The Express.
London, England, 1851-07-30 00:00:00

iriatu xnteitigeine.

HOUSE OF LOHJA.—YESTERDA
LLEWELTIV'S DIVORCE BILL.
The Lord Chancellor and several other peers being 1,7-
sent at a quarter to five o'clock, the counsel and agents lor
this bill were called. For the outline of the case, with
the material parts of the evidence, see the Daily News of
the 16th and 19th insts.
Mr. Warren, with whom was Mr. Macqueen, as counsel
for the petitioner for the bill, said he understood that there
were some points on which their lordships required further
information. Ile was extremely anxious to give every ex-
planation in his power to their lordships, and had two of
the witnesses, who had been examined on a former day,
ready to answer any questions. One of the points on
which he understood their lordships to ask explanation was
to the separation which took place in August, 1846. Now,
although acts of adultery with the Baron Von Schenken-
berg took place before that, as appeared by Mr. Pine's
evidence, Mr. Llewelyn had not the slightest suspicion of
his wife's purity. They parted in consequence of her
temper, but the husband believed her to be as pure as any
woman in existence. They had frequent quarrelling, and
they agreed to part; the wife going to reside with her
married sister, in Tavistoek-street. And as proof of Mr.
Llewellyn's confidence in her purity, he allowed their chill
to go to reside with the mother. He (Mr. Warren) would
Call the witness Pine before their lordships again. The
other witness, Mary Shackell, the servant maid, who spoke
to conduct between Mrs. Llewelyn and the baron that made
the inference of adultery inevitable, was abseut in the
country, and could not now be produced at the bar. The
session was now so far advanced that he would entreat their
lordships not to delay the second reading of the bill.
Lord Itedesdale called the attention ot the learned coon-
eel to part of the evidence given on the 111th inst. by Mary
Shackoll and by Mr. Pine. The former said that at the
time of the separation, in August, 1816, in answer to a
question put to her, " the Baron von Schenkenberg went
with her (Mrs. Llewelyn) to Henrietta-street."
How lately before Mrs. Llewelyn left the Strand did you
see Mr. Llewelyn ?-1 think it was three days before that.
I did not see him that night.
Where was he when Mrs. Llewelyn left ?-11e was ab-
sent. I cannot say where.
flow long was it since you had ecru him before she left?
I think for three days I had not seta him.
Ile hail not been home MS far as you know ?—Not that I
know of.

She left the Strand with the Damn, did she ?—Yes, they
left together.
Have you any reason to know whether Mr. Llewelyn
was aware that ihe was going ?—I cannot say. I should
think Mr. Llewelyn was quite aware that Mm. Llewelyn
would leave that night.
What makes you think so ?—I cannot say for certain. I
used to fancy that that was the reason ho went away from
home.

lie (Lord Redesdale) could not understand how it was
that the husband and wife having, as it was said, agreed to
separate, the husband should absent himself from his home,
and leave this strange baron to conduct his wife to the new
residence. Ile confessed he could not help thinking that
thi, looked like collusion.

Mr. Warren—The husband absented himself from mere
delicacy. Ile did not like to superintend his wife's de-
parture, and on that account alone he went from home.
Mr. Macqucen said that the petitioner himself had stated
that to be the reason of his absence. Ile alone could state
the reason of his absence. Ile was present ou the former
day, but not being able to be longer absent from his duties
as surgeon to a regiment quartered in Dublin, he had gone
there. But he did state that it was by arrangement and
consult with his wife that he absented himself on the occa-
sion of his wife's departure from their residence in the
Strand, to her new residence, with her sister, in Henrietta-
street.

Mr. W. 11. Pine was then called, and being father ex-
amined by Mr. Maclueen, said that although he himself
had observed familiarity between the baron and Mr..
Llewelyn before the separation, he did not think that Mr.
Liewelyn had the least suspicion of any impropriety on the
part of his wife. The baron and Mr. Idewelyn were on
friendly terms. The former had great influence over Mr.
Llewelyn; he was, in fact, negotiating a partnership for
him at the time.

