The Express.
London, England, 1865-07-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

-- HOUSE OF WILDI3.-JULY L
_ APPEAL/A.

SIX I. W.

matioas. 1141.. ASP OWNI V. maw A=

The &memento in this appeal, which have ocenpled the
house foe several days, were brought to a cow:Into& The
fasts were tally reported to this journal re the 16th
Jane, and it may sullies to my that the opponent, Sir John
Itamtlen, who is the Meant for life of larp property la the'
town and 'Neighbourhood of Huddersfield, seeks to 'eta gi&
that metals Meseta of his are only tomato at will, while
they, on the other bead, donated that by the motors of
the stets, they are entitled to a certain tare t, es
the faith of which they emoted buildinp and mede im-
provemeete in their holdings; and by which they ere
entitled to Imam tot shay yeses es demand made by them.
The am wee heard before Viee-Ohancellor Stuart who
decided is favour of the tenants; hence the pretest eppesi.
Judgment was postponed to mit .wisp.

(Bolan the Leeds hiltless.)

NORTH STAIPORDSRIRI 811:RL. to., COMPANY V. LORD

ciagorai.

This was& motion for as injunction by way a_ n
from the Vioe-Oheisoallor Hia‘ridey, who had riOid to
grant it. The phdatiffs were lames under Load Canroys of
mines at Radian Grange, in Staffordshire. The lease eon-
tamed • arvenant that the lessees would within a year erect
on • alto approved of by the Wear a steam *eerie and
other works, sod there wee • provlrion that in arse of for-
feiture the linear should have themes., fro. The plaintiffs
began their works bat in a different plata from that spud-
Sed in the lams, and the defendant, Lord Charoys, brought
an action fur ejectment, and the plaintiffs flied this bill to
restrain him. The bill had bean &mewled and several
'Admits filed since the rood= had been refaced by the
Vios-Ohatiosilor. . .

and ➢lr. W. Meakems for the plaintiffs ;
Mr. Fleming, Q.C., and Mr. P. Cooper for the &landau,.
Their lordships thought that it was sot clearly made out
that the Labor had agreed to the alter tics of place, but
that he bad stood by and allowed the plaiatiffa to expired
large some of mousy ea the implied undentandiag that ao
advances. would be taken of the forfeiture, sad their lord-
ships created us isjuootioo, the plaintiffs undertaking to
allow judgment to ga is the aotioa.

EQUITY COUBTS.—JULY 4.
(Wore Via-Cfaseedior Sir B. T. Kiadonisy.)
NAIWILL Y. ItACKJIMIL

The plaintiff in this Gass is Sir Hugh Bates Maxwell,
sad the defendant is a Mrs. Mackenzie, sad the suit was
instituted to set aside attain deed., on the ground that the
execution of them had bees *Wined by fraud and mime.
presentatioa. The defendant, it appeared, was brought from ,
Speie when about nisi years of age, and placed with a '
Dr. Evans, at Festiniss, in Wales. When about 17 she
went to Dublin, and a Mr. Henlow Elwood made proposals
of marriage to her. Dr. Evans, however, refused his eon. '
mat unless Mr. Elwood would make her tenant for Hie of
some property of his in Ireland, and this he con-
sented to do, sod the marriage took place in 1823,
sad a poet-nuptial eettlement on the footing of Mr.
Elwoodslettsr to Dr. Evans was executed. Mr.Eiwood died
in 1826, and in 1843 the defendant, who had been 4 prison
for debt, and had just got reloaded, made the acquaintance!
of the plaintiff, sad they cohabited together. The deeds in
question were executed on the 18th and 21st of November, I
1853, the sth July, 1853, sad the 11th De4mber, 1858, sad
by them the plaintiff covenanted to pay the defendant an 1
annuity of 2001. The ostensible oonsideratioa to the plaintiff
for granting this annuity was the assignment of the de-
fondant's right to the property she acquired under her hus-
band's settlement, which was not then, however,
is her possession, but her right to which she
was prosecuting before the Irish courts'. The annuity con.'
tinned to be paid until 18112, when plaintiff ceased to pay it,
and defendant sued him on the covenants in the deeds.
Plaintiff thereupon filed this bill seeking to set the deeds
aside on the moiled that his execution of them bad been oh.
tained4, mweepressntation sad fraud. The defendant. it
apnea before the execution of the deeds married a Mr.
Dooms right. She separated from him, but he gave her
a document which purported to fele:Lee her from all oblige-
time to him, end, curiously enough, even permitted her to
marry spin, rod she did marry a Mr. Mackenzie.
Wright, it appeared, was alive when the deeds
were °Located, and the plaintiff's ease wee that
the defendant never informed him of her marriage
with Wright, nor of her insolvency, and that he was ie.
dared to sign the deeds by her representing to him that
she was entitled to this property, whereas, even admitting
the validity of the post-nuptial settlement, by her 'awl-
repay and by her marriage to Wright all her right, if she
had any, had passed away from her. The plaintiff and de-
fendant were both examined viva Tom in court, and their
evidence was of the most conflicting character.
Mr. Bally and Mr. Bruce appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr.
Foote end Mr. Charles Crouch for the defendant.
. . .

