The Express.
London, England, 1846-11-25 00:00:00

SCOTLAND.

- - - - -- -
A LETTER Titom WORDSWORTH.—The following letter
front the venerable hard of the Lakes, in reference to that
late election of Lord Rector of Glasgow University, will he
read with interest:
Itydal Mount, Nov. 20.—Sir,--The intelligence conveyed in your
letter, written at the desire of the committee fur my election to the
high office of Lord Rector of the University of Glaleow, could not
but be gratifying : and the more no, as it came upon me without my
hosing been aware that I was to be propoied as a candidate. The
University and the public will give me credit, I hope, for being less
pleased upon this occasion by the honour done to me personally, than
by the proof that the majority of votes, though the issue, from pecu-
liar circumstances, is contrary to the wishes of my friends, affords of
the estimation in which literature is held, independent of political
coneiderations, among the members of so distinguished an institution.
To the committee, and to those gentlemen who nominated and sup-
ported me, I return my sincere acknowledgments. I beg you will
also accept my best thanks for your communication.-11 have the
honour, Sir, to be your faithful servant (signed), W. WORDSWORTH.
To G. Colville, Esq., Glasgow.
STIRLINOSHIRE. COMMISSION@ BY THE LORD LIEU-
TENANT.—T. C. Burns, Esq., to be Captain, vice Amory;
A. H. Urmston, Esq., to be Captain, vice Hamilton—of
Stirlingehire militia.
AYESHIRE.—COMMISSIONS BY THE LORD LIEUTENANT.
—Lieut.-Col. J. Fairlic, to be Lieut.-Col. Commandant, vice
W. Montgonterie ; Major Sir C. Lamb, Bart., to be Lieut.-
Colonel, vice Fairlie ; Capt. Sir. J. Boswell, Bart., to be
Major, vice Sir C. Lamb, Bart. ; Lieut. C. Lamb to be Cap-
tain, vice Sir J. Boswell, Bart. ; Cornet G. M. Cuninghame
to be Lieutenant, vice C. Lamb—of Ayrshire Yeomanry

Cavalry.
A MEMORIAL TO GOVERNMENT, in favour of conferring a
pension on Mr. Sheridan Knowles lies at the bar of the
Glasgow Royal Exchange for signature.

WALES.

THE GALE of Friday visitedtheprincipality. The North
Wales Chronicle says blew "great gum" on Thursday
night and Friday. Not a few of the wood huts connected
with the railway works were turned over, and a great many
unroofed. Two masons, when proceediug to their work at
Penmaen Mawr, were caught by a whirlwind, lifted some
feet high in the air, dashed to the ground again, along which
they were carried many yards, just escaping being hurled over
the wall down a precipice. One of them lost his pitcher,
containing provision for the day, and the last glimpse he
bad of it was at a great altitude. A serious mishap befell a
company of itinerant actors en route to Conway fair. On
this side of Aber, One of the vans was caught by the gale and
blown completely over, scattering the was figures, proper-
ties, and " other groceries " to the winds. Another of the
wooden houses must inevitably have gone over the hedge,
but for the activity of the King and Hamlet in lashing it to
a tree, an operation in which Queen Hecuba assisted, albeit
" the winds of heaven visited the royal face roughly."

PROVINCIAL.
LANCASHIRE.
REPRESENTATION OF MANCHESTER.—There is to be a
contest for Manchester. On Tuesday morning a placard an.
peered on the walls, telling the electors not to ' pledge their
votes for Mr. Bright," as "a candidate every way more
eligible will be brought forward immediately. ' The more
eligible candidate is supposed to be Lord Lincoln. It has
had the effect of spurring the friends of Mr. Bright to imme-
diate action, and it is understood that his friends meet
on Thursday night to make arrangements for an immediate
canvass. The opposition comprises, along with the Con-
servatives, some few of the leading malcontent Whip, but
it is thought Mr. Bright is "safe" beyond a question.
