The Express.
London, England, 1851-02-28 00:00:00

BIRKENHEAD DOCK COMPANY.

I .
.. Woes ins Loan CIiAIOWILA
Etywnsit, r.`9l..anutoNt.—Es rAutit Loan Catania.
This was a petition of appeal in behalf of Lord Camay_
pad others, against an Order of the late 'Vice-Chancellor df
['England, upon the construction of a clause in the will of
Charles Blundell of Ince, in the county of Lancaster.
By that will dated in 1834 the testator gave to his trustee*
and executors all his manors, lands, and tenements, "and all
his real ciliate, except the hereditaments thereinafter speci-
fically devised." In a subsequent part of the will the testator
gave and devised " his farm in Aughton, in the possession
of Thomas Haskeyne" land another farm` n which no crea-
tion arose) to the Rev. Thomas Rubinson a Roman cat olio
priest), his heirs and assigns. Mr. Robinson predeceased
the testator' and the devise to him became void. It aft-'
peered that the testator had two farms in Aughton, both in
the possession of Thomas liaskeyne—one called " Shop:
herd's Farm," which had been held by the testator for the
benefit of the Roman catholic priest of that district ; the
other called t• 31olineux," which was the testator's own
property. The trustees claimed the latter among the es-
tate* devised to them, insisting that if the testator intended
to give it toMr. Robinson the gift would fail, from the uncer-
tainty of the description. On the other hand Lord Cameral
and Dame Emily Tempest, the coheirs of the testator, ,
claimed the Mohneux Farm, insisting that it had been r
excepted from the estates devised to the trustees, and
that it had been well devised to Mr. Robinson, but
that by his death before the testator's, the devise
failed, and therefore the heirs-at-law were entitled to
it. The Vice-Chancellor was of opinion that the devise to
Robinson could not take effect if he survived the testator,
on account of the uncertainty of the description, and that
as that property was not excepted from the lands and tene-
menta devised to the trustees, they took it fur the benefit of
the:cestui qua trust. I
The appeal against that decision, and against a subse-
quent order of his Honour to the same e Ifect, allowing ex-
ceptions to the Master's reports, was opened on Wednesday,
the 19th inst., and the arguments were continued on Friday
and Saturday, and Wednesday last, and were now brought
to a conclusion.
Mr. J. l'arker, Mr. Malins, and Mr. Fleming, for Lord
Camoys, contended that there was no uncertainty in the
devise to Mr. Robinson, because the testator had but one
fir= of his own in Aughton, and in the posseuion of Has-
keyne, and that was the Molineux Farm. The other farm
—vm.,that called Shepherd's, whiehw as also in Aughton, and
in the possession of Ilaskeyne, did not belows to the testa-
tor. It was true that he was seised of that farm, but not
in his own right, but upon trust for the Roman catholic
priest of Lydiate. It had been appropriated permanently
to the catholic priest of the chapel in Lydiate,
in 1705, by Lady Anderson, the owner of it,
who was then a nun in a convent abroad. It
was held for the benefit of the successise priests
of Lydiate from that time by several Roman ca-
tholic gentlemen, and, lastly, by the testator's
father and by himself, as appeared by recitals in a deed
executed by them in 1793. The testator would not, there-
fore,
call that property "my farm in Aughton, in the pos-
session of Thomas Ilaskeyne." That description, there-
fore, should be taken to apply, as it aid apply, strictly to
the testator's own farm " Molineux," *lnch was in
Aughton, and in liaskeyne's possession. The devise of
that farm to Mr. Robinson took it out of the general devise
to the trustees, and the devise becoming void by the death
of Mr. Robinson bethre the testator, his co-heirs at law be-
came entitled. Supposing it would be contended fur the
respondents that the uncertainty of description of the farm
really existed, inasmuch there could not have been a legal
appropriation of real estate, or of any estate, to catholic
churches, before the act 2 & 3 Will. IN ~ c. 115, they sub-
mitted that at all times a disposition of property to an
officiating catholic priest was valid, and though the appro-
priation of this farm by Lady Anderson in 1705 waa not then
valid, it was made valid by the act just referred to.
The statute of moetmain did not affect antecedent devises
of real estate to charitable purposes. In support of these
and other points in these arguments the learned counsel
cited, among numerous other case*, those of "The Attorney-
General v. Cork" (2 Vesey, senior, and 4 Bevan) ; t"flhe
Attorney-General v. Tod' (1 Keen) ; " Bradshaw v. Tea-
ker" (2 Mylne and Keen, 221) ; " Attorney-General v.
Downing" (Ambler's Iteporta) ; " Ashlturnhasa v. Brad-
shaw' (2 Atkins) ; " Attorney-General v. Andrews" (1
Vevey, min ' or) • " Sayer v. Sayer" (7 Hare) ; " Dawson v.
Ellis" (1 Jareband Walker) ; " Foster v. Hay" (3 Vesey);
" Attorney-General v. Murdock" (7 Bare) ; " Attorney-
General v. Ward" (6 Hare).
Mr. Bethel' and Mr. J. Campbell supported the view
taken of the question by the Vice-Chancellor. They in
siated that by reason of the uncertainty of the farm which
the testator purported to devise, there was no valid devise
at all, and therefore these farms were not excepted
from the general devise, but were included in the general
devise of all the testator's real estate to his trustees and
executors. They argued that Shepherd'a term never was,
and could not be, appropriated to a catholic chatity. Such
appropriation would, under the penal laws against Roman
catholic', he' void, as given for superstaiary uses • real
estate could not be conveyed by Lady Anderson at t:11, in-
asmuch as she was a nun, and dead in law, it could not be
conveyed by word merely, as the statute of frauds required
all such conveyances to be by deed, and the statute of
mortmain also prevented a conveyance of real estate to any
charity. They referred, in support of their argument, to a
vast number of eases (some already mentioned), concluding
with " West v. Shuttlewortli " (2 Mylne and Kees, 684).
Mr. J. l'arker replied.
Judgment was postponed.