The witness, in answer to questions put to him by the
Lord Chancellor, said he transacted a great deal of pecu-
niary matters for Mr. Llewelyn, and alter the separation
he paid various sums to the wife. Ile sent some of the
money to her by the baron.
Mr. Warren, after putting a few questions to the wit-
ness, again implored their lordships not to defer the con-
sideration of the ease, but to give that gentleman the relief
to which he (Mr. Warren) considered, upon a full view of
the evidence, the petitioner was clearly entitled; or if any
other explanation was required, he would ask their lord-
ships
to adjourn the case until he would be able to afford
such explanation.
The Lord Chancellor said it was the duty of the peti-
tioner to be here and submit to be examined in case their
lordships thought proper to do so ; still that was a discre-
tion which the house seldom exercised, and in moving the
adjournment of the case, it was not on account of the hus-
band's absence. Ile moved the adjournment.
The further consideration of the case and the second
reading of the bill were then adjourned.

EQUITY COURTS. -YESTERDAY.
Bloom Tilt LOAD CHANC6LLOC.
STAINTON C. CHADATICK.—PIeoInCrioN Ow EVIDENCE.-

Excerrioxs.
This appeal against an order of the late Master of the
Rolls, allowing exceptions to the defendant's answer, was
further and fully heard. The circumstances of she case
were stated in the report in the Express of yesterday.
Mr. Bird, in continuing his reply, contended that the
defendant had sufficiently answered all the allegations iu
the bill that were material to the issue between hint and
the plaintiff; that there was no fraud or even impropriety
in his getting posswrion of the under lessee's interest to
strengthen his title to the property as heir-at-law of Sir A.
Chadwick, in which character he obtained au order for
vesting in himself the legal estate. The evidence laid In-
fore the Master on that occasion constituted his own title,
and the plaintiff had no interest in it, and consequently
was not entitled to the production of it. lle cited, amongst
, other cases, " Smyth r. the Luke of Beaufort" (l Phillips,
9A9) ; "Bolton v. the Corporation of Liverpool"
(1 Milne and Kean, 8S) • and " Combe e. the City of Lon-
don" (4 Younge and Collyer, 179).
The Lord Chancellor said he would look carefully into
the bill and exceptions before giving his judgment.

!PLUME V. STUILUE. -A FASICLY SETELEMENT;
ALLEGED FRAUD.
- -

This also was an appeal against a decree of the late Mas-
ter of the Rolls' setting aside a deed mado in 1841 between
the plaintiff and two of the defendants. his brothers, on the
ground that the plaintiff entered into the deed in ignorance
of his legal rights, and that the defendants took advantage
of him in making hint suppose he was owner of one-fourth
only of the property comprised in the deed, while in fact he
was sole owner. '1 he property is situate at Charlworth, in
Wiltshire.
The

and Mr. Caints opened the ease on
behalt of the plaintiff, who is the respondent, but bad net
concluded their arguments at the rising of the court. The
report is therefore reserved to the further hearing.

-
auto{[ rut Manca OP Tilt Bat!,. -
KENT r. JACESoN.—THE CHARLEROI AND ERQUILINNES

RAILWAY COMPANIES.

The Master of the Rolls dismissed the bill in this ease,
the facts of which were reported in yesterday's paper, with
costs.