ACCIDENT ON THE EAST LANCASHIRE RAILwAY.—On
Monday a very serious accident occurred on this line to
the train which left Rawtenstall at 2 p.m. On reaching
a bridge which crosses the Irwell, at Spring-side, Rams-
bottom, the engine went off the rails. It is said that there
is an acute curve at this place, and there being pieces of
wood fixed along the rails to keep the engine on, one of them
had given way, and consequently the flange of the engine
wheels came in contact with it, and threw the engine off the
line with fearful violence. There were only five carriages
attached to the engine, all of which were thrown off the
rails. Fortunately, however, the accident occurred in a deep
cutting. Several of the passengers were severely injured.
One man had one of his feet cut off near the arch of the foot,
and the other dreadfully lacerated. A policeman, who was
a passenger, was also seriously injured ; it is said one of his
legs was taken off, and the other much bruised. A third
passenger was also much bruised, and a report was circulated
that a fourth was killed. Three of the carriages were broken
to
_pieces, and the engine and tender much damaged.
DREADFUL ACCIDENT ON THE LONDON AND NORTH-
WESTERN RAILWAY.—MANCHESTER, TUESDAY EVEN-
INO.—This morning a collision took place on the Manchester
and Birmingham portion of the London and North-Western
Railway, at Stockport, of a serious character, but fortunately
attended with no loss of life. The forty minutes past nine
o'clock train, which left Manchester this morning for Lon-
don, had just passed over the lofty viaduct which crosses the
Mersey at Stockport, about seven minutes to ten o'clock,
when the engine came in collision with a coal train, one of
Lord Vernon's, which had passed the shunts to get upon
the London (or up line), about nine minutes to ten o'clock,
when the superintendent of the Stockport station stopped it,
and told the engineer that the train from Manchester was
due in a minute or two, and advised him to back upon the
down line until it had Passed. The engineer had proceeded
to do so, and the whole of the carriages had cleared the up-
line, when the passenger train arrived, and came in collision
with the tender and engine. The collision was dreadful, causing
the engines of the two trains to rear up almost on end, and fail
off the line. The front of one engine and the rear ofthc other
were broken badly, and one of the buffers of each were bro-
ken off. The tenders were also considerably damaged.
Several of the passengers were severely bruised and injured,
and one had three teeth broken. They were all conveyed
to the Stockport Infirmary, a very short distance from the
spot, and had their wounds attended to. Four of them were
able to proceed by the train, which was not, however, in
motion till about one o'clock, having been detained three
hours. The shunts at which the accident occurred was only EQUITY COI:RTS.—YESTERDAT.
seventy yards from the Stockport station, where the passen Before the Master of the Rolls.
ger-train was to stop, and it appears the engineer was to FORDYCE O. BRIDOES.—DECREE NOT BINDING ON
blame in not having slackened his speed sooner. Indeed, ABSENT PARTIES.—The Master of the Rolls gave judgment
the signal was up for him to stop before arriving at the eta- in this case, which was heard last Easter term. The bill was
tion, which he ought to have seen at nearly a mile distance. filed by Alexander Dingwall Fordyce, and prayed that it
The engineer and guard of the coal train had both jumped might be declared that a decree made in the year 1833 was
off their engine before the collision, and escaped unhurt. not bindingupon him. John Dingwall being possemed of
Charles Winterbottom, the driver of the passenger-train, large real and personal estates in Scotland and England, by
jumped off, and had his ankle sprained, and John Fox, the a deed of entail in the Scotch form, settled his Scotch estates
stoker, had his foot caught between the engine and tender, on his grand nephew, John Dingwall, the heir of his body,
and slightly hurt. arid on failure of such heir he limited the estates to the other
ANOTHER COLLIERY ENPLOSION.—LIVERPOOL, NOT. 24. branches of his famil in strict entail. And on 13th June,
—Yesterday morning a dreadful explosion of fire-damp took 1808, he made his will, giving his English estates to trustees,
place at Harvey's Coppell Colliery, near Standish, Lancashire, to the use of his grand-nephew, John Dingwall, with the
by which several lives have been lost. It seems that the man usual remainders in strict settlement to his issue, and with
whose business it was to renew the fires below omitted to d o remainder over in strict settlement to the other branches of