The Vice• Chancellor said the cue, which bed lasted
several days, had succeeded in producing this malt,
aaniely, disereditiag all patties Om:earned. At the some
time he should have thought the plaintiff would have pro.
fervid lain hie money thrice over rather than have had
this exposure of his conduct sod folly. His Honour then
went minutely through the facts of the case, and aid he
was of opinion that, eves if the post-nuptial settlemeet
were a valid instrameat, the plaintiff was not informed of
the tiretunstanees under which it was executed, nor wee be
made aware of the other circumstance', which entirely took
sway any right the defendant had to the property
in question. The deeds must be delivered up
to be cancelled, sod there most be a perpetual
injuation to restrain the defeedant from suing on. the
covenant. The plaintiff had properly shetaned from
asking to be refunded any rums of mosey that he had paid,
and he (the Via-Cheat:eller) ventured to express a hope
that that right feeling would be carried a little further.
With regard to costs—
yr. Bally min the plaintiff did sot ask for costs.
The Vice-Chancellor said that war sufEciat. If costs
lad been asked for he should not have granted them.

(Before

Pea-Chancellor Sir J. Stuart.)
JOHNOTONI P. HAMILTON.

William Brumley, by his will, dated in February, 1882,
devised and bequeathed the legal estate in the residue of
his reel and personal property to the plaintiff Johnstone,
and the defendants, Hamilton, M'Crie, a•cott, sad Duncan,
their heirs, executors, and administrator'. The testator
died on the 14th February, 1881, seised of freeholds and
possessed of leaseholds and =metal estates ; and the
above-named gentlemen, who were his executor', proved
the will. The plaintiff, by his bill, sod the defuthata, by
their answer in this suit, admitted that the testator had
devised and bequeathed his residuary freehold and haw
hold estates to them in =neer aforesaid, upon an under-
standing or belief that they would apply the =roe for the
benefit of the Presbyterian College, in Queen-square,
Bloomsbury, for the education of young men in-
tending to enter the ministry of the presbyterian church.
With respect to the personalty, it appeared that he bad
expressed to his execute= is his lifetime his wish that
they should, so far as by law they might, devote it to the
use of the college. By the decree made o the original
j hearing of the canoe to July, 1864, inquiries were directed
to =certain who was the testator's heirat-law and next
of kin ; and the chief clerk certited that no oise claimed
either as the heir-at-law or next of kin. Under these oir
Gemstone= the rause now came on (=further considsratioa,
when the crown appeared by counsel and claimed the
leaseholds on the ground that the secret trust as to them
was void under the Statute of Hortmain, acid that the
executors had admitted theyi were not themselves
beneficially entitled to the same. The crown, however,
conceded the right of the devisees and executors to retain
the freeholde, on the grounds that although the secret
trust as to them wso also void under the Statutes of Mort-
main, there was no heir at law of the testator, and the
crown could not claim an equitable interest in realty by
way of escheat for want of heirs.
Mr. Melina Q.C., M.P., and Mr. J. Napier Higgins. ap-
peared for plaintiff, and contended principally that, mar
much as no use claimed the leueholds as next of kin of
the testator, the case was not within the recent ant of the
11th Geo. IV. and Ist WM. IV., e. 40, by which it was
muted that executors should not take (as previously they
had done) a testator's undisposed of residue, but should
had it ae trustees for the next of kin, if personalty, or for
the heir at law if realty. That being so, the executors
were now entitled to bold the lesseholda, as against the
crown, notwithstanding the admissions in their answer and
le the MU.

psiz.on as genetic, and arrived at Bfruningbant about ball-putt
TM jury, alloy considering the natter for • abort time,
loud • verdict for the plaintiff, damages 2kl.

Simon V. TEN LONDON AND BRIGHTON RAILWAY

0011111.11 T.
This wee an notion te reams dumps far an injury sus-
tained at the Forest-hill station ; and the dealaration
allege 4 that it had occurred through the station Wing ill-
oolistrooted and ill- lighted.
Htiddlestoo, Q. 0., and Mr. H. Lloyd appeared fee
the plaintiff ; Kr. Oswego Deamen, Q. 0., fee the de
feedants.
The plaintiff was see of the sergeants at Mhos la the City,
and was in the habit of gulag to the Forest-hill station,
on his way to and freak house. Os the 21st February lest
he arrived by the 7.20 pm. train, sad on his way oat with
a crowd of people he fell over a bee which was gets( to be
put into the luggage van, and was placed oa the platten&
He out his skin badly ; he was pat to an a:pew of abort
101. for mho, to go about his business ; end his doctoes
bill viola lOa.
Scam ',Mame waa given that the statics was ineoerve-
pleat, particularly in this, that there was only one way
which served the pmesisprs eosin to and those going out
of the station. It was also said that the lamps were few in
number, and were so low that no light fell epos the plat.
form if there were many people there.
For the defence it was said that the elation was well
lighted, that the arieldout was caused by the plaintiff run-
ning to get out, snd that the accident was entirely his own
fault. One of the porters had called on the plaintiff to
mind the barrow. It was also said that if the plaintiff bad,
in accordance with his doctor's advice, taken *as or two
days' rest, he would ism boa well in that time.
The turf found a verdict for the defendants.