BPORS LORD CRARWORIII (VICR•CIRANCRLI.OII
GILPIN V. MAOLE.-BEQVIRSTII TO ROMAN
PKIESTB-SECItET

7ATUOLIC

This was a claim filed by some of the residuary legatees
and devisees under a will dated the Bth of July, 1819, of
Ann Tucker, late of 27, Holywell-street, Westmin-
ster, who died in July, 18.50, against Anthony Magee,
D.D., priest of the Roman catholic chapel in Romney-
terrace, Westminster, John Bernard Palmer, William J.
Daly, and William Leathers, who were other of the residuary
devisees and legatees of the testatrix. The claim alleged that
the defendant, Anthony Magee, was the sole acting trustee
and executor of the testatrix, and that he had not paid to
the plaintiffs their respective shares of the proceeds of the
residuary real estate nor of the residuary personal estate.
The plaintiffs therefore claimed to have the real and per-
sonal estate of the said Ann Tucker administered in this
court, and to have their costs in the suit, and that an pro-
fper directions might be given and accounts taken.
Mr. Bethel' and Mr. Kinglake appeared in support of the
claim, and said the first object was to have the estate of the
testatrix administered, and In doing suit would be n
to ascertain whether certain bequests in the will were:Z:l7i,
or whether, as the plaintiffs believed, they were given upon
secret trusts for the peformance of certain ceremonies or
pious acts connected with the Roman catholic religion. If
It were proved that these bequests were for the secret pur-
pose alluded to, they would become invalid in law, and the
money so bequeathed would become the property
of the plaintiffs, and for the purpose ot ascer-
taining whether such was the case or not, the
plaintiffs asked for a reference to the Master,
to inquire and state to the court whether any, and which, of
the legacies, and whether any, and what parts or part, of
the residuary estate of the testatrix bequeathed or given by
her will, were or was given or bequeathed, or were or was
held, upon any and what secret or other trust. The will of
the testatrix was to the following effect :—The testatrix, in
the first place, appointed the Very Reverend Monsignior
Anthony Magee, clerk, D.D., priest of the Roman catholic
chapel in Hornuey-terrace, Westminster, and John Atharia-
I sius Cooke, Esq., barrister-at-law, and her brother-in-law,
Richard Tucker, executors of her will. She then bequeathed
1001. to Mary Buckingham, and her furniture equally
between Richard Tucker and William Leathers. To
her esteemed and respected friend, the Most Rev. John
Bernard Palmer, clerk of Mount St. Bernard, near Lough
borough, abbot of the monastery and abbey church of
our lady of La Trappe there, 1001. She then gave several
other legacies amounting in the whole to 3301. to her
relations, and continued, n To the person who at the time
of my death shall be the superioress of the convent of the
Good Shepherd, at Hammersmith, 191. 195., for the benefit
of the said convent; to the Roman Catholic Orphan Girls'
Asylum, at Hampstead, connected with the St. Patrick's
Roman Catholic Charity School, 191.195.; to the institution
of the Roman Catholic Charitable Sisters now established
in the Virginia-street district, for furnishing linen to poor
Pregnant women (to which I have been in the habit of
subscribing) 101. 10s. ; to the Rev. J no. Moore, clerk, priest
of Virginia-street catholic chapel, 19/. 191., to be applied by
him in such manner as be shall think fit, towards the erec-
tion of the new Roman catholic church for such district,
but not in or towards the purchase ofland for such purpose;
to the Rey. Thomas Doyle, clerk, D.D .1 Prigs; of ft

