The Express.
London, England, 1849-11-21 00:00:00

MILITARY.

..... -
Tax 26va Rionsamr.—With reference to tbe intimation
some weeks ego, in the Express, to th• affect that the
26th Foot would proceed to Gibraltar early next year, it may
be Mated that the following arrangement is official :—The
28th is to embark for Gibraltar ; on arrival there, the 34th
will proceed to Barbadoes, to replace the 88th—to proceed
from the West Indies to Halifax, N.B. ; and on the snivel
there of the 88th, the Royal Fusiliers will return home. It
is expected that tannage will be provided fee the 26th, to
enable the regiment to embark at Cork for its destination,
early in January, if possible.
CAIRIALTIZII HY DRWIR in the Anatol of India, TO•
ported since the departure of the mail os the 3rd Oct.:
H. M.'s Tnnors.—Lient.-Col. H. N. Douglas, 78th High-
landers, at Hyderabad, &hide, on the Ist October. Captain
H. Holbeth, 60th Attlee, in Dublin, on the 25th August.
BOlinkT.—Lienten.mt•Colonel J. Brooks, 2nd Light
Cavalry, at Naples, on the 27th August. Captain C. W.
Prather, 27th N. 1., at sea, on board the whip Herefordshire,
on the 15th May. Boign R. H. Colebrook., 18th N. 1.,
drowned at Poona, on the 3rd October.
Manath.—Lientenant and Adjutant J. W. Bannister,
33rd N. 1., at Jaulnab, on the 30th September. Lieutenant
J. ILlter, 23rd N. 1., at Kamptee, on the Bth September.
Col. W. Straiten, 10th N. 1., in England, on 4th September.
BM:GAL.—Vent. J. B. Bennett, 41st N. 1., at Smile, on
the 27th Sept. ; Lieut. R. Fersruss,n, 4 It N. 1., at Jullund-
, bur, on 15th Sept.; Lieut. A. Walker, assistant commissary
of ordnance, veteran establishment, at Cawnpore, on Sept.

Eau InteUtsence.
EQUITY COURTS: YESTERDAY.
86,0112 Mt UZI) CtIAIICILLLON.
Punt v. INSALL.-INIANT HEIREI3B.-MARRILON All-

TICLES.—DEBTS OF ANCESTOR.
The Lord Chancellor gave judgment in this ease, which
was an appeal from a decree of Vice Chancellor Wherein,
and was argued before his lordsh'p in November, 1848. The
facts were thew:—Thomas Stanley Hill died intestate in
1837, leaving a insiderable real estate, and personal estate
also, but insufficient to pay his debts. He lett an only child,
a daughter, who was then a minor, and during her minority
married the defendant Intel!. l'revious to the marline,
artier' were executed by which the young lady and her in-
tended husband covenanted to settle the real whiter, which
dreended on Mir Hill from her father, for the benefit of
themselves and the issue of the marriage. The articles on.
Irked a proviso that within six months after the lady att tined
the age of 21 she and the husband might vary the limitati ins
of the articles by a new settlement, which should contain a
power of revocation and new appointment. In May,lB4o,more
than six months after MIL Intel' attained her age, she and her
husband executed a deed, purporting to be in punuutee of the
said articles, and containing a power of revocation, which
Tower they exercised soon after by making provision for pay-
ment of the debts of Mr. Hill. Mrs. hull died in 1840,
leaving two children, between whom a suit was instituted in
1844 for impeaehiog the settlement of May,lB4o, and the Vice
Orwell°, of England decreed that the same wrs iavalid,
and that the descended estates were bound by the articles of
1837. The present suit was then instituted by Mr. Hill's
auditors, and Vice-Chancellor Wigrun, by his decree pro-
nounced in June, 1848, bell the estates comprised in the
articles to be subject to the payment of the debts. The
children of Mrs. brill brought this appeal against his
Honour's decree. His Lordship, after stating the facts,
referring to the decree of the Vice. Chancellor of England,
said that disposed of the deed of 1840, and the effect of it
was to raise the qui s' ion as to the validity of the articles.
The heirs, of the intestate debtor being an infant at the time
could not make a binding contract. That was what in substance
the decree in the present suit declared. To that decree there
could be ao valid objection. Hi. lordship, after noticing the
cases of " Spielman v. TimbreU" (8 Simons) and " Hewing
and Archer" (7 Beaver), which were cited for the appellants
in the arguments of their counsel, end " Simeon r, Jones"
(2 Russell and Milne), cited contra, affirmed the decree,
and dismissed the appeal with costs,

