The Express.
London, England, 1846-11-14 00:00:00

latu Intelligence.

LAW NOTICES.—THIS DAY.
Crams or Casacsar, Westinlnner, at 10.—For judgment: Morris
v. Hewes (2); Attorney-General v. Malkin. Appeals: Andrews v.
Walton (part beard); Watts v. Hyde; Eyre v. Green ; Ansley T.
Collins._

VICr-CivarC7l.l.ollll' Cowers, Westminezr, at 10.—Before Sir 1..
SkadwelL—Neste v. Pink, petition part heard ; Carter v. GUI, peti-
tion. Causes, &e. commencing Grand Junction Canal ()eln's.. v.
Pim., part heard. Before air J. Knight Inure: G.toiev v. Nerley,
motion by order. Causes, Ke. Harrison v. Brandi, by order; Jacques
v. Chambers; Wilcox a. Cooke; Weston v. Radford; Beach v. Row-
ley, part heard; Stewart v. Buslaby Apyerley v. Page; Coward v.
Upward ; Francis v. Francis ; Edwards v. Browne. Before Slr I.
Wigrarn.—Wood v. Mackie, for Judgment; after which, abort causes
and unnamed petitions. Causes, itc., commencing Blair v. Bretulry,
part he
itoug Corer, WesUnirteter, at 10.—Remaining petitions: com-
mencing Hamilton v. Lawler (2), part heard; after which, short
causes, &c.: Perry v. Meddowcroft, part heard
Cosier or Query's Baxes, Westminster, at 10.—Sittings in Bnnoo.
Corer or DAEMON Puns, Wennllneter, at 10.— Middlesex Com-
ma& Juries.—Hollis v. Essex, part heard; Mackenzie v. Hunter ;
Shaw v. Clarkson. The Court will also sit in Banco.

cot•ar or Excamoce, Wannunster, at 10.—Sittinv in Banco.

EQUITY COURTS.—YESTERDAY.
Before the Master of the Roll•.

LORD NRI.BON V. LORD BRIDPORT.—ESTATE OF BRONTE.
—WILL OF LORD NELSON.—The Master of the Rolls gave
judgment in this cave, on the exceptions which the plaintiff
had taken to the Master's report, and which involved the
title to the estate of Bronte, in Sicily, granted with the
duchy of that name by Ferdinand IV., King of the Two
Siciliee, to Horatio, Lord Viscount Nelson, on the occasion
of the victory of the Nile, in 1799. The grant was made in
the nature of a fief to Lord Nelson and the heirs of his body,
according to the law of the Franks, which gave preference
to the elder over the younger, and to the male over the fe-
male ; and power was given to Lord Nelson to appoint a
successor to the estate, in default of issue of his own.
Lord Nelson, by his will, dated in 1803, after making a pro-
vision fur his wife, appointed his brother William, afterwards
Earl Nelson, and William Hazlewood, to succeed to the
estate of Bronte, and he devised the estate to them and their
heirs upon trust, to settle, convey, and assure the same to
the uses which he afterwards declared, if the law and cus-
toms of Sicily would permit; and, if they would not permit
it, then in such manner and form as in the discretion of
the trustees would be consistent with the law of Sicily. Awd
the uses declared were fur his brother William, Earl Nel-
son, for life, with remainder to trustees, to preserve con-
tingent remainders, with remainder to the first and other
sons of the body of William, Earl Nelson, in strict settle-
ment, with remainder to the teetator's sister, Mrs. Bolton,
for life, with like remainders, in strict settlement, to her
issue male, with rema'uder to his sister, Mrs. Matcham, for
life, with like remainders to her issue male, and with an ul-
timate limitation to the right heirs of the testator. And the
testator gave a power to the trustees to sell the estate of
Bronte, and lay oust the purchase-money in buying lands in
England, to be settled to the like uses as were declared of the
Bronte estate, and he gave other powers respecting the
estate, and by a codicil, mock in February, 1304, he charged
the Bronte estate with an Annuity of 5001.
in favour of Lady
Hamilton. Lord Nelson died in October, 180.5, and his
brother, William, Earl Nelson, presented a memorial to the
King of the two Sicilies, praying for cot.firmation of the will;
and in June, 180 G, investiture of the estate was granted to
William, Earl Nelson, who then became cntitledto the
estate subject to the laws of Sicily. Ile had a son, who died
in 1803 without issue. Lady Bridport was his only surviving
, chill. During the life-time of William, Earl Nelson, a law
AVM parted in Sicily abolishing feudal tenure and the law of
entail, and authorising parties having estates of that tenure
to dispose of them as absolute owners. William, Earl
Nelson, availed himself of this alteration in the law, and by
his will gave the est itc of Bronte to his daughter, L sly
Bridport, for her absolute disposal by deed or will ; and he
died in 1835, when he was succeeded in the title by Thomas,
the eldest son of Mrs. Bolton, upon whose death the title
devolved to his son, the present plaintiff, lloratin, Earl
Nelson. Lady Bridport claimed to be entitled to the Bronte
estate under the disposition made by her father in her favour ;
and the plaintiff claimed either the estate or some compensa-
tion for it, under the trusts of the will of Lurd Nele, n.
Inquiries as to the law of Sicily, and the effect of it on the
rights of the parties having been directed, the Master found
in favour of Lady Bridport'e claim. The Master of the Rolls
went through the facts of the case in considerable detail.
Having regard to the evidence, he thought himself hound to
consider that William, Earl Nelson, was duly appointed the
successor to the estate within the meaning of the grant, and
thathe was entitled to claim inv etiture of it. He acquired
by the investiture an inalienable estate, which would have
descended to his son, and on failure of male issue, to his
daughter, instead of passing to Susannah Bolton, the plain-
tiff's grandmother, as was cont. nded. Lord Nelson could
only deal with the property according to the law of Sicily;
and amongst the incidents of that law was an order of suc-
cession different from that pointed out by him. Nor could
he impose duties on his successor which were not annexed by
the law of Sicily. lie, therefore, thought the trustees could
not have made a valid sale, or entitled a purchaser to inves-
titure. They did, in fact, permit so much of the will to be
carried into effect as was consistent with the law of Sici:y.
The alteration of the law of Sicily could not be deemed to
have revived the executory nature of the trust, imposed by
the will. It eularged the estate of William, Earl Nelson, who
thereby became entitled to the absolute disposal of it. He was,
on the whole, of iminion that the Broote estate could not be
conveyed or settled conformably to the limitations directed by
the will of Lord Nelson. That William, Earl Nelson, and
Wm. Ilezlewood, had no power to make a valid sale of the
estate, and that the alteration made in the law of Sicily gave
the absolute ownership to William, Earl Nelson, and that
the estate did not thereby become subject to the trusts of the
will. lie thought the Master's finding correct, and he must
overrule the exceptions, but, having regard to the difficulty of
the case. without costs.