George's Roman catholic church, in St. George's Fields,
101.; to the Rev. Anthony Magee, clerk, D.D.. priest of the
Roman catholic chapel, Rannucy•terrace, Weetmineter, for
the benefit of the Roman catholic poor-school attached to
ouch chapel, 101. ; to the Rev. James Ilearsnep, clerk, priest
of the Roman catholic chapel in Wade-street, Poplar, for
the benefit of the human catholic poor-school at l'oplar,
10/. ; to the Rev. Jean Jacques Morel, clerk, priest of the
Roman catholic chapel at Hompstcad, for the benefit of the
catholic poor-schools there, 101._; tothe Rev. Richard North,
clerk, priest of the Roman catholic church of ear blessed
lady the Star of the See, at Greenwich, in Kent, 19/. 19s. ;
to the night Rev. Bishop Davits, Roman catholic Bishop
and Vicar Apostolic of and for the district of Wales, 401.; to
the Right Rev. Bishop William Wareing, of Northampton,
Roman catholic Bishop and Vicar Apostolic of and for the
eastern district of England, 101. ; to the Rev. Edward Kenny,
clerk, priest of the Roman catholic chapel at Bridport.
101. 19s. ; to the Rev. J. G. Holding, clerk, priest of St
George's Roman catholic church at Whiteharen, Cumber-
land, 19/. 19s. ; to the Roman catholic Priest now attached
to, and officiating at and in the Roman catholic chapel of
St. Patrick, at Maryport, in Cumberland, 51.; to the Ro-
man catholic church, in Vauxhall-street, in the island of
Jersey, 51. ; to the Rev. Harding leers, clerk, priest
of the Recant catholic chapel of St. Alexis, at Kentish-
town, Middlesex, 51. ; to the Roman catholic priest
now attached to and officiating at the Roman
catholic church at Hackney, Middlesex, . ; to
my friend, Mrs. Jane Stevenson, of Clarendon-
place, Vauxhall-road, 11. for a mourning ring, and to Eliza
Stevenson, her daughter, M. for it mourning ring. To my
friend bliss Isabella Strongithann' now residing at Mount
St. Bernard aforesaid, 101., and to her nephew, George
Strougitharm, 19/. 19s. ; and I bequeath to each of my
I executors, the said Anthony Magee and Richard Tucker4for
their trouble in acting as suck executors, 191. 195." The
testatrix then gave all the property she expected to receive
under a decree in a Chaueery, suit to her executors, to be
sold and converted into money, and the proceeds to be held
upon trust to pay debts and funeral expenses and
such portions of her legacies as lie rest of her
personal estate should be insufficient to satisfy, and
subject thereto upon trust as to two fourth parts
for the said Rev. Dr. Magee, and as to one ether fourth
upon trust fur her brother and sister, William Leathers
avid Sarah Gilpiu, equally, as tenants in common, and as to
one-hulf of the reumi ii i i fourth, upon trust, for the Must
Rev. J. Bernard Palmer and the Rev. William Joseph
Daly, priest of the !Lenten catholic church of the luimacu-
Late Conception at Penzance, in Cornwall, in equal shares
and proportions; and us to tic remaining portiou of the
said fourth part, in trust for, and equally to be divided be-
tween and among her nephews and nieces. The testatrix
then declared that iu case any bequest or disposition ex-
pressed to be contained in her will of or concerning
any part of her property, should be and become void
or inoperative by reason of the operation of any rule
of law or by lapse or otherwise the property as to which
such expressed bequest or disposition should be or become
so void or imperative should not sod in her heir or heirs at
law, or in any of her next of kin, but that ouch property
should fall into and become part of the residue of her pro-
perty, and belong to the person to whom such residue was
hereinafter expteseed to be devised and bequeathed, his
heirs, executes, and admiuistreturs, accenting to the
respective natures and tenures thereof respectively; and
the residue of her property, both real and personal,
she gave to the said Rev. A. Magee, his heirs, exe-
cutors, and administrators. It appeared that Mr. John
Arhauasian Cooke had disclaimed the trusts of the will.
In support of the homilies which the plaintiffs asked an
affidavit of John leathers. one of the plaintiffs, read,
in which he stateil his belief' that the legacies In the will
given to the various Rowan catholic priests and charities
were bequests made and accepted upon and subject to cer-
tain trusts for the performance of ceremonies and devo-
tional or pious acts connected with the Roman catholic
religion. Another t affidavit was read. sworn by Mr.
Charles Skirrow, the plaintiff's solicitor, in which he stated
that he had read an 'Midas it of Juhn Athanasius Cooke,
Ksq., barrister-at-law, sworn by him in another cause,
whereby it appeared that he had himself prepared the will
of Ann Tucker, that the said will purported to bequeath
two-fourths of the whole residue of her estate to the said
Anthony Magee, and one-fourth to the said Wm. J. Daly ;
that he had reason to believe the gifts so purporting to be
made to Roman catholic etelesiasties were not intended by
the testatrix for the personal enjoyment of such ecelesiae-
ties, but were given sultiect to certain secret nog,' or
directions :given Ilty the testatrix; that a correspondence
passed between the said Mr. Cooke, Mr. Frogmen, the soli-
citor of Anthony Magee,. Messrs. Kerrie and Son, the soli-
citors for John Athanasius Cooke, and himself, for tho
purpose of ascertaining what were the secret trusta directed
by the testatrix; and that, in one of the letters from Mr.
Cooke, that gentleman stated he had sent to Mr. Protteatt
au explanatory statement in writing, in answer to the ques-
tions put to him, and that he had adopted this course be-
cause lie entertain“l a doubt whether he could
with propriety MAC such a communication to Mr.
Skirrow without the sanction of Dr. Magee. The
special inquiry as to the secret trusts was now asked
fur on the ground that the plaintiffs had been unable to
obtain tuty informaton from Mr. Cooke or Dr. Magee, and
without these inquiries, the estate of the testatrix could
not be properly administered. It was contended that
under the circumstances of this case, and particularly upon
the allegation that Mr. Athanasius Cooke had prepared this
will himself without the intervention of an attorney, that
the court was justified in granting the inquiries. It was
very natural for the plaintiffs when they found so many
bequests given to all these reverend gentlemen, by which
their interests were so materially lessened, to desire that
the fullest inquiry should be made into the facts of the
case, and they fully believed it would turn out that the
bequests were void on the ground of being given to super-
stitious uses.
Mr. Kenyon l'arker and Mr. Bagshafre appeared tor ono
of thedefendants, and Mr. Waller fur 1)r. Magee.