BMWS VICFCBANCZLLOR Wwur.
AITORNEY-GENEMAL V. LAVIEL--CII.IIILITATLII Bial VEST.
His Honour delivered judgment in this cue, to the
effect that there must be • decree declaring the bequest
valid, and directing a reference to the master to approve of
• scheme for the appropriation of the annuity bequeathed.
His Honour observed that his only difficulty during the
argument bad been as to the effest of the alternative gift in
favour of the church in Newman-street. Subsequent con-
sideration had, however, satisfied him that this would make
no difference. If the gift were confined to the first
alternative, and were considered as a bequest in
favour of the churches in formation under tee cireum-
stances mentioned in the will, there would be no difficulty in
holding it to be a:general chariteble bequest. In that case
the benefit of the gift would clearly exteod to all ministers
and members who should thereafter belong to any eangrega-
lion, the formation of which had commenced before the date
of the testatrix's will; and he could not help thinking •
.bat
it would include mild/tees or members of any churci.es or
congregations formed after that date, in consequence of the
ejection of Nr.lrving from the church of Scotland. The tes-
tatrix clearly intended to speak not merely of any particular
congregation known to her to be in the course of formation,
but generally of an congregations the formation of which
might be regarded as • consequence of that circuenvonce.
The bequest in that case woula clearly be construed as cha-
ritable, though, on coupling the bequest with the gift in
favour of the church in Newman-street, it might be
doubtful whether the testatrix herself intendeu a
general charitable gift. Wes the gift, thin, r.ut
to be sustained merely because the testatrix had
thought :fit to permit one half to be applied ter the
benefit of the church in Newman-street ? The gift in this
case was for • general charitable purpose, with a power to
apply a moiety to another purpose. That circumstance he
thought not sufficient to divest the gift of its character of
charitable. That question, however, it was needless to con-
sider, as the gift in favour of the church in Newman-=treat
was sot an invalid gift, and the report, which had not been
excepted to, had returned that there were objects that might
take. With regard to the question of coats, he was anxious
not to shake the settled rule that where the litigation had
reference to a particular fund after An severance from the
general fund, the particular, and not the general, fund would
bear the cost. Bat where the question arose be-
tween the parties claiming the particular fund
and the general estate itself, whether the particular
fund was or not effectually given. that did not amount to
a severance within the meaning of the rule suggested. In
such a cue the fund could not be considered as severed till
the right had been determined by the decree of the court.
Were the case then before the court for the purpose of a
general administration of assets, and there had been no
admission of meta, a direction that the costs should come
out of the estate would have been of course. Then did
payment over of the residue make a difference ? Could it
be treated as paid over in face of the fact that the leeatee
was the administratrix, submitting in that character to have
the account teken, and admitting wets to pay the legacy in
question? The admis.'ion of assets was an admission of
liability to pay the costa of suit, if properly payable out of
the estate. The question yeas whether, as between the
legatee and the estate, the legac; was or not payable out of
the estate, and the mere payment ever of the residue could
make no possible difference in the que:tion as to cads.

BAIL COURT—YESTERDAY.
DIMS Me. JUPTICI P 111,10014.
THE QUEEN v. PARTRIDOE.—Quo WAREANTO
Mr. Cowling moved for a rule to show canoe why a quo
warranto should not issue against Thomas Partridge, calling
on him to show by what authority he exercised the office of
town councillor of the borough of Colchester. The borough
is divided into three wards,called the first, second, and third.
On Ist November there were two vacancies in the second
ward, and en election of councillors was held. There were
tour candidates, amongst whom wire Partridge and a Mr.
Daniel, on whose behalf the present application was made.
Five votes were reserved for examination, of which three
were given for Partridge, and two for Daniel. Those given
for Partridge were all received, and one of those for Dottie
refused. Partridge and Daniel bad an equality of votes,
and the assessor gave his casting vote for Partridge, who had
been consequently elected and made the required declara-
tion. One of the voters for Partridge, named George Bar-
tell, signed the voting paper by affixing his mark between
his two names, written Burrell George indeed of George
Burrell. It was objected that this was an improper signs
tare, and the vote was bad, no such person as Burrell
George being on the burgess roll. The desermtion of another
person who voted for Partridge was differently given in the
voting paper to that which appeared on the burgess roll, and
this, it was contended, renderzel the vote bad. An objection
had been taken to the vote of a person who voted for kr.
Mittel, on the ground that the property in respect of which
he was rated was improperly described in the voting paper,
inasmuch as the street :a which the property was situated
was in two parishes, and in the burgess roll the name of the
street only was mentioned, while in the voting .
pariah was added. On this ground the vote was .- 4.A;4110--
I It was now urged that the addition of the parish yew:. •
I such a variance as would nullify the vote. '
Mr. Justice Patteion ssid that he did not think thelitiro-'
anything in the objection that the name of George*,
was improperly given in the voting paper as Burrell 911rya, 7,41',• Ircr
u the man was only a marksman. On the other vino tor,.. 'll ja,
cads would be granted. 1Z" r.',
•
• ~