The Express.
London, England, 1853-01-31 00:00:00

PLICATION OP A

MIS EXAMINATION.

Mr. Terrell, on the part of Mr. Hume, moved for leave
to inspect and, if necessary, take copies of his examinations
taken before the commissioners in bankruptcy in the matter
of Lord lluntinntower' in order to enable him to put in his
answer tea bill filed to set aide a bill of sale executed by
Lord Hnntingtower in 1832. The consideration of that bill
of sale were certain bills of exchange given by Lord Hunt-
ingtower to Mr. flume u security for a sum of 8,0001., and
before the fiat in bankruptcy an execution was put in under
the bill of sale. Mr. Hume was examined five different
times before the Court of Bankruptcy in the years 1849,
18.50, and 1851, and the examinations extended to several
thousand folios, and all referred to previous and long-put
transactions, and the bill was only filed in August last.
Under these circumstances, it was submitted that Mr.
Hume should be allowed to inspect his examinations.
The Lord Chancellor said that in point of feet Mr. Hume
was about to be examined again with regard to certain
matters on the suggestion that he had not on the former
occasion answered correctly, and it was asked that be should
be allowed to look at his former evidence, in order that he
might not differ from it when he put in his answer.
That could never be allowed, and the application most be
refused. _ _

Lord Justice Knight Bruce said the same application had
been made to him and Lord Justice Turner, and they only
caused the Lord Chancellor to be troubled with it because
they had some doubt whether, under one of the recent
regulations in bankruptcy, they had any jurisdiction in the
matter.
. .

Application refused, with costs.
The court then proceeded with the following case, which
has been proceeding la several dale:

'MSS To MAIM 0/ 111 I.M.e
ABIZT O. NIIMAN.

His Honour gave judgment in thiscase, which arose up*
the construction of a will. The words on which the bequest
arose were them "All the above-named property to be equal),
divided between Benjamin James and his wife Ann James,
and Charles Abrey and his wife, for the period of dude
natural lives, efts? which to be equally divided between
their children, that is to say, the children of Benjamin
James and Charles Abrey. Benjamin James was dead,
leaving children, and Charles Abrey was also dead, leaving
children, and the question was how the property was to be
divided. Oa the one side it was contended that the chil-
dren of each parent should take the share of their parent,
and on the other, that the children of Benjamin James and
Charles Abrey took equally. What crested a dietinctioa in the
present ease from that of ether reported eases was that in
the present c ,se the share was given in the Bret instance to
the parent, and the gift afterwards was to take effect on
the death of such parent. In the ease of Haddow and
Mellish Lord Justice Knight Bruce held that "their
children " meant " their respective children," bat in this
ease the testator had expressly excluded that construction
by adding the words " that to say, the children of Ben-
jamin James and Charles Abrey." He was of opinion that
on the death of Benjamin James and his wife their share
was divisible per capita among all the children of Benjamin
James and Charles Abrey. The costs must come out of the
rotate if there was any residue to which this decision w
applicable.