The Express.
London, England, 1847-07-27 00:00:00

Before the Mes•er of the Bolls.

RTALL V. RANW-.97.-

WiLL.7Mis-

DESCIIIPTION.—The Master of the BOIL, in giving judgment
in this care, said that Wm. Read by his will devised a copy-
hold estate to his nephew, Wen. Bell, for life, and then in
trust for Elizabeth Abbott, the natural daughter of Elizabeth
Abbott, of the perish of Gillingham, single woman, who for.
reedy lived in his service, for life, with remainder to her
children. Wm. Bell, the tenant for life, having died in
1839, the question mom as to whom the estate belonged.
There was to penmen who answered the description in
the will. There was no Elizabeth Abbott, daughter of
Elizabeth Abbott, single woman, who formerly lived in the
testator's service. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that the
devise was void for uncertai ty ; by the childrc n ofJoh a Abbott,
the son of Elizabeth Abbott, that he was meant; and by the
defendant, Margaret Austin, that she was meant. The facts
as proved were, twat in 1791, Elizabeth Abbott, single wo-
man, was in the testator's service, and that she became preg-
nant; that Wm. Bell, the nephew, was the putative father
of the child, and the testator desired him to marry her, but
he refused. That the woman left the testator's service' and
gave birth to a son, called John Abbott, and that he after-
wards showed her kindness, and knew that there was a child
born, but be might not have known that it was a son. Eli-
zabeth Abbott had no ether illegitimate child, and she &Ber-
-1 wards married John Caddy, by whom she had a daughter,
the defendant, Margaret Austin. And there was some evi-
dence
that the testator showed her kindness after her mar-
riage. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, he
had come to the conclusion, though not without great diffi.
culty, that an illegitimate chili was meant. The only one
the woman had was John Abbott, the son of the testator'.
nephew, Win. Bell. And though the words in the will did
not answer his description, still he thought the mistake of
name and sex ought not to defeat the devise, and that the
parties representing John Abbott were entitled to the bene-
fit of it.

KILMER V. LEACH.—CONSTEUCTION OP SETTLEMENT.—
The Master of the Rolls also gave judgment in tkis case. The
facts were that on the marriage of the late John Allen, Esq.,
of Isleworth, with Lady Frances Tumour, in 1836, a sum of
5,0001. stock was settled in trust for Mr. Allen for life with
remainder to Lady Frances for life, with remainder to the
children of the marriage ; and in default of children, as Mr.
Allen should by deed or will appoint, and in default of such
appointment, for Mr. Allen's next of kiu or personal repre.
tentative* in a due muse of administration, according to the
statute of distribution. Some stock belonging to Lady Frances
was settled in like manner on her and her husband and
children of the marriage, with a like limitation to her next
of kin. There were no children of the marriage, and the
questions in this suit were first, whether the executors of
Mr. Allen, who died in his wife's lifetime, were entitled
under hi. will to the stock settled by him ; and secondly,
whether, supposing it to belong to his next of kin,
his widow was entitled to any share of it.—His
lordship was of opinion that the sum in question did not
form part of Mr. Allen's personal estate, and that his execu-
tors were not entitled. As to Lady Frances's title to share
with the next of kin, as in the case of an ordinary intestacy,
he thought she was not so entitled. It was the intention of
the parties, that in default of children the property brought
into settlement by them respectively, should go to their re-
spective families. He was of opinion that, independently of
the words of the limitation in question, this was the inten-
tion of the parties, and he, therefore, held that the wife was
not included in the words in question.
BATEMAN O. HOTCTIKIN.--CONSTEVOTION OF WILL.—
REMOTENESS.—Thomas Hotchkin, by his wlll, directed his
, debts to be first paid and discharged out of his personal
' estate, except his leasehold, and if it was not sufficient he
charged his real estate with such deficiency, and di-
rected the same to be raised by means of a term
for 2,000 years, afterwards limited ; and he gave cer-
tain specific articles of furniture, &c., to his eldest son. He
then vested estates is trustees for a term of 2,000 years, to
raise suffieieat monies to make up the deficiency of his
personal estate to pay his debts, by sale or mortgage. And
he directed a oinking fund of 500/. per annum, out of the
rents, to be formed and accumulated during the term, and
the monies to be applied from time to time by his trustees
in paying off certain mortgages, and on the satisfaction of
the trusts of the term he directed it to cease. And, subject
to the term, he settled tke estates on his eldest son, in strict
settlement, with remainders over. It was contended at the
hearing, that the trues of the term of 2,000 years, for the
accumulation of the rents, were void for remoteness, and
that the specific legacies to the eldest eon ought to be
exonerated from payment of debts. The Master of the
Rolls now gave judgment on these points. He decreed that
the trusts for accumulation were not void for remoteness,
although he was of opinion that it was an improvident mode
of raising money, and that the specific legacies to the eldest
son ought not to be exonerated from payment of debts,