so, at three o'clock in the morning, and in consequence of his family, on whom he had settled his Scotch estates. And
their going out, fire-damp accumulated. When he went the testator gave his residue personal estate to the same
down at six o'clock, for the purpose of relighting them, an trustees, whom he appointed his executors in trust to lay out
explosion took place. Three men were killed, several were the same in the purchase of lands in England or Scotland, as
seriously hurt, and it is apprehended that six others in a they should think proper, and to settle the lands purchased
different part of the mine have also been killed. TM, report in England to the same uses as his English estates were
was brought to Liverpool yesterday morning, but, no other limited by his will, and the lands purchased in Scotland in
particulars were known. the same manner as he had settled his Scotch estates. And
YORKSHIRE. power was given to appoint new trustees, who were to have
COMMISSIONS BY THE LORD-LIEUTENANT.,—Lieut. R. the same discretion, powers and privileges, as were given to
T. Lee to be captain, vice Wharton ; Cornet "X. M. E. Mil- the old trustees. The testator died on 28th April, 1812,
nor to be lieut. ; B. Markland, Gent., to be cornet, vice leaving his trustees and executors, and J. Dingwall, his
Hives,—of West Riding Yeomanry. grand nephew and tenant for life under the will, him our-
LEEDS, Nov.24.—CoNsecRATION.—Yesterday (Tuesday) riving. J. Dingwall entered into possession of the English
the Lord Bishop of Ripon consecrated another neat little and Scotch estates, and the executors proved the will
church which has just been erected. within his diocese, at and administered the personal estate. They had in their
East Moor, a benighted portion of the parish of Wakefield. hands et arge residuary personal estate to be laid out under
The church is to be called St. Andrew's. the tru of the will, in lands in England or Scotland. An
RAILWAY ACCIDENT.—LEEDS AND BRADFORD. —On unlimited discretion, in this respect, waS given
172,4431.t0 the
Monday afternoon, as the train which left the Bradford trustees. After the testator's death they laid out
station at four o'clock, was •,.”.eeeeding to Leeds, in con- in the purchase of lands in Scotland, and only a small sum in
sequence, as is said, of some siriamaaagement by the points- the purchase of lands in England. For twenty yet.rs and
man, the engine ran off the 'line and across the parallel rails, upwards the estates were enjoyed by the grand-nephew,
whereby the passage of thc_ trains from Leeds was impeded during whose life all the trustees died, the last survivor being
for several hours, but fortunately no person in the train aid- Alexander Crombie, whose personal representative became
red
fright. any material derrage, save what might be caused by
tV.ed the trustee of the
1833, leaving an only will. John Dingwall, tchild, Johnhe grand-nephew Duff,
the
LEEDS COURT DP BANARUPTCY.—IN RE THE EARL OF Dingwall, an infant, seventeen year! of age. There was at
MENROROUGH.--DIBpUTEDADJUDICATION.—At the sitting, I that time a large uninvested portion of the residuary t,er-
of this court ou Monday, before Mr. Commissioner Burgehhir. sonal estate. As things then stood, John Duff DistirraD

bem instinited in consequence of A letter dated the 22nd of
February, v. hfle the notice of metier had nut been given
eel the month of June. But Mr. Lewis had stated, that in
consequence of Mr. Ferrand's motion, Sir John Waltham,
another Assistant Poor-Law Commissioner, had been sent
down to Keighley at the instance of Sir James Graham, to
examine into and verify the report of Mr. Mott. It was
admitted that on the 28th of June, a select committee of the
House of Commons had been appointed to inquire into the
state of the Keighley Union and the reports of Mr. Mott
and Sir John Waltham, and that on the 24th of July that
committee made its report. All these inquiries Mr. Ferrind
believed to be directed against him-elf for the purpose of
fastening on him gross and unwarranted imputations. Im-
pressed with that belief he had written the letters which
were now complained of. They contained charges against
Mr. Lewis, which he unqualifiedly denied, of having sug-
gested to Mr. Mott to make a false report, and of basing
conspired with Sir James Grahaen to crush Mr. Ferrand by
means of that false report. In support of the denial made by
Mr. Lewis, there was an atidayit by Mr. Mott, which stated
that he had net received instructions from any one to con-
duct the Keighley inquiry in an unfair and partial manner,
and Sir John Walsham's uflidavit was to the same effect.
