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

CONONSTI V. PALVIZIL.

His Honour also gave judgment in this ease, which arose
upon *he construction of the second codicil to the will of
James Grinstead, made on the 19th November, 1820. He
died on the 12th March, 1821. The bequest was this :he
increased a legacy of 2,0001., given by his first codicil to the
use of Mr. Cole and his wife, the daughter of the testator,
and their children, to 3,0001.; but he directed that if Cole
survived his wife, and if they had no children at their de-
cease, then that the interest of Mr. Cole should
sew and determine, and the codicil went on : " And I
give and bequeath the same to such use. as my said daugh-
ter shall, by deed or will, notwithstanding courture, ap-
point ; and, in default thereof, to and among her sister,
or her children living at her decease. Mrs. Cole had
no issue and practically there was no appointment, the par-
son in favour of whom an apjointment was made having
disclaimed. She had five sisters, two of whom died in in-
fancy, and two ethers, Mrs. Greenaway and Mrs. Walker,
died before her. Mrs. Greenaway had nine children, three
of whom survived Mn. Cole. The remaining sister, Lady
Brooke, was dead at the execution of the codial. The first
question that arose wu whether the children of Lady
Brooke were excluded, and at the hearing of the cause he
determined that they were excluded. The next question
was whether the sum should be distributed per capita or'
per stirpes. This case was very similar to that in which
he had just given his decision, but the distinction in this
cue, and which induced hitn'to come to an opposite conclu-
sion to that at which he had arrived in the former case was
that the gifts in this case were not in remainder, but only
substitionary. He thought the true construction of this
bequest was, that on the death of Mrs. Cole the legacy was
to be divided into as many portions as there were sisters,
who were alive at the time of the codicil, and that if a
sister died leaving children, these children would take their
parent's share. He was of opinion, therefore, that in this
case the legacy must be distributed per stirpes, and that
ooneequently one-half would belong to the defendant,
Henry Walker, and the remaining half to the defendants,
Ann and Charles Greenaway. The costs to oomp out of the
residue. _ . .

—irk Patron said this 3,00 W. bad been severed from
the rest of the estate. _ .

flis Honour said, then the costs must come out of the
fund.

Burnam Tice-CsAilcsuAn WINTWIZT.
BE TASTE THR LOCAL BOARD OF MULTI( OF LLANAILLY.

-A COMPORATI BODY.

In this case it appeared that by a local act of parliament
certain lands were vested in trustees in the town of Llanelly,
which, by an order of the General Board of Health, were
afterwards vested in the local board. Part of these lands
were taken by the &oath Wales Railway Company for the
purposes of their act, and the purchase money was paid
into court. The Local Board of Health now presented a
I petition for investment of the money and payment of the
dividends to them.
Mr. Renshawe appeared in support of the petition, and
Kr. Willis for the Railway Company.
The Vice-Chancellor expressed a doubt whether the Local
Board of Health were a corporate body under the Public
Health of Towns Act, but finally decided that although
they might be a corporate body for the purposes of holding
landr, yet they were not a corporate body to sue and be
sued. The act was very obscure. His Honour then di-
rioted the petition to be amended, by making the clerk to
the Local Board a petitioner, and he thought the dividends
might be paid to the treasurer of the board for the time