The Express.
London, England, 1848-07-28 00:00:00

with Cossack. Gardenia, and Mt. Lydia thy, laid us,
'mei,* it i.e to the tat n. Fits-Entliut west showed in fr.-. t, kit ton
about 40 adds, awl then fell b 41ind the twoutite, but be •ieng loot
tguoi at the foot .4 the hill, was inoulod with it slight lead to the
turn into the Mr fight coon a•. by which time hie emote Wll, out. Van
Tromp here reealning his lead, w sit never afterwards eaugh.,
auJ
won 10 n t rig.h, Armin socionl, and all the ohms tailed off. Itun Li
5 nail. 33 sec. The pnr was very bad all the way.
SWEEPSTAKES of 25 roes each • for 2 yr old colts Out 71b,
and fillies 84 31b, thom got by untrird'horses or out of untried mares
ul;uwtd both sth. T.Y.C. t 7 tubs.)
lent Ciihien'slioncy.mult Isth (llobinwm) I
Mr. Ford's 51ounstrr, z•st 71b .
5 and 6to I on honeycomb, who made all the itinniag, and won by
Run in 1 n.. 9i sec.
SW EEPIiTA KEs of 200 son each ; for 2 y ; colts 84 71b,
nut oinks 864th. T.T.C. (4 subs.)
Lord echnitmit's Belot, gist 411, (Marlow) 1
lord Chi den's TTennlie,S,t ;lb ............ •, (Robinson) 2
Captain 5C.41011.0 Mine hay, not ........ ...... (T. mpleman) 3
7t04 on BeMt. Tiresome cut out !the work
rate,,o the half ilisninte,
white Llehr challenged, and alter u pretty won by half length.
Run in 1 m. 26 sec.
ltacCen S FAKES .f 60 sows each ; for 3 vr.olds; colts KA 71h.
and fillies (41 311,; the second to I...mine 100sois. New mile. (17 subs)
Mr. Payne's Ghtidoser, art 131 b
Cot Anson's Corsim (
n, art 7lb
I/nil liGhn's Warp. ice, Ott 21b
(ltobionan 3
13 to Bon Sombre, and sto 2 art Glendower. Corsican wank all
the running. Glendower waiting at his quarters until within eight or
ten strides from the chair, and winning by half a kagth. Surplice
WAS beaten uhf eoly. Run iu 1 min. 55 saw.
SWEEPOTAKEPI 01 3 saws. each, with a Cup value GO goes.
mid 50 wove, in specie; fur 2-yr olds 64 Olb ; three, S t 710; the
w inner to bs sMI for 50 tine. it demsiniled, go. lull a mile.
Mr. 1.1401'A FanttChanec, 2 yrs (esericti2lboem) (Hornsby, jun.) 1
Lord tliftlen's f by Ray 31itkneton, out ul Mustard,
2 (Kitchener) 2
yrs
Capt. Delme's llastesway, 3 yrs (Nat) 3
The iollowing stei started : Ur. N. till's Ruth, 2 ms (C. rhymer);
laud l'ailiunele, 2 yrs (Pearl) • Mr. J. King's e he John
&Gaunt, nut of Guramin's Mum 2 yrs (GAlrown); Mr. Gurdon's Miss
Bunny, 2 yes (Gatlin+) ; Mr. (Mb .Idonen'sßuckstinie, 3 yes (P. Butler) ;
Mr. A. Itartky's Grist, 3 yrs (Sly).
Mon easily.
IngskY STAKES of 15 11.,T11. each, for 3.pr olds
anti upwan't. Gentlemen riders. (7 sum.)
Mr. Gorilivi'stele n Mary, 4 yrs, 10.4 1it1b.....(Mr. Wittiatos I
Mr. I ec 5 yrs. 1144 71b (Owner)) 2
Mr. Itolt's n, 5 yrs, 134 4lb
Mr. Sheller's Wateltdor, 4 vrs, Kist 101, ..... (Mr. Reinke.) 4
' Mr. Mit ry's Pilot. 6 Cr,', list fhb (Col. ltichardent) 5
Sto 2 mast Print, 3to I oath agst Watchdog and Quern Mary. Won
by a length, Col.lngwood a bad third. Run la 2 min. I sec.

Lab, Intlihgruct.•
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Present : the Lord Chan. liar, Lords Lenahurst, Brougham, Camp-
bet, and other leers.