Now before going into tie affidavits in answer, and admit-
tine the importance, to persons in the situation of Mr. Lewis,
of the remedy which he sought, one that enabled him, on
oath, to vindicate his reputation, it was important to state
that the letters complained of had not been written in per-
sonal malice towards Mr. Lewis, whose name even Mr. Fee-
-1 rani had not known before he saw it in August tat in the
Times newspaper. That was a cireurosunee which would
induce the court to think that this rule ought not to be made
absolute ; and in that opinion the court would be confirmed
by the fact that Mr. Ferrand had every reason for believing,
when he wrote those letters, that he was inditing the truth.
Mr. Lewis had not exercised the caution and care which the
public had a right to expect from one in hie situation. He
had stated that Mr. Mott's report was fully borne out by
that of Sir John Waltham, when in fact the latter report did
not touch on the most material allegation iu the firmer. He
had confounded dates, and he had made other statements,
founded in error, extremely injurious and offensive to other
persons. Mr. Ferrand had entered parliament pltdged to use
all his influence to effect the repeal of the poor-law. Early in
the year 1812 he had attended at the Houic-office, at the re-
quest of Sir James Graham, and there, in reply to an in-
timation from Sir James Graham, that the government
wished him not to continue his opposition to the poor-law,
he refused to violate his solemn pledges to his constituenti,
or to abandon the course to which his conscience prompted
him. They parted on friendly terms. In the April follow-
ing an attempt was made to introduce new regulations into
the administration of the poor-law, which were abandoned
alter Mr. Ferrand had given notice of motion for an address
to the Queen, praying her to order tlut they be rescinded.
On the 17th of June a bill was introduced into the House of
Commons fur effecting an alteration in the poi,e-laws; Mr.
Ferranti opposed it, and was replied to bySir James Graham
in a savage attack, founded solely on the report of Air. Mott,
and not at all on the report of Sir Jolm Walshlun, the porn-
priety of sending whom to verify the former Sir J. Graham
himself had suggested. That reply impeted to Mr. Ferrand,
as chairman of the Keighly Union, sathenesty and partici-
pation in a job, which Mr. Ferrand now ON his oath denied.
In the House of Commons Mr. Ferrand had on that occa-
sion risen immediately after Sir J. Graham bed resumed his
seat, and had emphatically declared the report used by Sir
J. Graham to be a false one. That it was se•now appeared
from the report of Sir John Waltham, which it was but a
natural and irresistible inference from the facts to say must
then have been in the possession of Sir James Graham. The
grievance inflicted on Mr. Ferrand was, that of two reports
that one only had been used which was calculate I to justify
or excuse unjust and gross aspersions on his character. The
report used imputed to him and the guardians a :moss job in
the employment of attorneys to conduct the business of set-
tlements; the report which had not been used did not con-
tain a single syllable on the subject, and further, ne commis-
sioner had made any report on that matter beforseMr. Mott
received his instructions from Mr. G. C. Lewis. This report
only had been used, and en used, contrary to the courtesy of
the House of Commons, without notice to Mr. Ft rizad, who,
therefore, could then give it no more than a general denial.
How it was that this report only had been used was. not ex-
plained in the affidavit of Sir James Graham relied on by
the other side. The report of Sir John Waltham was
wholly silent respecting those imputations, and as he
had been sent down expressly to inquire into the state
of the union, that silence was strong evidence to show
that the imputations were unlevelled. In the House
of Commons, Sir James Graham hail denied that any
written instructions had been sent to Mr. Mott, or that a
record of them could be found, if any such had been sent;
he said that a search had been made in the records of the
poor-law commissioa-office, but that 110 trace of any such
instructions could be found. This statement was wholly in-
correct, for the let•er containing the instructions to Mr.
Mott was now, though not indeed until niter very pressing
inquiries had been made for it, produced from the office of
the poor-law commission. A motion had been made in the
House of Commons for a committee to inquire into the
truth of these reports, and opposed by Sir James Graham,
who only withdrew his opposition when he found that Lord
John Russell was determined to support the motion. It was
after this that Mr. Ferrand first knew how the report of
Mr. Mott had been occasioned, and that Sir Junes Graham
had caused Sir John Waltham to be sent to verify it. Sub-
sequently Mr. Ferrand delivered a speech at Leeds, inwhich
he accused Sir James Graham of having taken steps to pro-
cure a report that was false, meaning the report of Mr.
