The Express.
London, England, 1853-08-13 00:00:00

iL4133 riteLU dice.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—YEST6RDAT.
A ,a —H.reas tog Loan CAIMMILIAII. TUN tlaaw•Nor *ATA-
•rrr+,n, tau. Foam, Lo■u LINIMOSN't, Luna lava% Lo■n
L50A411416. at.
EIIIKTON •. EARL EIWWFILoW.--Tll3 EARL or ERIDOZ-
WATZIL.4 ESTATRS.

This cue relates to the singular will of the lets
Earl of Bridrewater, by which certain estate*, said to
produce between 60,0001. and 70.0001. a rev% and which
were bequeathed to the late Lord Alford, on condition that
during hui lifetime he attained to the dignity of Marquis or
Duke of Bridgewater. The case was argued at great
length titling their lordships, mended by the learned judges
of the common law courts, and as it was fully reported at the
time, it will only be necessary nnw te state that
the appellant is John William Spencer Brownlow Egerton
(formerly John William Spencer Brownlow Horns Cost,
he having assumed the name and arms of Egertua), com-
monly called Lord Alford (eldest son of the late Lord
Alford), en intent, who appears by his next friend, the
Mon. Peregrine Francis Cost; and the respondents are John
Earl Brownlow and the Earl of Powis (trustees under the
will of the Earl of Bridgewater), Lady Marianne Margaret
Roma (formerly Alford), widow of the late L o'd Alford,
w base jointer* is charged on the estates in question, the
lien. Charles Henry Egerton, second son of Earl Brown-
low, who is the party interested, being next in
remainder to Lord Alford on the tenure of the provisions
ander which he was to inherit; Wilbraham Egerton
the elder, William rattan Egerton, and Wilbraham
Egerton the younger, who were parties in contingent re-
mainder under the will. The late Lord Alford, in whom
the estate. were vested, having died without attaining the
dignity of Duke or Marquis of Bridgewater, the reeyoudent
Charles Heavy Egerton, the next in remainder, claimed the
estates, and the present appellant, the 6013 11114 heir of Lord
Alford, heir-at law of the testator, filed a bill in Chancery,
praying that it might be declared that ha was under the
will esioitable tenant in tail male of the *state other than
leasehold for years, and absolutely entitled to the estates
held up u lease, on the ground that the conditlm in the
will, the non-fulfilment of which it was alleged determined
the right of the late Lord Alford and his heirs, was void, on
the ground of public policy. The cause was heard before
Lord Cranwurth, when Lord Justice, who decided that the
provision of the will not having hiera complied with by
Lord Alford, no estate vested in his heirs, but that Charles
Henry Egerton, the respondent, was tended to the estates.
The present appeal was the. brought.
At the close of the arguments the following questions
were submitted to the learned judges:
I. On tae decease of Lord Alford, did the appellant, his
*ldea sou, become entitled to any, and what estate in re-
mainder. or immediately expectant, on the term of ninety-
nine Tears t
2. If he did, was such estate liable to be defeated by any
and what events, and might it or might it not be revived
again in say and what events?
3. Ou the decease of Lord Alford, did his brother Charles
Henry Norton, the respondent, become entitled to any and
what estate. in remainder' or immediately expectant on the
term of ninety-nine years?
4. It he did, was such estate liable to be defeated by any
and what 'vests, and might it or might is not be revived
again by any and what means ?
5. Were all or any of the several provisoes in the will
void?

6. Were the provisoes or any of them conditions prece-
dent in the events that had happened
7. In tile events that had happened had the jointure of
Lady Maria Anne Egerton charged oa the estates ceased ?
The judges took time to coniider their opinions, and
to-day the following of them were in attendance—The
Lord Chief Baron Pollock, Mr. Baron Alderson, Mr. Jus-
tice Williams, and Mr. Justice Crompton.
Mr. Justice Crompton delivered his opinion in so low a
tons of voice, that it was not possible to collect more than
that, in his jadgmeut, the appellant did not take an estate
under the will afar the death of Lord Alford.