Their lordships gave judgment in the following cum :
Loup CANOYS AMI ANOTHER V. THOMAn 'WELD BLIIN•
DELL AND OTHERS.-••WILL.—DESCRII`TION OP LNG/ATMS.—
This was en appeal from a decree of the Vice-Chancellor of
Eeelend, affii and by Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst, and wee
argued here in the presence of eleven of the common law
judges on the 23th and 29th of June, 1847, on which occie
:ion the circumstance• were fully reported in this journal.
, It may be remember, 1.1 that the question arose on the will of
Charles Rebut Blundell, a gt interim of anteent family and
1 laths este:, ain Lees hire and other counties. By his lest
will dated Nov., 1834, he gave his neat. ain Lancashire to
trusthe for the benefit tat "the second son of Edward Weld,
of Lulworth, in the c:unty of Dorset, Esq.," for his life,
wish limitations to the first and other meet of "the said
second son of the said Edward Weld," and for default of
such issue lOr the third and every other PO* and sons (except
the tit:est) of " the said Edward Weld," di:-., in strict
settlement. And tor default of such item, fur the won of
each brother (except the eldest) of "the and Edward
Weld," and treir iYalle, and for eeteult of such issue for the
second and other sons (except the eldest) of Lady Stourton,
wise of Loid Stourton, and "one of the sine ea est the said
Edwin Weel," &c., and, in deteult of buck' Isaac, fur the
first mei other •ons of "all the other sheen of the said
E loud Weld " severally, &a. The testator died in 11337
There was no person at that time, or at the date of the will,
known as " Edward Weld, of Lulworth." Tee person in
posse asiou of Lulworth then and teeth, wee Joseph Weld,
who then had three sons, the first, mimed in baptism Edward
Joseph Weld, commonly celled leeward Weld ; the second,
named Thomas Weld; and the third, named Joseph Weld.
Thomas Weld, the second eon, 'seaming that he was the ec-
visee described in the will, took the name of Mandell,
in conformity with a proviso therein contained, and fled
the bill in which the question was raised. Level Canvey*
and Mrs. Tempest, as co heirs of the testator, and de-
pendents ou the sill, insisted that the devise was soil for the
uncertainty of the person who was to take under it.—The
Vice-Chancellor decided that the plaintiff in the cause, the
above-named respondent, was sufficiently desigi sled by the
description of him as the intended devisee. (See 1 Simone,
497.) Lord Camera appealed suited that decision, and the
appeal was heard in 1843 by Lore Lyndhurst, then Chan-
, miler, with the assistance of Justices Patteiton and Mettle.
, The result was an effirmenee of the Vice Chanet Iler's decree.
(See 1 Phillips, 279 )-The eleven judges who were present at
the preeent appeal last year, cantle to a unanimous opinion on
it, aver hearing the counsel for the appellant only, and in
answer to questions put to them by the Lord Cnaneeilur,
Mr. Baron Parke delivered their opinion with their reasons
to this effect :
It appears to us, upon reading the will and looking only
at the evidence of the state of the Weld Carney at the time
the testator maim his will, and without adverting to the
other parol evidence received iti the Court of Chancery, that
the meaning M the words used by the testator to designate
the devisee are cheer, that the devise is not vole for uncer-
teintyand that the respondent, Thomas Weld Blundell, is
entitled to the estates. The question is, who is the person
wham the description of devisee in the will, npplied to the
facts, properly tits? He is designated, not by name, but by
description enly ; neither hi, Christian nor his our name is
mentioned, bet lie is described by his relation only to other
individuate. The case, therefore, n not the same as if it bad
been a devise to &tweed Weld himself, Inuit which suppo-
sition a good deal of the argument at the bar pro-
cuded. It might be conceded, But where a devisee
is described by his Christian and surname, and some
other distinctive circumstance, and no person answers both
descriptions, and there is nothing in the rest of the will or
the evidence to show who was meant, the name would pre
vail, and the descriptive circumstances im rejected. But the
maxim. " Veritas nominis tollit errorem demonetrationis," is
' nut inflexible, as has been explained by Chief Judith GM.