Mott, and of having afterwards dismissed the individual
who had been his tastrument in fabricating it. In the
next session, Mr. Ferrand was called on to justify that accusa-
tion; he did so to the extent of his power, and he refused to
retract a single word. Notwithstanding the declaration of
Sir James Graham th it no record of the instructions to Mr.
Mott could be found, they were now produced, and the pro-
duction justified most of the assertions contained in the
letters of Mr. Fernand. It was not unimportant to observe
that the instructions to Sir John Waltham, which must have
been in writing, which had given rise to so much heat and
misconstruction, and which must at the time have been
deemeil most important, could not be found. Mr. l'ower,
one of the assistant commissioners, hail reported that the
state of the Keighley union was eatisfactory ; the reports of
Mr. Mott, with the exception of this one, did rot contain
any complaint, and all the facts were known to the commis-
sioner.; was it not then strange that this charge had been
brought forward so suddenly and so pr iminently ? Mr. Mutt
had told a committee of the House of Cowmen* that he had
not imagined that the report would inert the pul,lic eye ;
their lordships, then, who had been advocates, and who daily
heard advocates, would appreciate the effect with which
such a document would be used in the House of Com-
mons, and would be able to make allowance for the
feelings of him against whom that document had been teed,
when he found out that it had not been verified but contra-
dicted by the individual who had been sent to test its
accuracy, and that the contradiction was in the hands of Sir
James Graham at the very moment when he used that
[ document as a means of attacking him in the presence of the
House of Commons. In the year 1846, a committee was ap-
pointed by the House of Commons to inquire into matters
connected with the Andover Union, and as well Mr. Parker,
formerly an assistant commissioner, as Mr. Chadwick, the
secretary to the commission, were examined. Mr. l'arker,
in the course of his examination, accused the commissioners
of duplicity, and when called on to name an instance,
referred to the statement that the visit of Mr. Mott to the
Kcighlcy Union had been voluntary,.when it was notorious
in the I'oor-law office that he had been instructed to go thither.
Lord Denman inquired whether the instructions had been
produced to the committee.
Sir F. Theaigcr.—Mr. Lewis said that he had written
a leter to Mr. Mott in February, 1842, of which he had not
made a copy, that on it as instructions, Mr. Mott had
visited the Kelghley Union and reported' and that it was
not until the 21st of October that he (Mr. Lewis) bad seen a
copy of it.—Mr. Martin: And so Sir James Graham was en-
abled to make a declaration true in words, but false in spirit;
for, though, as he had declared, there were no traces of this
letter in Somerset House, where they ought to be, there was
no doubt that the letter was in existence, and had been acted
on as inetruettans by Mr. Mott. Wee it to be wondered
after this that Mr. Ferrand, recollecting that on a former
occasion a report had been virtually suppressed, and in an-
other which it contradicted the most offensive imputations
against him founded, should be exasperated to the highest
degree. Mr. Lewis was also examined before the Andover
Union Committee, and waets.sked by Mr. Manners Sutton to
state any explanation which he might have to offer on the
evidence given by Mr. Chadwick with regard to Sir James
Graham and the Keighley Union. Mr. Lewis answered that
he had searched the debates far the expressions said to have
been used by Sir Jame,' Graham, but could not find them,
and that probably he had said that he was net cognizant of
Mr. Mott having been sent to Keighley. But Sir James
Graham hsd gone much further. Under these circum-
stances Mr. Fermnd had written the letters complained of,
not anonymously, not published by stealth, but openly and
with his name attached to them. They related to public
matters; they spoke of the conduct of a public man in his
public capacity ; and they were written in the most perfect
conviction that they were founded on facts. If there had
been any mistake as to the fact', the blame rested with the
Poor-law Commissioners, who had shrouded the whole
transaction in mystery, and, despite the express
provisions of the Poor-Law Amendment Act, had.