Mr. Beroa Alderson stated in substance that the condi-
tion of the will was &condition precedent; that the late
Lord Alford took an estate which in a certain conitgency
was to cease; that the general object of the testator was to
unite his estates to the title of duke or nmrquir, and
that they should come to the heir, of Earl lirownlow.
and if that condition was not carried out, it wai clear.y his
object to give the estates to the faintly of the Ettertuns in
BUCCIN4IOII. There was little difference between this condi-
ti in that a title should be obtained, and the common ease
of • testator asking the crown to allow his devisee to assume
his mane and arms; and as to such a condition being against
public policy, he was of opinion that the act required to be
done was possible and legal, and not contrary to public
policy. Ilia answers to the questions were, ant, that the ap•
pellant did nit take an estate oa the deurissof Lord Alford
secondly, that the estate was defeated, but might be re-
vived by the /meats required happening: thirdly, on the
decease of Lord Alford his brother„Charles Henry Egerton,
took an estate for life, exactly like that of the late Lord
Alford : fourthly, that that estate aright be defeated by the
events required not happening, but aright be revived:
fifthly, that all the provisoes of the will were valid : sixthly,
that the provisoes were conditions precedent: and seventhly,
that the Jointure of Lady Maria Anne Egerton charged on
the estates had eared. _ . .

The Lord Chief Baron stated his opinion to be that pro-
vines ought to be treated as a condition subsequent ; that
the devise to Lord Alford and his heirs male was one devise,
disposition, and remainder of the property to one branch of
the family ; that the testator intended the condition to be
treated as a condition subsequent, and that hie intention
ought to prevail. He was also of opinion that the proviso
with reference to this obtaining the title was bad and void,
on the ground of its being against public policy, end to Its
deprecated as a capricious attempt on the part of the to,
tator to leave his estates burdened with his posthumous am-
bition in relation to a matter which concerned the public
welfare. He was therefore of opinion, firstly, that on the
decent* of Lord Alford hie son became entitled to the
estates ; secondly, that the estate was not defeated ;
thirdly, that Charles Henry Egerton did not take an estate
on the death of Lord Alford ; fourthly, that if he aid that
estate wts liable to be defeated; ithly, that the provisoes
were void ; ideally, that the provisoes were conditions
subsequent, and seventh'', that the jointure of Lady Maria
Anne Egerton would not cease.
Mr Justice Crompton read the opinion of Mr. Justice
Coleridge, which was against the right of the appellants to
the estates.

.
Mr. Junta* Williams delivered a like opinion, and read
those of Mr. Justice Talfoard, Mr. Justice Creuwell, Mr.
Bares Parke, Mr. Justice Erie, and Mr. Justice Wight-
man, which were in accordance with the majority against
the appellants, and also that of Mr. Baron Platt, who
agreed with the Chief Baron, and expressed an opinion in
favour of the appellant.
The Lord Chancellor then moved that the opinions of
the judges be printed, and intimated the intention of the
house to deliver judgment at the earliest possible time.

Gosusa R. VEL{T.—Ta■ BRAINTUZI CHURCH-MATZ.

The ease, which hie so long been before the courts, and
in which is Involved the important question of whether •
minority of the parishioners of a parish in vestry awembled
can bind the majority in the imposition of • church-rate,
and whether such rate is valid, was to-day brought to a
conclusion by the delivery of the judgment of their lordships'
house. _ _

The following questions were then submitted to the
judges. —First, whether on the face of the record the rate
appeared to be au invalid rate; secondly, whether on the
face of the record the rate appeared to be a valid rate ; aid
thirdly, whether, supposing they Rafe of opinion that it
did nut appear ea the facie of the record to be invalid, then
whether it was each a rate that the court could euforce it.

The learned judge* took time to consider their opinions,
and on 26th June, 1852, they delivered them to their lord-
ships: Mr. Jir,tice Crompton, Mr. Baron Martin, Mr. Jus-
tine Wil'imuts, Mr. Jesup. Erle, and Mr. Baron Parke,
being of opinion that the rate was invalid; Mr. Justice
Talt,urd, Mr. Janice Wightman, Mr. Baron Platt. Mr.
Justice Maul., Mr. Justice Coleridge, and Mr. Baron Alder-
son being of opinion that the rate was valid. Their lord-
ships then took time to consider their judgment.
Lord Truro now delivered the judgment of their lord-
ships* hones, and after elaborately reviewing the facts and
wpm. ate as stated above, mamid that the judgment of the
Court of Exchequer ChaWsur be reversed.
The Lord Coaneelloe esoositod, sad steed that Lord
Brougham was of the same claims.
The judgment of the court team mu then reversed, thus
establishing that the rate is iavoild.

THB POLICE COURT&

MANSION-HOUSE.