Before the Vice-Chancellor of England.
HALE V. HUGONIN.—A MARRIED WOMAN HAVING HAD
THE LIFE INTEREST OP A REVEILSION ASSIONED TO HEIL,
IT WAS HELD THAT THE. HISHAND WAS AB...OM:TELT ENTI-
TLED TO THE FEED.—A question of much legal interest
arose in this awe. The bill was filed by William Hale and
Caroline his wife, against the trustees of a fundof 2,511/. lie.
Bank Annuities, in order to compel them to transfer that
fund to the husband, under the following circumstances :
By a settlement made on the marriage of Mr. and Mrs.
Edgar, a sum of 5,029/. was settled en the husband for life,
remainder to the wife for life, remainder to the children of
the marriage, and if no child, then as the wife should
appoint ; and in case of no appointment, and the wife should
die in the lifetime of the husband, then to the wife's next of
kin, as if she had died unmarried. Upon a reference to the
Muter, it was found that Mrs. Edgar had died without
issue, and without having made any appointment, and that
the plaintiff Caroline Hale was one of the two next of kin of
Mrs. Edgar. The plaintiff William Hale purchased the life
interest of Mrs. Edgar in the moiety of the fund. end by an
assignment the same w•as at the request of William Hale
assigned to Caroline Hale, to the intent that the same might
be merged and extinguished in the immediate reversion, and
that the reversion might be reduced into possession. Wil-
liam Hale now claimed to have that sum transferred to him
on Mrs. Hale'a appearing in court and consenting thereto.
—Mr. Bethel! and Mr. Oliver, for the plaintiffs, contended
that the assignment of the life interest to the person entitled
to the reversion in the fund, gave an absolute interest in pos-
session, and that the husband and wife together could deal
with the fund as they pleasad.—Mr. Roltandliendall, for the
trustees, contended that the court would never permit a
married woman to deal with her chose in action, and that the
assignment was a mere contrivance to do that indirectly
which could not otherwise be effected, and that the wife, on
becoming discovert, might repudiate the assignment, and
make the trustees liable.
The Vice-Chancellor said this might he considered
rather an experimental ease, as there was no direct au-
thority upon the subject. The wife, it appeared, had
purchased the life interest in a fund to the rever-
sion of which she was also entitled. The question we%
whether the court could not deal with that interest as if the
fund had been given originally to the wife absolutely. In
such a case, the husband might present a petiti In, upon the
consent of the wife, that the fund should be transferred to
the nominee of the husband. The wife might preaent a bill
to have a settlement of the property, but she might, by her
consent in court, waive all her right to such settlement. His
Honour thought it was most for the convenience of mankind
that such should he the case, and he was of opinion that, on
principle, this application ought to be allowed, and the fund
transferred to the husband, upon the wife's consent being
in court.

Before Vim-Chancellor Wigram.
FILLEER V. JONER.—PRIORITIES AN BETWEEN Mont-
omanna.—The Vice-Chancellor delivered judgment in this
case, the facta of which appear in detail in our impression of
Monday last.—His Honour said the state of the question
was such, that if he gave to the defendant John Jones all
that he asked for, he should not by so doing deprive the
plaintiffs of any part of the security for which they had con-
tracted, and which they supposed themselves to have ac-
quired. That amount of security would still he left to them,
though they contended that under thc circumstance., and by
a dry rule of law, they were entitled to more. If, on the