-
PANY.—COMPENSATION TO AN INJURED PASSENGER.—
This was a writ of inquiry to assess damages in an action
to recover compensation for certain injuries sustained by the
plaintiff while a passenger on the defendant's line of railway.
It will be remembered that on the 18th of July last, a pas.
meager train on the Eastern Counties Railway was run into
when near :the Stratford station by another train, and the
consequences were the loss of one life, and serious bodily
injury to most of the passengers. Amongst those hurt
were the plaintiff and his wife. The wife was seriously
bruised, and the plaintiff received severe contusions, had a
fractured leg, and other hurts, from the effects of which
he kept his bed for 24 weeks, entailing medical and other
contingent expenses to the amount of 2501. The plaintiff
had, up to the time of this occurrence, carried on the
business of a corn factor, merchant, maltater, and brewer,
at Colchester, near which town he held a farm of about
150 acres. The whole together realised him an in-
come of about 6001. • year, but in consequence of
the injuries he received by the above accident, the greater
portion was given op, as the plaintiff could not attend to it,
and the profits diminished in proportion.—The Attorney-
General, for the defendants, said he was instructed by his
clients to ask the jury to award full and even liberal cons.
peneation ; but, in forming their estimate of the damages to
be given to the plaintiff, they must be guided by facts, and
not Insinuations.—The jury found for the plaintiff—
Damages 6501.
BROMLEY AND WIFE C. THE SAME.—In this case a Ver-
dict was taken by consent for the plaintiffs—Damages 150/.
It was an action brought by the same plaintiff, jointly with
his wife, to recover compensation for injuries sustained by
the latter on the same occasion.