The Express.
London, England, 1847-02-24 00:00:00

lain Ententgente.

MOUSE OF LORDS.
Present the Lord Chan-^ellor, Lord Brougham, and Lord Rnnthrly.
COLE V. SZWILL.—CONSTRUCTION OP LIMITATIONS IN
• DEED. CONTD:ENT AND CROBS REMAINDERS.
VISTINO.—RIMOTENESS.—Mr. Shapter followed Mr. Tin-
ney for the respondents in this appeal, which has been now
thy.. '

&it, days before the house, and throe 'times before noticed
in this paper. The learned counsel cited a great number of
eases and dicta of learned writers upon the various points
in dispute, and contended that the judgment of the Lord
Chancellor of Ireland was perfectly sound in all respects
?dr. Turner replied for the appellant. The arguments on
both sides were too technical for a newspaper report.
MRS. FORDYCE D. Sat H. BRIDGES,—THE APPORTION-
VINT ACT, 4 St b WILL. IV., C. 22; DOES IT APPLY TO
RENTS lie SCOTLAND?—Mr. Anderson, for the appel-
lant ; in the absence of his leader, Sir F. Kelly
opened this case, which war an appeal from the
Court of Session in Scotland. The question for
the consideration of this house was, whether the act 4 and 5
W. IV., cop. 22, called Mr. Poulter's act, for the apportion-
ment of rents between the representatives of the tenant for
life, who died before or after the period for the half-yearly
payments, and the tenants in remiunder, applied to Scotland.
The court there held that it did ; the appeal was against that
decision. The act was undoubtedly posed to supply defects
in the English act of 11 Gee. 11., but in one of its sections it
enacted, " that all rents, service reserved on any lease, &c
and all rent charges, and other rents, annuities, ~ and all
other payments of every description in the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Ireland, &e., shall be apportioned,
&c." The learned counsel contended that, notwithstanding
those words, the operation of the act was restricted to England-,
Wales, and Ireland, all tho technical expressions in it being
quite different from the words that woul I be used if it had
been intended to extend its operation to Scotland.
Lord Btougham and the Lord Chancellor, without calling
on Mr. Russell and Mr. Elnisley, who appeared as counsel
for the respondent, held it to be quite clear that Scotland
was expressly included within the operation of the act, and
therefore approved the judgment of the Court of Session.

