The Express.
London, England, 1868-04-16 00:00:00

COURT rArioB.—SITIINGB nr AND ASTIR LAST=

TERM
COURT OT PEORATM.
Thursday, April 16; Itiday, 17; Bitintrday, l& Pall Court for
Divorce sad Matrimonial Cumin : Friday, Apia IL Court far
Divorce sad Midst neubd Camas: Wednesday, April 16 : Thurs-
day, 63; ilaturiay, 16; Wednesday, Thursday, 10; Friday,
Mar 1; Trial by 1.12 _lllivoros end Matrimonial
elllOOlO : Wednaislay, May 6 ; Tharslay, 7 ; Many. 6; listurday,
6; Viedaesday, 1i; Thursday, 14; Tridal. 1s; Satuldar, 14.
1 ks• wl. sit hi chambers to bear anatmonseit at 11, sad itt
mint Wbaar motions at 12, ou Toss, April 12. sad on melt
ettoceeding Tuesday. until May lt,

ARCHES COCRT.

The Court will sit at TY estilinsiero;;;Uoli day or days as may
be appointed by the judge.
ADMIRALTY COURT.
The Court will at at Westminster on Tuesdays, April ki and
DI, and May 5 and 12. at 10e, for summonses and motions In
Chambers, and at 11 for motions In Court. The Court will hear
causes on week day from Thursday, April 10, to Friday,
May 11, Includve.

COURT OF APPEAL—APRIL IS.
(Before the Lord Chanoellor.)
ao.."Es o. EADLEY.
This was an appeal by the defendants from a decision
of the Master of the Rolls. Judgment wee given to-day.
The Lord Chancellor said the question at issue was
whether • lilies Pargeter, an unitarian lady of benevolent
disposition, late of Fount*, in she county of Worcester,
had devised certain residuary real estates to Mr. John
Badley, her medical adviser, and Mr. James Payton Barney,
his son, upon secret trusts for charitable purposes, and
therefore void under the Statute of Mortmain. The pro-
perty was valued at about 160,0001. Pargeter ap-
peared to have been of nervous temperament, and
lived much alone, having no strong attachment to her
relations, without actually disliking them. It
seemed that she had made several wills prior to the
one in question, and they had disclosed her
intention to dispose of the bulk of her property
for the benefit of charities. The evidence of her solicitor
showed that he. during a discussion as to the mode and
property by which charities could be legally endowed, had
' mentioned the method of giving real estate to a devisee in
whom she had confidence, and to whom a secret trust, not
expressed in the will. might be communicated. In the court
below the Master of the Rolle observed that there were
two questions to be determined—first, Did the testatrix
intend that the devise of her residuary real estate should
Ina be for the benefit of the Mesita bailey ? The second
was— Did thew gentlemen, by promisesexprenedor implied,
or by silent acquiescence in herintention,leadher to believe
that they would perform any charitable trusts reposed in
them On the first question the evidence led his lordship
to the conclusion that the testatrix intended to give, and
believed she had given, her residuary real estate to the
defendants upon charitable trusts. As to the second sues-
don, although it was clear that the testatrix knew little
of Mr. Badley the son, and bad made no communication
to him, it was to be inferred that in associating him
with his father she thought she had appointed a
person who would be under his influence and direction.
The evidence had established to the satisfaction of his
lordship that the testatrix had communicated the contents
of her will to Mr. Badley, and that he did not deny her
intention that some part of the property devised should
be (applied in charity. Moreover, he had admitted his
own intention to carry out her authenticated wishes in
that behalf. Although it could not he shown that he
distinctly promised to perform her intention, it mint
be taken that she believed him to have silently
acquiesced in her purpose ; and his lordship expressed
his belief that in accordance with this Mr. Hadley was
doing all he could to perform faithfully the wishes of
the teetatrix. Under all the circumstances he pronounced
for the plaintiffs. The defendants had appealed from this
decision, and after a careful examination of the evidence
on both sides he (the Lord Chancellor) could come to no
other conclusion than that, although Mies Pargeter in her
own mind did in some war connect the gift of the residue
with some charitable desire, object, or purpose, yet that
such desire, object, or purpose was not clearly shown by
the testimony of witnesses, and that any charitable pur-
pose which the testatrix might have intended was not
communicated by her or others in her life-time to the
defendants, the Hadley'. The decree of the court below
must, therefore, be reversed, and the bill dismissed ; he
assumed that in such a Plano costa would be asked for.
Sir B. Palmer, Q.C., Mr. Jessel, Q.C. Mr. Baggallay,
Q.C., Mr. Millar, Mr. Peck, and Mr. gement appeared
for the parties.

. EQUITY COURT.—Arm 15.
(Before Vim-Chancellor diffard.)
TICIIDOBSZ v. TICUBOICIE—TICHBOILNE V. MOKTIN.
An application was made for leave th have these causes
transferred to another branch of the court, on the ground
that the Vice-Chancellor had been engaged in them as
counsel for one of the parties.
Mr. Kay, Q.C., made the application.
The Vice-Chancellor said there could be no objection,
but in point of fact his permission was not required for
the transfer.
His Honour rose shortly after 2 o'clock.