The Express.
London, England, 1848-03-07 00:00:00

tato inttlitscrat.

EQUITY COURTS.
Before Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce.
BINCHLIFFE V. WESTWOoD.—BEQUEST TO LEGAL PER-
SONAL BEPRIESENTATITES.—Thos. Westwood, by his will, be-
queathed a legacy of 1,0001. to trustees, on trusts for invest-
ment and payment oC the dividends to his daughter for her
life. In case she should die without having issue (an event
which happened) the testator directed his trustees to pay
and divide the principal sum of 1,0001. equally between and
among his three sons; and in case of the decease of all or any
of his eons in the lifetime of the tenant for life he gave and
bequeathed the share or shares to become due upon the con-
tingency aforesaid of him or them so dying to his or their
legal personal representatives. Two of the eons died in the
lifetime of the tenant for life, each leaving a widow and
children, and having made a will. Some of the children
were infants.—Mr. Be Gex appeared for the plaintiff, the
surviving trustee, who sought the directions of the court as
to the effect of the bequest, on which conflicting opinions
had been given—one to the effect that the children of the
deceased sous were entitled as then next of kin, and the
other that the shares formed part of the personal estate of
the deceased sons, and ought to be paid to their legal repre-
sentatives.—Mr. Daniel and Mr. Craig appeared for the legal
personal representatives of the sons, and cited 0 Smith v.
Barnaby" (2 Collyer, 728.)—Mr. Metcalfe, for tke children,
contended that in such a case legal personal rem., sentatives
must mean next of kin, and cited " F'alin v. Hills" (1 Mylne
and Keen,) 470, decided by Lord Brougham ; and " Cotton
v. Cotton" (2 Ileavan, 67.)—The Vice-Chancellor said that
the only argument in favour of that construction appeared to
be, that according to the other one, the limitation to the legal
personal representativm would be surplusage, but his Honour
did not think this a sufficient reason for understanding the
words in any other than their ordinary and technical signi-
fication. The shares must consequently be paid to the legal
personal representatives.
Ex SAHTE BROOK RE WILLIS.—CONTINOENT DEBT.—
Thu was an appeal from the rction by Mr. Commissioner
Evans ea a proof fur 1,9921. Os. 5d., being the amount due
upon a guarantee for half the price of 136 bales of wool. The
principal debtors had become bankrupt in October, 1847, and
a bill of exchange accepted by them for the price of the
wool became due on January 21, 1848, when it was dis-
honoured. The Commissioner disallowed the proof, on the
ground that this took place after the issuing of the fiat
against the surety, and that consequently there was no debt
at the date of the flat.—Mr. Anderdon and Mr. Bagshawe
were for the appellant and Mr. Bacon for the assignees.—
The Vice-Chancellor said that there was at the date of the
fiat a contingent debt, and as the contingency happened be.
fore proof, and before any dividend was declared, it was
proeable within the meaning of the 6 Geo. IV.. e. 16, see.
56, according to the authorities, and particularly "Ex parte
Myers" (Montague and Biigh, 229).

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.—Before the Recorder.
MCRDEaous Arracn.—Midiael Haggerty, 28, an Irish
labourer, was charged with feloniously cutting and wound-
ing Ellen Kale, with intent, as alleged in the first count of
the indictment, to murder her, and in others to maim and
disable or to do her grievous bodily harm.—Mr. Payne pro-
secuted, and Mr. O'Brien defended, the prisoner—From the
evidence of the proaecutrix it appeared that she had been
acquainted with the prisblier for some time, and on the 28th
January they met at a public-house, and at night he accom-
panied her to her lodgings. About seven o'clock the next
morning the proeecntriz get up, and the prisoner, as it would
appear, without the slightest provocation, commenced a most
furious attack upon the prosecutrix with a knife, and stabbed
her upon the hands, neck, arms, and other parts of her body,
inflicting no fewer than twenty-two wounds upon her. The
prosecutrix fell and screamed " Murder," upon which the
prisoner, with an oath, exclaimed, " What, are not you dead
yet ? " and was again about to attack her, when the persons
prisoner taken into custody.—The
*Guilty upon the count charging
in the house interfered, and the prosecutriz was rescued
cep,rtiondnethr
his intention to do grievous bodily harm, and he was sen-
tenced to be transported for ten years.
jrrour7fhott‘ied the

NSW COURT.—Before the Common Seajeant and Yr, Alderman
Sidney, M.P.
ROPBERT.—J. R. Duddendge, aged 42, was indicted for
stealing monies belonging to his employer. The prosecutor,