EQUITY COURT.
Befare the Vlcc-Ctioneellor of Eng Lied.
WHITE V. 811005.--CONBTILI:CTION or A WILL.—
FAMILT.—A question was raised in this case upon a clause
in the will of John White, who gave to his wife the full and
entire use, for her life, of all his property of every descrip-
tion, both real and personal; and after the death of his wife,
his nephew, Charles Herbert White, of the Bengal Cavalry,
was to be considered heir to all his property not otherwise
disposed of; but having had little intercourse with hint, and
being apprehensive that his habits required some control,
the teetator directed that whatever portion of his property
might thereafter be peases..,l by him should be secured by
his executors for the benefit of his family. His whole
eet:,te was to be enjoyed by his wife during his life ; his
plate, books, pictures, &c., with the furaiture, were to be
held as appendages to his house. The Question was, whether
under this will the infant son of the testator's nephew was
to take the absolute interest, as persona designate, after his
father's death, or whether ase ttle ment ought to he made upon
the children generally, and also whether the wife of the nephew
was to be included is such settlement. A number of cases
were cited in support of the different arguments.
Mr. Campbell appeared for the heir ; Mr. Bethel! and Mr.
Taller foe the trustees; Mr. J. Parker and Mr. Bagshawe
for the nephew's wife; and Mr. Walker, Mr. Faber, and
Mr. Briggs, for other parties.
The Vice-Chancellor said the great question here was,
what the testator meant by the peculiar language he had
used. He admitted that where the construction depended
upon the use of any one word, it might be desirable to ascer-
tain what former dee:dons had taken place; but no autho-
rities would assist in coming to a decision upon this will. In
many places the testator had used the word " family "
synonymously with heirs and children, and he thought it
was evidently the intention that a settlement should barnacle
upon the children generally ; he should therefore direct that
the property be settled upon the nephew for life, with re-
mainder to his children in the usual way ; but in case there
were no children living at the death of the nephew, then to
the nephew in fee. As regarded the bequest respecting
plate, pictures, &c., he thought there should be a list made
of these things, and they should be considered in the nature
of heir-looms.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH—GUILDHALL.
Before lord Denman and a Special Jury.
BORDIER V. BARNETT.—TIME TOR NOTICE or DISHON-
OUR OP A BILL OF EXCHANGE. AND FOR% OF RUCiI NOTICE
UNDER THE FRENCH LAW.—Sir F. Thesiger, Q.C., and Mr.
Crompton were counsel for the plaintiff, who sued on a bill
of exchange drawn by Lecarpentier, of Newcastle, on Ber-
trand, of Paris, for the sum of 68110 x. 9d. The bill reached
the defendants, Messrs. Barnett, Hoare, and Co., through
their cones. pondenta, the Newcastle, Shields, and Sunder-
land Union Banking Company, and, by the agency of Messrs.
newton and Co., of Birchen-lane, was sold to the plaintiff,
who indorsed it to Messrs. Beehet and Co., of Paris, by
whom it was indorsed to M. Oaillebert, a banker at Calais.
The bill was dishonoured on the 26th of Feb., 1814 ; it was
sent backwards and forwards from M. Guillebert to the
Bechet for some time in consequence of a dispute
as to the person really liable fur certain stamp penalties; and
was finally returned to Messrs. Bechet on the 7th of March.
On the 26th of Marsh it reached the hands of the plaintiff,
who sent it for payment on the same day to the defendants
through the Messrs. Newton. The defendants declined to
pay until they should be satisfied that there had not been an
improper delay in giving notice of dishonour, and after
=king some further inquiries, they refused absolutely to
pay it. In tracing the history of the bill it was discovered
that the but indorsement on the bill itself was that from the
plaintiff to Messrs. Sachet ; that the bill had been nego-
tiated at Calais by a espy on which the indorsement of
Bechet was ; and that the notice of dishonour given in
France by Guillebert, did not set out the indorsement from
Bechet to Guillebert On these facts it was conceived that
the notice of dishonour did not comply with the directions
of the 174th article of the Code de Commerce, which
requires that the prota of a bill of exchange
contain, along with other matters, a literal copy
of the bill, the acceptance, and the indorsements;
and that the notice had not been, in point of
time conformable with the directions of articles 165 and
166 of the same code. The questions in the case, therefore,
were—lost, whether notice of dishonour had been given in
time ; and 2nd, whether the profit, or notice of dishonour
given in France was valid without having on its face the
indorsement from Bechet to Guillebert. For the plaintiff
two French advocates were called, the result of whose state-
ments in answer to the questions on either side, was, that in
France, by articles 165, 166, of the code above-named, a term
of 1.5 days is allowed for inland bills, and of two months for
bills either wholly foreign, or drawn, accepted, or indorsed
by a foreigner ; within which notice of dishonour must be
given and an action in default of payment be commenced;
that each party to the bill has in his turn the term just men-
tioned ; that the article of the code in respect of the form of
the profit need not be strictly complied with; and that,
though the omission of an indorsement from the protit
would be incorrect, it would not he a nullity, ex-
cept as against the acceptor. They did not, however
know of any decisions that eupported these views—Sir F.
Kelly, Q.C., with whom were Mr. Martin, Q.C., Mr. Rome,
and Mr. Bramwell, for the defence, contended, that as each
of the terms allowed by the French code comprised the
proper time for notice of dishonour, for payment after notice,
and for commencing an action in default of payment, but
left it uncertain when the notice of dishonour mast be given,
the jury. would say whether the law of France did not
thereby intend that the notice should be given within a rea-
sonable time, according to the particular circumstances of each
ore; and if so, whether the delay of a month from the time
of dishonour, or at all events of sixteen days front the time
when the dishonour was known to the indorsee of the plain.
tiff, was not unreasonable. As to the second point, it was
for them to say whether the article of the code relative
to the contents of the notice of dishonour could be deemed
to have been complied with if one of the indorsements was
omitted. The witnesses had admitted that the omission of
all the indorsements would be fatal, and had failed to show
that there was any proposition in which they might be
omitted, or that there was any description of indorse-
ments that might he omitted, without prejudice to
the validity of the protest. Under these circum-
stances, then, he submitted that they would give
• s- the brews, of the code. Lord
-Tall entire
Denman told the jury that the fillta.tut..., .—V O• ~.ter eu-
tirely questions of fact for them to decide. They Were
to say what the law of France 'was on the two points
that had been raised in the ease. It was to he lamented that
no advocates had been produced on behalf of the defendants,
as that threw on the jury the duty of determining abso-
lutely whether they were satisfied with the account given
by the advocates added for the plaintiff. If the jurors
were not so satisfied they would determine for themselves
what the law was, applying their rainds to the language of
the code, and calling in aid their experience of business, and
knowledge of what the conduct of commercial affairs ren-
dered necessary. First, they would say whether notice of
dishonour had been given within a reasonable time; and if
they thought that it had, they would then determine whether
the notice of dishonour, the prof t, had been such as the
law required. With regard to the first point, the only as•
titan he could give them was, by observing, that in this
country, after a period, during which the time had been
made to depend on the facts of each case, it was now settled
that each party must give notice to the person from whom
be had obtained the bill, the day after the dishonour became
known to himself. With regard to the second point, the ob-
ject woe to give sufficient knowledge to the party to whom
the mothse wee given; and, with reference to that object,
they would determine the importance of the omissions, and
their effect on the validity of the notice.—The jury, after de-
liberating for a few moments, returned a verdict for the de-
fendants.