The Express.
London, England, 1847-06-03 00:00:00

Mr. Sheffield appeared for different parties interested in the
suit.
___ _

',tonere, wAlt four wickets to go down. At the cloac the ware mod
thw

Hon. R. GrUnston, b Day -~—..
I nnt out 2l
Dean. e Day b Brockwel S b Sherman
Clarke, b Day l4
HHugnrartb. Bp., e Day, b Byxlr kell 0 b Bayley .. ....... ...... .... 14
, b Day
ut
0. DenisC. Db A FoObermanq , b Merman ......... 111
33 bnot Sheorman it
LaUrrlnte, b Sherman 7
R. Kywidilon, Vag., b Day 1 b Sherman ...... ........ .... 4
W. 741eaolion, Fp., not ma
1.. B. Bayley, Fp., ran gat
Bye. 13, wide (Brockman) 1. &az. Byrn 7, vrlde(Bbarman)
man 3) 4, 110 ball (Day) 1

148
WIIIIIZT.

A. Earnsyerhaw, EA, e Michelins, b
Itgl
W. Bi", Fag., bLillywlthe ll b Uillyar 2
A re, Esq., 0 Nicholas*, 0
.Halm 1 e Dean, b Clacks l4
N. Yana, Eaq., 0 lillywlilte 9 b Lillyarblte
Day, ran out
Beset!, e Lilly's-bits, b liillysr
4b
rairer
13
Beeeknell, bIA 3 b lynefte
C. 11. Uwe, Yaq., b Lillyirttito ... 3 ron oat 2l
B. Driver Esq e Nicholson, b Lily.
0

e Dean. b hilly er
Bbere7:B, b ulßya
Ba hot oat
,7t Byes 8

iLabi Entrlltgence.