.ILaa3 *tttelligence.

EQLTTY COURTS.-YESTERDAT.

Yesterday the half-yearly general meeting of the
proprietors of this company was bold at the London Tavern.
The chair we occupied by Baron LIONEL de GOLIMMID,
chairman of the board of directors.
The CHAIRMAN said the proprietors were met that
day fur the pupas of receiving information of what had
taken place since the last meeting, but he was sorry to say
that the directors bad little to acquaint them with at pre-
sent. lie then called on the Secretary to read the report,
which we at follows:
e The works undertaken by the dock trustees being still
incomplete, this company has not yet had the advantage of
water access to their wharfs and premises ; but your direc-
tors have reasons for believing that it is the
Intointetion of the
dock trustees to open the lower part of the din the
month of April nut. The great importance of securing an
early completion Mthe entire works of the dock trustees
was brought under the special notice of the shareholders
at a meeting convened for that pureose on the
elith November last. In arcordanee with the recommenda-
tion of the committee of investigation then appointed, your
directors have introduced a bill into parliament fur enabling
this company to assist the dock trustees in carrying into
effect so clearable an object. The bill has been read a
second time; but it is, however, right that the shareholders
should now be informed that since this measure was deter-
mined upon, differences of opinion have arisen as to the ex-
pediency of carrying out the works according to the original
design. Under these circumstances, and in compliance
with an intimation contained in the report of the share-
holders' committee, your directors called in the assistance
and advice of Mr. Cabin, l'resident of the Institution of
Civil Engineers, to whom they referred the different plans
and documents, with a request that he will give his opinion
as to the best plan now to be adopted, under all the circum-
stances of the cue. Since, however, these plans were laid
before Mr. Cubitt, another plan, it is understood, has been
submitted to the dock trustees, and until this has been re-
ceived and reported on by Mr. Cubitt, with the other plans,
your directors are unable to state any result to the ',hare-
h4ders. Since the let meeting, the directors have taken
up the now lean of the romeany's property from the corpo-
ration of Liverpool. The din cleft, retiring by rotation are
Mr. Wind , Mr. Lace, Mr. Ito odd, and Mr. Elliott."
It appeared from the statement of accounts, which wen
made up to the 31st of le ecniber Bet that the receipts of,
the company had been 950,6051. Me 3d., and the expendi-
ture e 43,1621. Is. 3d., leaving a balance in the hands of the
bankers of 7,6331. 12e.
The CHAIItMAN haying moved that the report and
statement of accounts be received, printed, and circulated
ermined the proprietors.
Mr. BAILEY proceeded to explain that part of the se.
port in which it was Ftaull that, in acconlance with the
recommendation of u committee of investigation appointed
in November Last, the directors had iutreduced a bill into
parliament to enable this company to aria in securing an
early cempletion of the entire works of the dock trustees.
Ile said that the dock trustees, at a Inc. ting held at Birken-
head last week, had app,iute4 a committee to meet a com-
mittee of the duck landholders on the above im-
portant subject, and that the meeting would shortly
be held; and, as the dock trustees were largely
COlKtrlltii in the works of the Dock Company, he hoped
that both parties would mutually agree to the pro-
visiting of the bill. With reference to what was said in
the report relative to the plans, he might observe that there
had been a plan submitted by the engineer, who was ap-
pointed by the dock trustee.. Since then, another plan,
whieh vie, considered to be a more advantageous one, had
been laid le lore them. 1 hey were, however, taken rather
by surprise on finding that the lint plan had been submit-
ted by the dock company to Mr. Cubitt. who had made- his
report thereon; but it was hoped that the proprietors
present would not be prejudiced by that report,
because the trustees had now • Otto before them 'of
• much more advantageous description than say of
these riverimuly obtained. The plate to which he al-
liede el had se t the approval of lame of the directors,
and also of Mr. Brume, who, although not an en-
gineer, was nevertheless • very competent authority upon
such subjects. (Hear.) Ile we+ happy to say that every
expectation was now entertained of getting the water into
the half float, thus making 50 acres of duck space, in addi-
tion to the two small ducks the company already pouessed ;
and if the proprietors could only nurse the it trade from
neat April forwards, he believed they would be able to get
a connesion that would produce them, in the next two
years, at leant 250,0001., or upwards of 12,1:0111.a year; and he
did not despair, but, on the contrary, had every expeetatiou
of the dock tauten; making 60,00 e/. in the two year.
(Applauee.)
The CHAIRMAN begged to explain to the proprietors
the precise situation in which they tow stood. (Hear,
beer.) Atter Mr.Abernethy, a civil engineer, had submitted
a plan, Mr. Bendel, the dealt engineer at Birkenhead,
stated that it would be quite impossible to carry that plan
out. The plan was then referred to Mr. Cubitt fur his re-
port, but while it was under his cunsideration Mr. Aber-
nethy withdrew it, and a new plan, which Mr. Abernethy
had again euggested, was then referred to Mr. Cubitt, who
wan believed by the directors to be an impartial authority,
eminently qualified to decide upon the merits of all under-
taking+ of the kind. It was perfectly true that with regard
to the new plan. Mr. Abernethy had not as yet finally made
;up his mind ; but the directors of this company would wait,
' and they were justified in waiting, until the duck trustees
should pat them in poweesion of what they meant the true
boom Jude plan to be. He (the chairmen) was as
anxious se anybody to have the best plan determined
upon ; and if, with all the respect he entertained
fur Mr. Bendel and hi+ plane, Mr. Cubitt should decide that
Mr. Abernethy's plan was the cheapest and the must adven-
tageoue, he 'amid be ready to accept that opinion. Find-
ing that hi+ money hail been wasted and spent hitherto, he
premised to du his hest to have the sureceeful plan sane-
, Lionel by eminent engineers, to f.. 1• that the dock trustees
had the money ready to carry out the scheme, end to call
the proprietors together Irvin time to time—thou proprie-
tor who had spent money enough as bondholder. and who
we-re, then-fore, entitled to demand and obtain the fullest
information touching the. ',reign,' and success of this under-
taking. (A pplauee.)
Mr. I'OINI./Elt, a former director of the company,
said that he had listened to the observations id the
chairman and of Mr. Bailey with great satisfaction,
believing that there was now a greater thence of see-
ing the completion of the works at Birkenhead than
exuded at any former
The, report was then adopted.
Upon the motion of the CHAIRMAN, Mesas. Winch, Lace,
and Bendel were re-elected directors.
Mr. BAILEY proposed, in the room of Mr. Elliott, who
is at present out of the emintry, that Mr. Robert Barlier' of
Manchester, • gentleman holding a stake of 60,0001. in the
concern, be elected a director,
The CHAIRMAN, without meaning the slightest disre-
spect to Mr. Barber, thought that a Birkenhead gentleman
ought to be chosen, and that it ought to be left to the di-
re '
ctors to look around them for a suitable individual. It
wan useless to disguise the fact that there Was a collision of
interests between the dock trustees end the dock company,
and, until that we' settled, there ought to be no further
election of directors, at hut for the present. He mused
the postponement of the eu'eject until the next meeting.
Mr. I'OYNDEIt seeondeel its postponement.
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON, M.l'., thought the direc-
tor+ ought to be largely connected with the pert of Liver-
poet, and that it was aavisiable to postpone the subject until
the nest meeting, in order to ascertain in the iuterim who
were disposed to undertake the duties of director.
Mr. BAILEY said that, in addition to Mr. Barber, he
was elm, going to ?repose Mr. Carmichael. of Birkenhead,
as a director, but, in deferince to the wiehes of the chair-
man of the meeting, he would withdraw both names for the
lin ant.
The election of additional directors was then postponed
until the neat meeting of the company, which was agreed
to le. held on the 14th of May.
Mr. James Gandy was re-elected auditor.
The meeting was then adjourned.