neglected to keep a record of the instructions to
Mr. Mott. Whether the conduct of Mr. Lewis had
been wilful or merely negligent, it had been highly culpable
in respect of that letter. The court, then, considering the
extreme provocation offered to Mr. Ferrand, and not regard-
COURT OF QUEF,N'S BENCH. ing the precise words used in a moment of irritation; weigh-
At the sitting of the court Lord Campbell, the Attorney- ing, too, the fact that it was not unnatural f.or him to suspect
General,the oaths
or
f- Solicitor-General,
theen c
or i d
seeand
to Mwr. h
i. Charlese
which
th
ey Buller,have
beentook
meats,
fee•ehledirespthoe„„dre hwadpbeardenonsuienh lorreneguoflarmeorneFeialr--
oud
appointed in the service of hcr Mr. Majesty. Bancroft, the rand's warm and sanguine temper exhibitions of feeling that
American minister, entered, the court shortly afterwards and might, under similar circumstances, have been manifested.
remained throughout the faay. even hy men habitually calm and temperate.
THE QUEEN (ON THU PROSECUTION OF G. C. LEWIS, Sir .l. Thesiger, Q.(:., in support of the rule, said that See
Est.) v. Hl:seen-to VERRAND, Esu., M.P.—Caissistat had listened with the greatest dimppointmentto the addresses
Istsmawsrlow.—A rale had been obtained, that called on of his learned friends• because he had expected, either &eon
Mr. Busfeild Ferm ad to show anise why a criminal in- the opportunity for reflection which had been afforded n side.
formation should nt,t he filed against him for the publication Ferrand himself, or from their sober advice, that some ,ocaie_
of two letters in She Times newspaper, which appeared on meat would have been made by them to Mr. LCWiI. Not
the Bth and 10f :a of August last respectively, and contained so, however ; they had endeavoured to leave the stir.g. in the
libellous impu cations on Mr. G. C. Lewis, one of the Poor- wound, and to induce the belief in the minds of ea
me lord-
law Commissioners ; against which Mr. Martin, Q.C., and ships, and of the public also, that there was some foundation
Mr. Bovill /sow showed cause. It was well known that Mr. for the calumnies which Mr. Ferrand had public reed. They
Ferrand, who was chairman of the Keighley Board of . had altogether mistaken the grounds of tai, application,
\
Guardimis, had entered the House of Commons a determined which • raised the question, not whether Mr.
Mott had
opponent to the New Poor-laws. To destroy his usefulness received instructions from Mr. Lewis or Sir James Graham
for the.t purpose, an attack had been made on him founded to report on the state of the Keighley Union, hut whether
on a report to the Poor-law Commissioners, made in the year Mr. Lewis had been engaged with Sit James Graham in a
Var. Lewis had distinctly stated before the committee to inquire House of Commons, and for that purpose had employed Mr.
184,2, by Mr. Mott, an AsaiatantPoor-law Commissioner. Now foul and infamous conspiracy to crush Mr. Ferrend in the
'lnto the administration of the poor-laws in the Andover Union Mott V,, draw up a false report to be thereafter presented to
that Mr. Mott had been sent to inquire, and this report had and used by Sir James Graham u a true one. Whether Mr.
been made in consequence of a notice of motion given by Mii,tt's report was true or false had nothf.ng to do with that
Mr. Ferrand in the House of Commons. In his letter, Mr. charge, because the gravamen of it sem tf,econspiring Wrath,
Ferrand said that this was false, because the inquiry had $ and the employing Mr, Mott to latuicate a taii repoot

was entitled as tenant in tail of the crates parches, d in
England and of the estates purchased in Scotland ; he was
the first heir substitute without power of alienation, with
remainder to other persons in succession, As to the unin-
vested residue of the personal estate, J. D. Dingwall was
entitled to have it invested, and the tru-ta of the will exe-
cuted for the benefit of himself and those entitled in suc-
cession, according to the laws of the two countries respec-
tively. He having no guardian, and the representative of
the last surviving trustee being desirous of being disc
from the trusts, it became n to apply tshsarZ
court. Accordingly a bill was filed on behalf of
the infant by his maternal grandfather. The bill alleged
t,Nat the trusts had not been properly performed by the trus-
tee *, who had invested a larger portion of the personal estate
in IL vids in Scotland than they ought to have done, and it
mites,' for inquiries respecting this, and for investment of the
rest o,' the personal estate in lands in England, and for the
appoint, vent of a guardian and new trustees. If the per-
sonal seta to were invested in purchasing lands in England, it
would hay v placed the whole of it in the power of J. D. Ding-
wall when Ne attained the age of 21. But an investment in
Scotch lends' would have given him only an unalienable
estate. The l'teir-substitute, therefore, under the will, had a
material inters ,st in the question ; and there ought to have
been such part, as before the court as would have secured
•discussion of the question. Arthur Dingwall Fordyce, wbo
was entitled as h
air-substitute in remainder, and as tenant
for life under the w.