EQUITY COURTS.
Before the laid CRAROSHOU.
PERRY C. MIDDORCROPT.—QtYESTION OF LEGITIMACY
OP A PERSON PORN AIMEE NULLITY OP THE MARRIAGE
or HIS PARENTS.—This was an appeal from a decree of the
Master of the Rolls, overruling exceptions to the master's
report, which found that William Meddoweroft, the appel-
lant, was not the legitimate son of William Meddowcroft,
deceased. From the statement made by Mr. Bethel in
opening the appeal last Friday, and resumed by him this
morning, it appeared that the odd William Meddoweroft,
father of the appellant, was married, in 1815, to Mary
Gregory, widow of a naval lieutenant, in whose right she
had a pension of 631. a-year. William Meddowcroft (the
deceased) was then only eighteen years of age, and the mar-
riage, which was solemnised in the pariah church of
Saint Jamie's, Cierkenwell, was by banns, in the
publication of which the name of W,ddowcroft
was written instead of Meddowcroft, through the
mistake of the parish clerk's daughter in copying the latter
name in the banns book, from which the clergyman mad
oat the names on the Sunday. The mistake was discovered
on the morning of the marriage, which was solemnised in
the true name, after the mistake was explained. William
Meddowereft was at that time clerk in the office of his
uncle, James Meddoweroft, an attorney in London, from
whom the marriage was concealed. After he di covered it,
a suit was instituted in the Consistory Court of London, in
1816, in the name of the nephew's father, also named
William, and the marriage was declared null and void, in
consequence of the undue publication of the banns. The
wife was cited, but although she consulted a proctor, she
made no defence, and it was alleged by the appellant that
the decree of nullity was procured by fraud and collusion.
After that decree, the parties (the said Wm. Meddowcroft
and Mary Gregory) cohabited topther as before, and the
result was the birth of the appellant, in 1817. His father
married another woman afterwards, and died in 1835, leaving
children by the second wife. His uncle, the attorney, died
in 1821, leaving the residue of kis estates to trustees, to accu-
mulate for 21 years, end then to be conveyed to the eldest
male lineal descendant then living of his said nephew. The
appellant was not aware of the circumstances of the marriage
of his parents, or of the decree of nullity until 1840, and
then in comequenoe of the papers and information he re-
ceived from hie mother, he instituted a proceed-
ing in the Prerogative Court in the form of •
emit to recall letter of administration of his father's
estate granted to his widow the second wife ; but the real
object of the emit was to establish the legality of the said
marringe of his father with his mother in 1815. He
failed in that abject in the Prerogative Court, and
also in the Privy Council upon appeal. He. notwith-
standing them adverse decisions, sought to establish his
iintimacy in the present suit in this court so as to be en.
ed, as "the eldest male lineal descendant of William
oddowcroft," his father, to the accumulations of the
estate of that prison's uncle (stated in court to be now worth
about 80,0001.) The master' under an order of refereuce in
tite cause, reported against his legitimacy, and the except
were ons,
• h overruled by the order under appeal, were filed
at that report. Mr. Bethel, in the commencement Of
his statement, proposed to show that the decree of nullity,
procured as this had been in a snit in which the appellant
was not—coull not be a party, as he was not then born,
could not affect his status of legitimacy, Ind in support of
that propeeition he urged several arguments in the mum
of his subsequent statements.
The Lord Chancellor, before the leant,: counsel had con-
cluded, observed that it struck him that some further
inquiry as to the marriage would be ROCellikrf, either by
means of an issue or a lull of discovery. And alter some
discussion between Mr. Bothell and Mr. Hodgson (who was
for the respondents), the case was allowed to stand over for
ROMS days, to give the learned counsel on both sides an op-
portunity of agreeing as to the future proceeding.
HODSON & EVERETT—RESPONSIBILITY OP TRUSTEE&
—Thin was an appeal from a decree of Vice-Chancellor
Knight Brace, under these circumstances. By the will of a
Mr. Everett, Messrs. Hobson and Brown were appointed his
executors and trustees, to manage his property for his infant
daughters. They filed a bill soon after their testator's death
to make the daughters wards of the court. A Mr. Ferraby
paid his addressee to one of the daughters, and the terms of
a settlement were agreed upon, but on Mr. Hoteon's insisting
that he should be • trustee in that settlement, Ferraby said
he would wait till the lady came of age and would then
marry her without a settlement. And he did as he mid.
After the marriage the executors filed another bill to compel
Ferraby to execute the settlement as first proposed and a
decree wasthereon made to that effect. A third hill was
filed by Ferraby, charging the executers with breeches of
trust, especially in the letting of a farm in Linoolnabire to •
Mrs. Rawlins, the sister of Mr. Hobson, at an i
rent, There was then a supplemental bill by
against Ferraby, Mrs. Everett, and others, the object of
Which was to ascertain distinctly and refute the charges in
Ferraby's bill against him. These charges, so far as it Is
material to mention them, were, that the farm in Paean-
shire was held by Hobson for his own benefit, be ptetenee tr:
being let to Mrs. 'towline, and that the rent from 1838 to
1839 was only 4081., whereas it was worth much more, sada
rent of 4801. was paid for it from 1839 to the present time.
In the course of the hearing, the Vice-Chancellor
suggested that en inquiry ought to be made by a empatent
person as to the proper rent to be put on the farm, in the
three years from 18.. M to 1839, and the parties having =mei
a Mr. Rigby, he was appointed, and he certified that the east
should be 4501. Thereupon the Vice•Chanesiler dimmed
that Hobson and his coexecutor should pay up the diOnsmue
between 4084 and 4501. for the three years, and theemets 0
the suit. The appeal was against that pert altar &MM.
Mr. Bacon and Mr. Glasse were tor the trustees (the mpg.
land), Mr. J. Rawl and Mr. Lew& min.
The Lord Chancellor, without bordag Mr. Basun /Mk
observed that the decree compielmsdi ',was mad* npen-an
certificate of value of the lam , by • person who was im.
ported into the muse extrajmilehlte not appointed by imp
orner of the court but who, wig:wit any proper authority,
was employed, and he certified that the farm was weed
4501. a year. Unless that was done with the mo-
unt of all parties so much of the decree as was
founded on it =net be altered. He ewe no rea-
son to charge the trustees with breach of trust, for it
appeared that Mrs. Rawlins fell under the manse rent in
18.. V, that was, in the testator's lifetime, paid by hies own
tenant, and which rent that tenant and Otte. who offered
would not pay. Although the value of egrieslnienl preduce
increased in 1837, that was not safileisat mega kr
the rent. When, however, the value of preiese eerWusd
to increase in the following years, the trwsems grew antics
to Mrs. Rawlins, and they had valuations merbiteithr6rm,
and from 1839 they put the highest Tatman em the tenant,
as appeared by the evidence fa ,:he WPM nth Irroared to be
a discreet exercise of authority in e.;,•• trustees. and who- t•-•
found chem., made - •
-latest 11,11, ..... Chia head, without any
Ma of proof, he could not Mid ithM the trustees were jnztly
liable to make good the tfcrette between the rent paid and
L" 'valuation dterwe'eds made. His lordship, however,
wished to have it kis' wn that trustees ought to be careful
how they mixed`..neenselves up with members of their own
families in der,,,,,g-- - with trust property, by which they at
least laid tiemselves open to injurious suspicions, He was
of opi:ion that the person who brought these unproved
charges against the trustees ought to be made to pay the costs.