in "Doe v. Haithwaite," (2 Moon 'e Reports, 323). For if
it be clear, upon the due construction of the will, with
reference to the evidence of the state of the family, es known
to :lie testator, that the meaning of the testator es t xpressed
by the will wee, thet the p not, described nntl cut the Innen
named was te take, the description will prevail over the
name, for the rule in question his no other object than to
assist in dtscovering the meaning of the will, and is not appli-
cable where it testis to a construction contrary to the ex-
pressed meaning of the testator. Here, then, the question
would be—suppeeing even this were a devise for a person by
acme—whether the context and the evidence of the strata of
the family does not cause description to prevail over the
designation by name? We think the context, coupled with
that evidence, clearly denotes that the name of "Edward"
is a mistake. It may be admitted that the Cliristien
name is not merely the name of Iseptism, but the name
by which a person is commonly known, and that in this
case the evidence shows that Edward Joseph, the el-
dest son of Joseph, was commonly known by the
name of Edward, so as properly to be described MT d take by
Chet name if the devise had been to him. Nor is it worth
while to argue whether the description of Lulwertk (though
certainly more applicable, in ordinary parlance, to the pus
sensor of the elace) weuld not be revile-able to hitn, though
ho may resided in Lulworth, and was not the possessor of the
castle. Admitting that it did, and that if there had hero
nothing more than a devisees "Edward Weld, of Lu.worth,"
Edward Jost ph, the eldest son, would have taken, we are of
opinion that the other parts of the will, coupled with the
eviaenee of tee state of the family, do clearly point out that
the devisee is the seeontl son of Joseph Weld, the pueseesor of
Liewerth C, ter. le the first place, the etre: eis e c.o.!y
framed so as to thew that the testator meant en meeting per-
son. The limitation to that son for life, with a devise over
to Ids first and ether sins in tail, is properly applicahle to an
existing pt non. tts, if it were to one nut in e,6e, the limitation
over would be void. If it lie said that the testator might
not know the rule of law, the context shows that he de!, for
lie provides in the next clause, which comprises future sot s
. of Erlwanl Weld, that the estate shall be in as strict settle-
ment upon each son and his respective issue male
as the rules of law or equity allow. Secondly, on
1 failure of the first taker, and the other branches
of Edward Weld's family, the next re inninder
• is limited to the other brothers of Edward Welder:win his
• effi, st Mather, and the will therefore deem Mee Edward
Weld as haring are eldest brother. Thirdly, Edward Weld
I is described as the brother of Lady Stourton. TAM: all
these descriptions together, and looking to the w,ll alone,
we have this as tne description of the unnemed deviate ; he
is to be an existing person' the emend eon of an E tward
'Melte and whocertainly had an eldest brother, and was
himself the brother of Lady Stourton, New by the evi
de. Ice we have at the date of the will, 'lb MIS Weld, an
, xis sing person, the second son of a Joseph Weld, w, o had
an ahlest brother, and was the brother of Lady Stourtuu;
and wei have else a non-existing child, and a possible father
Mr him, in an Edward Joseph Weld, not having an ca at
brother, Let himaelt the eldest, and baying no sister Lady
Stourton at all; and there is, no other possible person
whom the testator could have meant unless it be one of these
two. Add to this that the description of the person as
being of t• 1 ,ulworth" is better adapted to one who is the
penmen, of 'hat place, and not a mere resident there.
Under these circumstances, which was the devisee clearly
meant by the Ontription in the will ? Wo entertain no
doubt that Themes Weld (the respondent) was that person.
The Lerd Chancellor, now moving the judgment of the
house, said he did not consider it necessary to go into any
statement of the case. He concurred in the unanimous
opinion of the eleven judges who heard tee case in this
house. There never was a case which had undergone PO
much judicial investigation ; first, before the Vice Chancel-
lor of England ; and afterward. on appeal, to his noble and
learned fnend, the then Lord afterwards, on
who called to his
assistance, very properly, two of the horned judges of the
common law, who, atter a full hearing of most able argu-
ments, delivered eu opinion, in which his noble and learned
friend (Lord Lyndhurst) agreed. One of the parties not
satisfied with that °pit:ion brought this appeal, and when the
case came here, it was the opinion of the noble and learned
lords present that they ought to have the aseistanee of the
learned judges. They attended, accordingly, and their una-
nimous opinion was given to the heuse in support of the de-
cisions belore given ca the courts bedew. His lordship said
that he came to the same conclusion :nth the judges, and,
therefore, moved to affirm the decrees o: the courts below.
Lord Brougham said that he had been engaged in the
judicial committee of the Privy Council last ;seer, while the
cue was argued here before the judges. Aetheseards, on
looking over their opinion, and investigating the will and
whole case, he certainly entertained great doubt, beceuse he
was not very well able to reconcile the opinion given wittt
two decided eases that were referred to ; he meant " Dow