he insisted that was a party to the suit, and in his an-
swerthe purchases had been properly made,
and ought not to be disturbed. But the suit was not so con-
stituted as to make it sure that the question raised by the
pleadings would be adeq:
lately discussed. In 1833 the cause
was heard on bill and anat. 'Cr, and a guardian was appointed,
and the representative of t.
Nis last surviving trustee was dis-
charged from the trust, ana
approve of new trustees ; it was referred to the master to
and to was declared that the residu-
ary personal estate, which ha d been brought into court,
ought to be invested in the
airchase of real estates in
England, having regard to the no. 'chases already made ; and
that the new trustees and guardian
at liberty to lay proposals before th of the infant were to be
e master for the invest-
ment of it. The plaintiff alleged th at this decree was not
binding upon him, as he was no party to the suit; ani that
Fordyce, who died
he ought to be relieved from the effect it. The proceed-
ings were carried on with notice to A. D.
in April, 1834 ; and a few days after hi, `death the master
made his report, from which it appeared t. Nat the residuary
estate was of large amount ; that he had a %proved of new
trustees ; but that no proposals had been laid before him for
investment in real estate. By the order on furtL directions.
4th June, 1834, it was referred to the master t v approve of
conveyances to the new trustees. On the 151. \ October,
1838, John D. Dingwall attained 21, and he escen ted a dis-
entailing deed, and petitioned the court for a transf, of the
funds to him, which was ordered on 21st Novembei • 183 G.
This order, it was admitted, must follow the fate of t\e de-
cree. J. D. Dingwall died in October, 1840, without i Niue,
haying, by his will, given all his real and personal estate' to
the defendant, Sir Henry Bridges, who proved his will
Arthur Dingwall Fordyce, the elder brother of the plaintiff,
having become the next heir substitute, tiled his bill to have
it declared that he was not bound by the decree. But he
having died, the present plaintiff then became heir substi-
tute, and he filed this bill on the 22nd July, 1844. The first
question was, whether the plaintiff was bound by the de-
cree; and, if he was not, then, whether he had endeavoured to
obtain relief in the proper form. He was of opinion that he
was not bound by the decree. His interest was material at
the date of the decree, and was not properly protected. The
hill was in a proper form. The plaintiff did not seek to alter
a decree made against himself, or those under whom
he claimed. As to whether what was dose under
the decree was right, the testator had given a dis-
cretionary power to his trustees, and he was of opinion that
new trustees might have been appointed with the sanction
of the court, and that they would have had the same dis-
cretionary power as the original trustees. But the power
given to the trustees was such as the court ought not to
have executed without the trustees. The only person having
legal authority to act as trustee was discharged, and no pro-
vision was made for the appointment of new trustees is the
manner directed by the will. The court took upon itself to
exercise a discretion which the testator intended to be exer-
cised by the trustees alone. He must declare that the plain-
tiff, and other persons interested after him, were not bound
by the decree. The defendant must pay the funds into
court, and if he did not admit assets of J. D. Dingwall, he
must account in the usual way. And he must also declare
that the trustees were not properly appointed, and that new
trustees ought now to be appointed, according to the direc-
tions of the will. And there must be an inquiry as to what
part of the funds transferred consisted of capital, and what
of interest.

CAKPMAEL V. Ponta. ANNUITY. MISTAKV.. The
Master of the Rolls also gave judgment in this case, th, facts
of which are reported in this journal of the 7th instant.
His lordship was of opinion that he could not order the
annuity deed to be altered, by the insertion of an annuity of
less amount than 1761., because it was not clear from the
evidence that Miss Yowls, di, defendant, would have been
satisfied with an annuity of less amount than 1761., or would
have agreed to take leas, the inference from the evidence
being the other way. But he thought that the plaintiff
had agreed to grant that amount of annuity under a mis-
take arising from the misinformation of Miss Powis's own
agent, and that, therefore, he was entitled to be relieved
from the transaction altogether, and he decreed accordingly.