Benne the vice-Chancellor of England.
WARE V. ROWLAND.--CONNTEXCTION OF WILL.--11161ne
AT LAW.—A question was raised upon the conitroction of
the will of Philip Slater, Esq., late of Hampstead, dated the
18th of July, 1808, by which, after making mean pecuniary
bequests ma Leaden the testator directed his executors to
blank mama as would purchase Is the 31. per cent.
immidenthe lam ef . a yew, and that the said annuity
abenli ba hammted moon treat far his wife, Ann Slater, for
bet lib, Ass bet demo lime Ind far his daughter,
Anna Nada Illsass, and efts:her Amato mop and transfer
the midi treat maim unto and among the children of his
said daughter ail if his daughter should die leaving no child
ceehiklres tiehaiberdeath thenthe testator directed the sum
of Oa le bs pail oath of his two grandson' if they should
be diva. And as ha WI the restand residue of the said prin-
cipal MINI nottiosorttit the 'Merest, increase, and dividends,
the ma tweeter by hie will gave and bequeathed the mum
to end men " his heir. at law, share and char, alike."
The teseefier died in January, 1808, leaving his wife and
his entr dal As Kw* his heiress at law, surviving
bins. The has of 20,0001. stock was then purehaaed in the
funds for the payment of the annuity of 6001. which wag
received by the wife and daughter of the teetotar during
their lives. The daughter, who survived her mother, died
in October, 1844, intestate and without having been married,
leaving Luther Wilson and Philip Wilson, two of the de-
fendants, her os-heirs at law, and also the co-heirs at
law of the said testator. The questions aired upon
`Aia will were Ant, whether the words " heirs at law"
fra °anointed strictly, or whether they meant next of
wis whether they meant next of kin of the tes-
kin swamp , exclusive of his wife and daughter, and
Merin his *mar ,b„, hairnet-law or next of Mn were to
teem at what till.. ,fad at the death of the testator, or at
bs amsetaineb_ • via. • oar. If at the death of the testator,
the bed" of ha thwje• ' • heir and next of kin at his death
That
ahlghlor W1NC%,.., "it tbil death of the daughter,
defend= who were
this to 1" 4168/114ff"" the fund. itethery
hoe etiele. seAwethi hi Wiese to
maignbrey, Mr. J. Parker, Mr.
Chohoo. Mr• ]fit, Mass, Mr. Yotutp and
isiblibstol/2 issa/ret" •

11.14 he thought he vu boned to

construe the words of this will in that way which was the
simplest, and the words heirs-at-law must have their ordinary
signification. He considered that this was a mere gilt
of the residue to the persons who, at the time of the death
of the tastetor, answered the description of heirs-at-law.
If this were not the true conetruction, the will must be oft-
Wired void, for uncertainty.
Cara v. PAR/WC—BILL TO SIT AUDI AN INSTRIINIXT
ON Tllll GROUND OF FIIAIID.—DINUANRA ALLOWSD..—
Tkie suit was instituted for the purpose of setting amide as
assignment of a bond on the ground of fraud. The bill
Noted that sachems had been projected between the parties, to
OM following effect :—That a Mrs. Lydia Taylor, who was tke
widow of a Col. Cooper, being desirous of obtaisiag a sum of
7,5001. from the trustees of her former husbands will, for
tM purpose of setting up in business, went to Major Cape,
Meese wife was the mother of her hushand (Mr. Taylor) by
• tormas marriage, and, havineconsiderible influence over
Wm. Winced him to sign a post obit bond to secure the sum
of 111/1001. to be paid to Mrs. Cape three months after his
ded the bill then went on to state that Mrs. Taylor had
ieilleif SIM Cape to assign this bond to the trustees
if Wesel Cooper's will, as a security to them for
advraing the 7,5001. to her. The bill alleged
that dim plaintiff, Mrs. Cape, never did execute the
NM =ligament, or, if she did, that she was not aware of the
MOMS el the instrument ; and it, therefore, prayed that the
sidpisent might be delivered up to be cancelled on the
grand that it had been fraudulently obtained.—The case
now ems on upon demurrer to the MI Mr. Bethel and
Mr. Kinglike appeared for the demurrer ; and Mr. Stuart
and Mr. Stinton an supportof the bill.
The Vice-Chancellor said it was plain that for some reason,
which he could not ascertain, the plaintiff, Mrs. Cape, bad
thought it right to abstain from stating upon the bill that she
had executed- the assignment which was sought to be de-
livered up to be cancelled—this would necessarily oempel
the court to listen to very lengthy arguments, orb go through
the whole of the pleadings to satertain whether the fact
could be assumed, when the statement might have been
made in one line : his Honour, therefore, thought the
demurrer ought to be allowed, aad refused leave to amend
the bilL