Lord Cranworth, without hearing the counsel thr the de-
fence, said he was clearly of opinion that lie could not give
the relief asked fur. lie would lie very anxious to cue' ex-
pense to the parties it poi.sible, but he did nut think such an
inquiry as this could Ike directed upon a claim. These
plaintiffii asked for accounts which, if they had tiled a bill,
they could only have had upon the hearing of the cause,
and after evidence had been gone into. The deloidants
had had no opportunity of answering the ulh Rations con-
tained in these affidavits; even if the affidavits made out the
case, upon which he gave no opinion, ',till that was nut the
case made by the claim. Its thought it was necessary ti
proceed not only secundum probata, but also cceuudum
allegata. His lordship thought, therefore, that all he could
do was to direct the common administration decree upon
the claim, and the parties if they wanted more must file
Lill for the purpose.

IN RE COOKE.-.-PETITION BY HUSBAND ANO WIFE,
A WARD OP COURT, FOR PAYER-VT OF MONEY TO TUE
HURRAND.

In this case a sum of money hod been paid into court
under the Legacy Act, 36 George 111., to the account of an
infant, and guardians had been appointed upon petition, to
whom the income had been regularly paid fur the main-
tenance of the infant. The infant married one year before
she came of age with the consent of her guardiani, but
without any application having been made to the court for
ita sanction to the marriage. . . . . .

A petition was now prt7sented by the husband and wifo
for paynitnt of the fund out of court to the husband, with
tho consent of tho wife

Lord Crauworth said, as the young lady was a ward of
court, the consent of the court ought to have been obtained
before her marriage, and under such circumstances he
thought that the money ought to be settled upon the wife.
Mr. Youngs, in support of the petition, tited two caws in
which similar orders had been made, and also read affida-
vits by the husband and the guardians, showing that it nas
desirable that the money should be paid to the husband.
The amount of the fund was _ . .

Lord Cranworth said kV could not approve of the princi-
ple upon which the two cases of "Leeds and Barnadiston",
and " lk•nnett v. Biddies" had been decided. Ile could
only suppose that they went upon some Lets not stated in
the reports. Ile thought, however, upon looking at the
affidavits filed in this case, it would be beneficial that the
hu,band should receive the fund. The order was made
accordingly.
SCOTT r. DEFFELL.-I)IIPRECIATION OP Wr•T INDIA