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 28, 1851.

The Lord Chief Justice having briefly gummed np, the
jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict for the
plasatiff—Daraages, 501.
The came triad in the Crown Court were utterly deveid of
interest.

,tOXFORD CIRCUIT.—ABINGDoN, FEB. V.
Justice Patteson and Justice Talfourd arrived ik this
Wen yesterday afternoon, cud opened the commission.
There was a light cause list, but the calendar contained a
list of 76 prisoners for trial.

DIPORIIITITICE TALEOLEB.
1 EMBEZZLEMENT IN WINDSOR FOREST.
Josiah hares, a respectably-dressed man, was c
with having emlieszled 305., the monies of his mastehrl,r.
William Menzies.
The prisoner had been, for a period of between seven
and eight years, foreman of the woodmen in Windsor
Green Park, and this prosecution was instituted by her '
Majesty's Commissioners of Woods and Forests. It ap-
peared to evidence that in the month of October last •
quantity of beech and oak wood was sold by some men
em-
ployed in Windsor Forest under the prisoner, and the money
was proved to have been paid to him, but he never
rendered any account of it, as was his duty, to Mr. Men-
ties, the deputy-surveyor of the forest, in order that it
; might have been transferred to the conunissioners.
Mr. Williams, for the defence, did not deny that the
prisoner had sold the wood, but he contended that the
evidence failed to show be intended frandalcatly to keep

the money.
His lordship summed up, and
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty against the pri-
mmer, who was ordered to be brought up to receive si ntenco
tomorrow.