Before the Vice-Chancellor of England.
TERRY V. WACMER.—BILL FOIL AN Al COUNT AGAINST
A GVARDIAN.—This writ was instituted fur the purpose of
obtaining an account from the defendant of certain moneys
said to have been received by him for the maintenance and
support of a young man named Edward Edenden. The
bill stated that Edward Edenden, who was a married man
but separated from his wife, was in the receipt of an annuity
of LOOM per annum ; that he was addicted to habits of ex-
cessive intemperance, the long continuation of which had
greatly impaired his intellects; that his fsthcr,being aware of
his son's disposition, had placed him under the care and con-
trol of the defendant John Washer, who was a connexion
of the family, and the defendant was to receive 40s. per week
for his hoard and lodging, and as a remuneration for taking care
of him; that E. Edenden continued to live with the defendant
till about four months before his death, when he went to reside
with Thomas Fleet, at Harbledown, in Kent ; that after the
death of E. Edenden's father an arrangement was made by
his executors that the annuity of 1,0001. should be paid to
the defendant on behalf of E. Edenden, as his guardian,
trustee, or agent ; that the defendant consequently received
the said annuity, and paid Edenden's bills out of the amount,
but did not allow him to have more than a few shillings in
his pocket at a time ; that the annuity was never spent for
the benefit of Edenden, but that the defendant took the
surplus for himself. It appeared that Edeaden died in 1812,
having by his will bequeathed all his personal estate upon
trust for his wife absolutely. This bill, which was filed
by the personal representatives of Edenden, prayed
that the defendant might be decreed to account
for all sums of money received by him for the use and on
behalf of Edenden. The evidence on the part of the defend-
ant went to show that he had in every respect acted as a
friend to Edward Edenden ; that he had received his an-
nuity, but had regularly handed the money over to him,
except when he was requested to pay any hills on his account;
that Edenden had at all times exercised complete control
over his own money ; and the defendant could not be said to
have acted in a fiduciary character towards him, or to be
liable to account for the money received on his behalf.
Mr. Bethell and Mr. Boyle appeared in support of the bill,
and Mr. Stuart and Mr. Lloyd for the defendant. The
arguments were not concluded at the rising of the court.

ux-maanoruor
SCOTT V. BEALEY.—CON6T6UCTION or WILL.—A Mr.
Adam Healey by his will, dated in 1821, devised certain pro-
perty in Birchin-lane, Manchester, to trustees upon trust, to
pay out of the rent and profits to the widow of his late
brother Joseph, for her life and for her children, such sums
of money as were mentioned and stipulated in an agreement
which he (the testator) had made with ber the previous
summer. Upon the death of the testator shortly after the
date of his will, there was found amongst his papers a me-
morandum in his handwriting, in the following words:
" 1820. We agree this Ist of September to give to sister
Joseph 271. on account of the last two years,
and 501. towards furniture as promised to her, and 501. per
annum or a few years till we see how things go." It ap-
pearedals°, that for some time before his death, the testator
ad been in the habit of making advances out of the rents
of the Birchin-lane estates, to assist his sister-in-law and her
family, who were in indigent circumstrnees. The widow of
the testator's brother, Joseph, died in 1832, the annuity
having been regularly paid to her to the time of her death;
and the present bill was filed by her children against the
executors of Adam Healey, claiming to be entitled under the
will and the memorandum, to have the payment of the
annuity of 501. continued to them during their lives.
Mr. Batton and Mr. Follett contended that thoy might
look into the memorandum to ascertain the sum in-
tended to be given by the will, and that the gift by
the will, taken in connexion with the memorandum, entitled
the plaintiffs, either as surviving joint tenants with their
mother, or by way of remainder after her death, to have the
annual payment of 501. continued to them for their lives.
Mr. Hominy and Mr. Glass's submitted tt,at the bequest
amounted only to annuity to the widow for her life, for the
purpose of assisting her to support and edr.cate her family.
His Honour, after observing that, to arrive at the inten-
tion of the testator, the will should be read as if the memo-
randum had been inserted in it at length, held that the right
to the annuity ceased at the death o: the widow, and dis-
missed the bill, with costs.

-