Before Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce.
Breit o. Daiw.—Mr. Walter Drew, a burgeon, living at
79, Gower-street, in April, 1835, upon the marriage of one
of his daughters, eoveuanted with the trustees of the settle-
ment then made, to bequeath one-fourth of his property for
the daughter's benefit, and when his son, Mr. Henry Drew,
should be well and sufficiently established in his profession
of a surgeon and apothecary, to bequeath for her benefit one-
third instead of one-fourth of ha property. Mr. Henry
Drew was afterwards taken into partnership by his father,
and subsequently succeeded to the entire business. Mr.
Walter Drew, having died intestate, the trustees of the
daughter's settlement instituted this suit to take the opinion of
the court upon the question ,whether the share of this daughter
in her father's property was, under the circumstances, to be
one-third or one-fourth. Mr. Wigram and Mr. Toiler ap-
peued for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Rumen and Mr. Chandler
for the defendants.
The Vice-Chancellor—The father bad been a respectable
practitioner as a surgeon and apothecary in Gower-street.
He had been so for some years. After this deed the father
had taken the son into partnership the partnership was in
effect permanent, that is, during their joint lives. The son,
upon his father's death, paying some premium to the estate,
has succeeded to the burner, such as it was. If left to me
to decide, I must say that be was well and. sufficiently esta-
blished in his profession. But Imy now, as I said before,
it is a proper question for a jury, and I Mire now my willing-
nese, if either party wish it, to send the case to a jury.—
Comas] on both sides said that the parties were willing to
abide by his Honour's decision, and a decree was made
accordingly.
CLIVE E. BEAUXONT.—SVECIFIC PERPOIDIANCE.—The
defendant had entered into a negotiation with the plaintiff
for the purchase of a leasehold house in Grafton-etrect,
belonging to the latter. The proposal and acceptance relied
upon as constituting the written contract were contained in
a letter and an answer, the former being written by the de-
fendant to the plaintiff 'gents in the following terms:
" Gentlemen,—l am willing to take the remainder of Mr.
Clive's term of No. 18, Grafton-street, at the some rent, and
will take the furniture and fixtures to the amount of 1001.
by valuation in the usual way, to be selected by myself."
The answer was to the effect that the agents were instructed
by their principal to accept the proposal; they added, how-
ever, these words: "We hope to give you possession by the
half.quarter day." The bill was filed for a specific perform-
ance of the agreement, which was resisted on the ground
that the sentence at the end of the agents' letter precluded
that document from being considered as an unconditional
acceptance of the proposal, as it introduced a new term, viz.,
the appointment of a future time for the possetaion being
taken.—Mr. Walpole and Mr. Reach were for the plaintiff;
and Mr. NVigram and Mr. Piggott for the defendant.
The Vice-Chancellor said that, in his opinion, the words
in question neither qualified the proposal nor the acceptance ;
and that even if they bad such an effect, still the subsequent
conduct of the parties was sufikient to entitle the plaintiff to
demand a mocha performance, if he could make out his
title, as to which the usual reference must be made.

