The Express.
London, England, 1867-07-17 00:00:00

COURT OF APPEAL.

(Before the Lord Chancellor and Lord Justice Cairns.)
At the sitting of the court this morning there was a large
assemblage of the public and the profession, evidently in
the expectation that Sir John Bolt would have been sworn
in as the new lord justice. The hon. and learned gentle-
man, however, did not make his appearance.
HOWARD v. THE EARL OF bHREWSBCRT.
The facts of this case have recently appeared in our
columns. Their lordships gave judgment today.
The bill complained of an improper use having been made
of a private act of parliament (43rd (ieo. III.) which was
intended solely for the purpose of enabling the Earl of
Shrewsbury to sell certain lands settled by parliamentary
settlement, and to invest the proceeds in the purchase of
, other lands of similar value ; and that this act had been
' employed to place lands of • far greater quantity and
value into the parliamentary settlement than were in-
tended to be subject to it. The plaintiffs sought a declara-
tion that this object was not authorised by the act, and
that the lands so dealt with ought to remain sub-
ject to their original settlement under which Bertram
the late Earl of Shrewsbury was tenant in tail ; and that
under a disentaihng deed subsequently executed he be-
came tenant in fee simple for them, and that under the
devise contained in his will they had pained to and were
now vested in the plaintiffs. The Master of the Rolls
held that the case of the plaintiffs failed, and dismissed ,
the bilL _

The Lord Chancellor said the proceedings from first to
last satisfied him that the real question was
never clearly brought before the court below.
There had been no bona fide purchase, but
a mere colourable pretence for one. The parties bad
attempted to evade the provisions of the Act of 1808 by
concealing the character of the transaction. labia opinion,
the decree of the Master of the Rolls must be reversed.
Lord Justice Cairns concurred. The principal question
was whether what had been done, apparently under the
authority of the court was, in truth, a real and bona fide
exercise of the power of sale and exchange. In his
opinion it was not. The indenture of 1832 professed
to be a deed for the conveyance of land in the ordinary
way, whereas it was a voluntary settlement, in which the
forms of the Court of Chancery and the payment of 1.0001.
were resorted to in order to give the transaction the ap-
pearance of a purchase, and to give this voluntary settle-
ment a character of statutory validity. He would only
observe that the conclusion to which they had arrived had
been entirely concurred in by their late much lamented
friend, Lad Justice Turner.

(Before the Lord Chancellor.)
COLBY V. GADSDEN.

This was an appeal by the defendant from the decree of
the Master of the Rolls. The gait was instituted by •
vendor against a purchaser for the specific performance of
a contract for the purchase of a real estate called Colby
Lodge, near Tenby, Pembrokeshire. The contract
was admitted. The defence was that the time
which had elapsed before the bill was filed con-
stituted a bar; that the plaintiff having put the de-
fendant in 'on had, by afterwards resuming it,
abandoned the contract, and that a vein of coal stated in
the particulars of sale to exist on the property bad been
considerably diminished by working. The Master of the
Rolls decreed specific performance.
The Lord Chancellor gave judgment this morning. In
his opinion the particulars of sale contained • false repre-
sentation with regard to the vein of coal ou the estate,
and on that ground the defendant ought not to be com-
pelled to specific performance of the contract. He, there-
fore, reversed the decree of the court below.
Mr. Southgate, Q.C., Mr. Selwyn, Q.C., Mr. Babington,
and Mr. B. B. Rogers appeared for the parties.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
RRANDRZTH AND HOPICINS r. TIMENCIL

Dr. flpinks. Q.C., sad Mr. C. Russell for the plaintiffs
Dr. Denman, Q.C., Mr. Pritchard, and Mr. Lamb for the
defendant.

The ustator, Mr. Richard Thompson, late of Stainaby
Hall near Wrexham, died in May, 1866, leaving a will
dated June 4, 1856, and a codicil dated the 28th of May,
1865; which were propounded by his executors. l'robate
of the codicil, which gave a number of legacies to charities,
sod especially to Roman catholic funds, clergymen, and
churches was resisted by his only daughter, Lady Ffrench,
on several grounds, all of which, however, but one of
undue execution, were withdrawn.
The testator was a Roman catholic, and on the day on
which the codicil was signed be asked two lade who had
been serving at mass to witness the document. Their
evidence was positive, but Mr. Chabot. the expert,
was called to sweat that from the appearance
of the writing their statement was not true—and
that Mr. Thompson had @limed the sheets of his codicil
(a holograph document) as he had transcribed it, and had
asked the boys afterwards to write theirnames on the paper.
Sir J. Wilde said the jury had rather a difficult task to
perform—namely to decide between the positive evidence
of the witnesses and the testimony of their own eyes., to
the colour of the will.

A juror—Is execution on Sunday invalid, my lord?
The Judge Ordinary—Oh dear no.
The juror—ls a child of 12 years old a competent wit-
ness

The Judge Ordinary—Yee.
Sir Jamea Wilde added that the difference between
the colour of the ink was undoubtedly surprising, but it
might have arisen from the use of the blotting paper in
the one case, and its non-use in the other.
The jury, after deliberating fora short time, found for
the executors.

iliecouAl;coordingly decreed probate of the will and
codicil.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commiaaioner Goolburn.)
IN RE KARLA ANIi GOLDIN..

The bankrupts were merchants of Great St. Helen's,
trading under the firm of Cowasjee, Goldie, and Co.
Goldie now applied for his release from custody.
Mr. Miller supported the application.
Mr. Phelps opposed. The assignees had not yet been
chonn, and the debts were large, upwards of 10,0001.
Mr. Miller said the assets were also large.
His Honour saw no reason to depart from the usual
course. The application would be dismissed, with leave
to renew it in a reasonable time after the choice of as-
signees had taken place.
AROSE OV THE " DEED CLAUSES." . . .

Application was made to his Honour to appoint a sitting
under a deed case, the circumstances of which were peon•
liar. The leave of the court had been obtained to issue
execution under a deed, the second which the debtor had
executed ; and he bad thereupon made a third deed, as
was contended, with intent to defe►t the order of the
court.

Mr. R. Griffiths now asked for a sitting to examine the
debtor under the third deed. He referred to a decision of
the Lords Justices in the case of Cowen, to the effect that
where there was anything like trick or contrivance the
court would not give effect to the deed.
His Honour said the abuses practised under the guise of
deeds of composition and arrangement were perfectly
frightfuL He had heard of a case where a deed promised
• oompoaiti m payable by quarterly instalments, and as
soon as ever the first instalment came due the debtor was
prepared with a new deed. He granted the sitting applied
for.