The Express.
London, England, 1847-06-30 00:00:00

162

Dry mat -0
e Nob, b flinger
A. R. Siam Wavi., • Vflittokr,
2
Box, illy= I not ou. I
Guy, b My= 12 sot out 7
Sewell, b flinger
B. T. ham, Eati., is 11/134skir,
b Wynn
0. Parr, • Barbara; b HWy W
O. C. Pell.'Esq., b Wynn 34
Clark., I b a, b Hillyer
Ungulate.eat MI
Kr F. Bathurst., eW. Pilo, b Minn 3
Byes 3, wide ; so bell Mortis
PM, I 9

The match was isialatd thin mariali;at.

tato Entellfgencr.
__ HOUSE OF LORDS.

lavtNo e. biaMN7;4O.II4BCRAJI---CEOF SHIP.—TOTAL
Loss.—This was a writ of error on a judgment of the Court
of Exchequer Chamber, in an action brought by Mr. Man-
ning, the defendant in error, on a policy of insurance effected
in the year 1843 on the ship General Kydd, valued at 11,5001.,
and insured with the Marine Insurance Company for that
sum on a voyage from China to Madras and back. Mr.
Irving, the plaintiff in error, represented the insurance com-
pany. On the voyage the ship was greatly damaged in her
masts, rigging, sheathing, &c. She was taken to Calcutta,
and on being surveyed was found not worth the expense of
repairing, which would he above 10,0001. to render her sea-
worthy; and she would not even then be worth more than
9,900/. The commander, under the circumstances, aban-
doaed the ship; and notice of abandonment wax given to the
underwriters, and the owners claimed for total Lisa. The
question was, whether they were entitled to 17.5001., the
amount insured. or only to the value of the ship if she had
been repaired? Mr. Serjeant Channell and Sir F. Kelly
were for the insurance company ; the Attorney-General and
Sir F. Thesiger for the shipowners. The arguments were
not concluded at 4 o'clock, when the case was adjourned to
Thursday.

EQUITY COURTS.
Before the Vice-Chanorllor of England.
HANSARD V. HANSARD.—INJCNCTION.--PARTNERSHIP.
—An iajunction was granted in this case, on the 3rd
of Jane, to restrain the defendant, Mr. Luke James
Hansard, who is the well known printer to the house
of parliament, from interfering in the partnership affairs, on
the ground that he had improperly conducted the manage-
ment of the partnership, and had allowed his father, Mr.
James Hansard, who has some time mince retired from the
businen, to levy a distress upon the partnership wets. A
further application was mode at the same time for an
injunction to restrain the father from levying such dis•
trees. This latter application was allowed to stand over.
The particulars of these two motions were reported in this
paper on the 4th of June. A motion was now made on be-
half of Luke James Hansard that the said injunction might
be dissolved, and the second application was also brought
before the eourt. The counsel for Luke James Hansard had
not concluded the opening of the case at the rising of the
court.

Ileum Vieekbancellor Wigram.
HUNT v. PIACOCE.--1.1,41TED ADXINIBTRATION.—PAR-
nes.—By the will of Elizabeth Stacey, dated in 1801, the
stun of 3001. Reduced Three per Cent. Bank Annuities was
bequeathed to the executors therein named, for tke benefit
of her eon, William Stacey, for his sole use, if be »relived
her three years ; bat if no application were made by him,
then the stock was to be divided share and share alike
amongst four persona named. The testatrix died in 1801,
her son having previously left England. At her death the
awn of 3001. Three per Cent. Bank Annuities was left standing
in her name in the books of the Bank, and, in 1811,
the came (having then remained unclaimed for ten years)
we, with the accumulated dividends thereof, transferred,
pursuant to the provisions of the statute 56 Oco. 111., to the
account of the Commiasionere for the Reduction of the Na-
tional Debt. No tidings of the son of the testatrix having
ever been received, the present bill wee filed in 1846, by the
dminiftratrix of three of the parties to whom the fund wee
given in the event of no claim being made by the son for
payment to her of three-fourths of the sum in question. The
questions were, whether the three-fourths of the fund could be
Irately directed to be paid to her in the absence of a »presen-
tative of the party entitled tothe other fourth ; and secondly,
• whether the Interest of inch party would be sufficiently re-
pro...ad by en administrator ad litem. Itie Honour di-
verted that the ore should stand over, that an administrator
kik ad Hamm to the unrepresented sham of the Mock might be
mai, a party by amendment to the suit. Mr. Bolt, Mr.
Flamm*, Dlr. Wray, and Mr. Ballet, appeared for the se-
veral parties on the record.

AT7OIOIBT-OINIMAL V. NOKTHCOTIC—CH titiTY.—The
information in this case was filed in 1840. for the regulation
of certain charity estates in the parish of Budleigh, in
Devonshire. The estates in question, the rent of which ex-
ceeded 400!. per annum, were conveyed in 1628, by one
Robert Drake, to trustees in trust out of the rent to pay
certain sums towards the maintenance of a lecturer and
schooknuter in the patiehes of Littleham and Exmouth. and
of a preaching minister or isetuter in Withicomb and Raw-
leigh parishes, as well so towards the relief of the poor of
the said two parishes, as also of Rut Budl•igh parish ; and
towards the putting out, placing, and binding apprentices
the poor children in each of the said parishes of Littleham
and Withicomb, and helping poor tradesmen and keeping
ether idle people to work in some trade, at the discretion of
the churchwardens and four of .the eufficientest of the tithe.
bitants of such parishes. The residue of the rents, if any,
was to be distributed amongst the kindred of the settler
and poor of the beforamentioned parishes, at the discretion
of the feeffees, or most of them, their heirs and assigns. The
accounts having been taken and new trustees appointed by
the master, pursuant to the decree of the court, the cause
now came back for further directions.—Mr. Romilly
and Mr. Terrell, for the trustees, asked for a reference
to the master, to approve of a scheme for the future applica-
tion of the surplus rent; and to inquire and state whether it
would be for the benefit of the charity that any portion of
the income should be applied for the education of the poor of
the parishes in favour of which the conveyance had been
made. They cited " Wilkinson v. Melia" (2 Crompton and
Jervis, 636), and " the Attorney-General v. Bovill" (1 Phil-
tre Reports), to show that the education of poor children
was a purpose within the meaning of a trust for the poor
generally, and that there was no reason for limiting the
participants in the fund to those of the poor who were not
in the receipt of perochiel relief.—Mr. Wray appeared for
the Attorney-General.—His honour made en order of re-
ference to the master, to inquire and state whether the pro-
posed application of the money would be a beneficial one for
the parishes in question.