JACVION V. IdllilllLD.—PucrlCJl vIeDEZ !STATUTE 1
WM. IV c. 60.—A testator named Jacob Mirfleld devised
real estate to his wife Rebecca, to long as she should remain
unmarried, with remainder to his son Lewis Mirfield at
twenty-one. In 1837 the testator died, leaving his son and
his widow surviving, the former of whom attained the age of
twenty-one in 1648. On the 3rd of November, 1838, the
present bill was filed by a creditor of the testator for payx ent
of his debt, and for a general administration of the testator's
estate; and by the decree in the cause made in April, 1842,
the usual accounts of the testator's debts and estate were
directed. Pending the suit, Rebecca, the widow of the tea-
tater, became of unsound mind; bat was not found so by
inquisition. That fact was put upon the record by sop-
ple.mental bill, and by the decree in the supplemental suit,
made in January, 1844, the accounts directed in the original
suit were ordered to be carried on as if the widow were
not of unsound mind. The master by his report, which was
confirmed by an order made in July 1844, found the amount
of the testator's debts and that his personal estate was
insufficient for the payment thereof, and he found also that
the testator had died seised of real estate which he had
devised to his wife Rebecca for life, with remainder to his son
Lewis in fee. On July 13, 1844, the usual decree was made
on further directions, for a sale of the testator's real estate,
and the application of the proceeds in payment of his debts.
The decree also contained a directive that all proper parties
should join in conveying the estate*. The real property was
then sold under the decree, and the purchase-mousy of three
lots paid into court ; that of the 4th lot not having yet been
paid. As the tenant for life was still alive, and clearly of
unsound mind, and the remainder-man had been transported
for felony to Van Diemen's Land no conveyance could be
executed to the purchaser. In this state of things
the plaintiff presented a petition vender Sir Edward Sag-
den's Act (1 W. 4, c. 60, s.
_18), to the Lord Chancellor,
praying that
coa and it might beta Maw ared by th
ere trustee. e court that
Sour, as plaintiff in the suit, for the purpose of carrying
the sale into effect on his behalf, and that proper persons
might be appointed to convey to the purchasers in their
pls. His lordship bad refused to make any order upon the
potttitet, on the ground that the court was not empowered to
me hy the statute, until it had been declared in a suit insti-
tuted for the purpose, that the widow and son of the testator
' were trustees for the purchasers within the act.
Mr. Goode,. now applied, by petition, to have such a de-
claration made by the court, as a Was fora renewed applica.
tile to the chancellor.
His Honour, after expressing some doubt ea to the correct..
use of the reason alleged for the Lord Chancellor's objection,
dedined to make the order. He observed that, if that were
the real ground of the Chancellor's refusal, the difficulty
could not be got over by en order made upon petition in the
mit. The statute required the declaration to be made in a
nit regularly instituted fer the purpose; and, if the order
already made for a sale and conveyance could not be consi-
dered tantamount to such a declaration, the defect could not
be remedied by petition.
RICIADO v. DIZIM—RienrICATION 0? METtlntrebn..
Previosaixte the mac legs of Mr. Jae Latvia Weirdo with
the dehillith .oMiNele Blarda. tbea Cats Duff,
which. talk PPS While Were armed up and
dgmeu o) . a,. :rmarb,a• a SeirsiMiee of a eeltiement to
be subsequently made. By the eele it was speed that
certain g to W. mar* mei emisdng
f suif.raii.bakapand aa Melt et NiNnway, Net-
Laihniridee. word at 7,600 L, dada Iss seeded epee the
herb *win the OW= Isslidisli that the
meal wee el fuesegtentatireeld be rained,
and that the seethe should ben • poser el appeialasse
over the property In default of two of the ae=ache
should live to attain a vested Wool sole the
The bill was fled to rectify the eseillmeat will& had bees
easented perement to the areal,. es the ground that it did
let moon the usual powers of oh sad 0•43 ever the
eases at Mateseisy, and that the power of mMaent re-
served to the edam was to take effect only is default of
to.. elate euustege, and not in default el Moe stoning •
lewd beieen. Means. Reilly, Heetideld, Weard, and
Taylor aggeswed kr the aillinved melee to the ester
ofHie IreamersimaNtel seedionity with tbe prayer
the so the eddenei showed the per
posed pewees te be the seseeshe el the article',
Cociraeurn WiLvelleue.—Coturrnvertox or Wn.L.—
Tuts or Ve.uro.—A teetatrix_ by her will gave and be-
=te her sister leauge SOK, to each of her slam,
, =saheb, .4 Lids garage, and Cardoso
Wilehire, the stun of SOL. mei likewise to of
=two die gave the sus el a. The
being 7,0001., she pee trirr ett
be eriedar,
and Haden Wiltshire, and .the Mel to Melded be-
twesn her (the hetairies) nieces Wm metier* 'Upon
the death of the survivor of the tedatriz's elehee, Lim,
Elizabeth, and Rein Wiltshire, the bet was fled by the
husbasd and legal penal representative of the tesestrix's
Wei* Madame, debut survived the tomdabiz, end after-
wards died in the Sadao of the truants fer
erne-fouris shres ef the .sunnysetabs.-10.Wllee
ts emi
Mr. Samba he the plabstilk essiseideithat the sheer amid 1
in the will leek voted houreste in the able at the
death of the worm' ; the payment only
till the death of the tame be life. " Leesehig a =1
(1 Km).
Mr. Walker and Mr. Gehlart. for the hadahemsob
mud in the will, austentet that thee of
the bum earbeg dee Mein el the tiro Mid
the eepital was not gins dB after age dada; and thew to
each only testatrix's Wear as shield be then surviving.
"Beek v. Burn" (7 Boorealt "Ohms v. Ainslie" (13
Shesse).—Mr. Remaly end Mr. Ulm appeared for the
treeless mad eneredeee of the will.
His Mom theism th. case clearly settled by authority,
and made a decree Ca favour of the plaintiff.