Henry W. Goading eriiiiiroug&tscTior final esamica-
tint. upon two charges—the first, that ha knowingly, de-
signedly, and by false pretences, obtained the sum of 91. of
Mr. Michael Baum, with intent t, cheat and di fraud that
gentleman ; that he received and took into his possession
fm and on account of Mr. Michael Banes, his master, the
enzs of Si 19s. 6d., and embezzled and concealed it.

Mr Dints, warehouseman, of No. 6, Outter.l me, said,
the prisoner has been in my smite as a traveler, and bas
been paid by commission only. Oa the 28th of duly ko
east as usual to the offices and gay* on • sheet of paper a
list of sales of goods which he said his wife had made up
on the previous day. His wife web not in my employment,
but makes up lace goods on her own account, and 1 u welt
as other wholesale persons purchase of her. The
',simmer said he bad sold in my name a good parcel
of good d, sod his wife would call upon me for the
amount. The commission was 61 per cent., and my profit
was ta be 15 per cent. The list states that goods were sold
to Mr John Piens, Mr. Backlaad, Mr. G. Suers, and
Miss Price, all of whom are customers of mine, and the
whole amount of the sale was 101. 14s. 10d. The prisoner's
wit, called about an Is ur afterwards, and I paid her nine
sovereigns, chick I would n have paid her if be had
not directed use to do so. I war to take the risk of the
debts, and was to Reek' per cent. for taking upon myself
that responsibility. I told him that 1 had pud his wife,
and he said it wu all right. I paid her, in the b lief that
he Is i I made these sales, and that I should be entitled to
receive b.ek the sum of 101. 14e 10d. from the persons
whose names he had Kitten in. The witne,a then particu-
larised the articles which the prisoner hal taken from the
✓iral, with the avowed intention of supplying the parity
named atoms.

The several tradespeople who had been stated by the
pris.ner t have been supplied, were called and es: mined,
aad they &clued that they bad giv,n the prisoner
any orders tor, nor received from tins the g r.d. d. scribed.
Ls the west shares against the prisoner, Mr. Joba
Welch, a draper, gave eiiea~ea to the efeet, that he had
parthessa at, mad paid the rims, Is, a parcel of goads

the sum of W. 191. 6d.; •nd it was proved that the •mount
bad been received from the prisoner by any person
in the house.
The pm, ner, who had been, it was stated, fcrmerly in
business for himself. said it was quite impcssible thit in his
position he could for a moment haws thought of defrauding
his employer ut • single shilling. arid that he deeply re-
I gretted the two events which bed been represented.
The prisoner was committed for trial.
MARLBOROUGII.BTREET.

Mary Parsons II u etas sett with having stoles &i yards
of silk from the shop of Mr. Merringtou, silk mercer, 164,
New Bond-street.

George Spencer, 164, New Bond•strect, said on the' 6th
of July, about haltpest 5 o'clock, the prisoner came into
the shop and asked him to cut • few patterns of silk.
%Witness said he should prefer doing this rather than to
send the goods out of the house. The prisoner left the
shop, Out returned in about threeluarters of an hoar and
.elected seven pieces of silk, and stated she was staying at
the Beth Hotei, Piccadilly, and wished them to be sent for
the approval of her sister, who was at the hotel, but who
could not come out as she was indisposed. Witness agreed
te accompany the prisoner to the hotel with the goods, and
when he got to the hotel the prisoner showed him
into an upstairs room, and then she selected one
of the pieces of silk and said she would take
it into the neat room to show to her sister. The
prisoner took the silk away, and, in a few minutes, brought
it back, and theta took away two other pieces, which she
also brought back. The prisoner sat down and said she
would wait • few minutes until her sister had made up her
mind as to the length she wanted. After waiting a few
minutes the prisoner took up three of the pieces of silk, and
mid as the dressmaker had not made her 'appearance she
would ask her sister to decide at once. The prisoner took
the property and left the room There were 64 yards of
silk, and the value wee about 171. Witness waited an hour,
and then on making enquiry was told that the prisoner had
left the hotel entirely. Witness did not see her again until
she was taken into custody last Saturday.
The prisoner made no defence, and was fully committed
on the charge.
Several other similar charges ate to be brought forward,
some front the city, and one from the Freemasons' Tavern,
in all of which the prisoner, who comes from Heading, suc-
ceeded in obtaining property.