Before the Vice-Chancellor of England.
POYNDER V. THE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY,
—PAYMENT BY ♦ COMPA.\T OP PURCHASE-110NET BY

Boxn.—The

delivered judgment npl a

point reserved in this ease, which was reported yesterday.
The question was whether the bond under which the rail-
way company had paid the purchase-money to the plaintiff
was right in containing a direction that the money should
be " paid on demand." His Honour said he was of opinion
that the objection to the bond was good, and he shouM,
therefore, grant the injunction as to that portion of the case.
ROBINSON IL FOUNTAINS.—IwuNcrioN.—The Vice
Chancellor granted an injunction en parte upon the appli-
cation of Mr. Glue, to restrain the defendant, who was
flout to the plaintiff from year to year of a farm near
Uxbridge, from carrying away the hay and straw contrary
be the carom of the country,
1 ATTOIINEY-GENERAL P. WiumEoz.—CONSTRCCTION OP
Till WILL OF BISHOP LVSCOMBE.—This was an informa-
tion filed by the Attorney-General on behalf of a charity,
for the purpose of having a question decided which was
raised upon the will of Matthew henry Thornhill Lotticasbo,
formerly bishop of the church of the British embassy, it
Paris, who thereby appointed Archdeacon Keating Wee.
' Wilshere and George Tudor, trustees for the &Ira of ell
the property of which he might die possessed. T • testae[
desired that, as soon after his death as convenient to
his trustees, all his paintings, furniture, books, limo,
and every other article, should be sold, and the produce
should be held in trust, for the purpose of founding one
or more scholarships in the college or school near Perth, in
Scotland, which was intended for the education of those
belonging to the church called the Episcopal Church in
Scotland. If the produce of the articles above-mentioned
should produce an interest of more Hain 1001. •
sear, then the Minator wished the same to be equally
divided between two scholar, ; if not, the whole to
be given to one scholar, to be called Bishop Lus-
combe's scholars or scholar; that the above-mentioned
trustees should, as soon after his death as possible, transfer
the amount for which his property should have sold, to the
bishops in Scotland, meaning those in communication with
the united church of England and Ireland who should place
the said amount in the English funds, and that the interest
should be applied as above-mentioned for ever. The testator
then gave directions as to the mode of electing the scholars,
sod eoncluded by stating that the property above referred to
wee in No. 19, Rue des Vignes, Paris. It appeared that
under the will of Mr. Harwood, the father of Bishop Lao
combe's wife, and a entsequent deed of confirmation
by Mr. Harwood's son, the children of the bishop had
become entitled to a sum of 0,0001. each, and upon
their death during his lifetime, intestate, these sums
had become the property of this bishop. The question
now argued was whether this property had passed under his
will.-3fir. Horace Twin appeared for the Attorney-General,
Mr. Borrett for the relators, and Mr. Cooper and Mr. Lewis
for the defendants.—The Vice-Chancellor maid the question
was, whether the equitable chose in action to Wash the tes-
tator had become entitled, by reams of rho fast of his three
children dying intestate during hie without Imo, had
passed under has will. The testator had andel his furni-
ture, due., to be sold, and the produce to to maid for the
purpose of founding • scholarship. It we. pWu that he had
new the articles before mentioned, and he bad designated
such articles as his property. In the latter part of the will
he had stated that the property before referred to was in No.
19, Rue des Vignea. If any doubt could have arisen, this
sentence would solve it, and he thought, therefore, that no
property but that which was specified had passed.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
Balms Mr. COOMIWOIII7 Goalbws.
IN xi WILLIAM fitus.—A GOOD EsTATIL—This bank-
rupt, a coach and harness maker, of Queedstreet, Lincoln's-
ind.fields, came up to pan his lut examination. It
appeared, by the report of Mr. Follett, the official assignee,
that the balance-sheet commenced in January, 1848 (flat,
June. 1847), at which period Mr. Sims possessed a capital of
3,1911. He now owed 38961., and the assets were—stock•
in4arad• and property which had been realised, 2,2341. • book
dein (ood), 86W.; profits, 1,2691. ; trade expenses, 8,7751.,
bowls end personal expensn, 2991. ; and looses, 3,9991.,
arig ken the law difference of the estimated value of
stock-MUM' sad Imes, and what it produced by sale under
the fiat ; but tie balliam•abeet had been made out from the
books. The Win erne Imputed to pay the crediton 12s. or
13a. in the peaty, ea bankrupt had given his attention
Mt use ta estate, and a better account could not be
unidend to court.—Hislionour'said One cannot but re-
Ctbe Whine el Mr. Sims, and no blame can be imputed to
It Is nainipaiirerent from the general ChM of cases
wide kagliat is.. before this court ; and it gives me
this ease to say that Mr. Sims is wholly
plat
arilltd I giro& kb failure, which appears to be the
resat at ark* bet aditartane.—The bankrupt then
passed hie less azalaisatlaa.