The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-05-09 00:00:00

COUNTY COURT.-YESTERDAY

RENDRY ( N
BEFORE J. POLLOCK, ESQ., JUDGE.)
tit - AND —ORTLICOTE V. TYMBAS.—In this case
T-m-essrs. James Hendry and Charles Northcote, of South Castle
eet,, ship_ brokers, were the plaintiffs, and Mr. Gregory
4°"9 York Buildings, Sweeting-street, merchant,
bendant. The action was brought to recover Lll 4s Id
:lance of freight on a cargo of wheat and beans conveyed in
" plaintiffs' vessel, the Ochtertyre, from Alexandria to
Liiverpool. An additional claim of £5 for one day's demurrage
,ilrae also made, but the latter claim was abandoned. Mr.
11ilue appeared fur the plaintiffs, and Mr. Almond for the
'efence. The sum in dispute was a small portion of the
'Whole freight, the defendant acknowledging his liability for the
'remainder. The ground on which the payment of this part
Was resisted was that on the passage home the vessel sprang a
and the cargo was damaged by seawater in various places.
il!ut of the whole cargo of 1,441 qrs, 102 qrs wore damaged
Zo wza,ter. The freight in this damaged quantity amounted
s""3 12s 3d, and from this the defendants claimed a
eduction of a third part, £ll 4s Id, in consideration of the
tnage. For this amount the action was accordingly brought.
the defendant produced witnesses, with the object of showing
„,'5 he was entitled, by a general custom of the trade, to
mat
such a deduction, and, on the other hand, witnesses were
l'reduced by the plaintiff who denied the existence of any such
etleral custom. His Honour decided that the plaintiffs were
linitd to a verdict, observing, that even if a general custom
vatid. u,een proved, it could not supersede the special contract
1 had been made in this case. He reserved some points
n:°the value of a clause in the charter party, declaring that
atiJt.iptite which should arise, might be determined by arbi-
,74:.°n: and he allowed a fortnight to consider how far this
at,;:ttien prevailed, adding, that he did not think there was
a ]tiers
in the clause to prevent the parties from coming into
Court of law.

IN CHANCERY.

'lt the Lords' Justices, an appeal from the Chancery
of Lancaster, 7th May, 1856.

hiILYNEUX V. ROWS.
o th
f •appeal was heard some few days back. The facts
b„
''en,'e as they appeared from the opening of the case
seLit • lundell, on the hearing, in November, 1855, and
buen reported, were these. That
18-c.49Phraim Snapper, of Liverpool, by his will in the year
for ) ,after reciting the faithful services of his housekeeper
per bissr,eight years, provides for her an annuity of £6O
thatanilual; and after reciting that it bad been arranged
of thaPen the marriage of his son, then deceased, the issue
faitc:etuarriage should be brought up in the Protestant
and he gave and devised all his estates and effects, real
Wrirs.esta°ll4, unto the plaintiffs, Thomas Molyneux, Peter
- and Thomas Hunter absolutely; and he also
4Ppoin,
-sed them executors upon certain trusts, being for the
for ellefit -
ii
his grand-daughter, the issue of such marriage,
an et We, and then to her children, with a limitation over
tei default of children, or in case she married any person
Ily? a Roman Catholic, in favour of certain kinsmen named.
dire" :codicil to such will, made in the year 1850, after
Os ettag that the same should be construed, and to bear
Part of his will, he proceeded in these words, "In
4..bse,,,l,eration of the faithful services of my servant
" Rowe, during my sickness, and at other times,
N hereby give and bequeath to him the whole of my
thiate, and all my household goods and furniture, linen,
vreella, Watches, and all other, my personal property and
*4e118) that I may be possessed of at the time of my
1,144`., (free from the control of any person or persons
leiv,oeVer), for his absolute use and benefit, free from the
not-,eY duty, such gift and bequest, however, I declare shall
or hstiteittdice any claim or demand he may have against me,
d'Y representatives, for wages due to him from me ; and
1).1 (Ithereby ratify and confirm my said will in all other
tistieillars thereof." The difficulty arising in this state of
hetetainstances was whether, and to what exten', this codicil
the revoked the will itself. The trustees acting under
4 11 had attempted to sell the real estate, but were pre-
to t 07 reason of the claims set up by Rowe, which wept
silfacl.B extent, viz— that the words of the codicil were
Persolnent to carry the whole of the property, real and
owe al, and under these circumstances the trustees in their
attsi,:t,as for the protection of the property, sought the
A.C.,.nee of the court.
Iroot stage of the case the court stopped Mr. Blundell
Rowea Mug the extent of the revocation' inasmuch as
1,1
sea ,as also the rand-dauhter, were before courte
the properg sons
pe each to support theirthe own case,
41,FrIv:ert1Prettntiergast, on behalf of Rowe, entered into a long
ParpcshowingY able argument, stating numerous cases, for the
411 the showing that the words used in the codicil were
Atrinselves sufficient to pass all the real estate to Rowe.
.111 e ce„„Little, on the contrary, was proceeding to argue
os on behalf of the grand-daughter, but was stopped
thoe te-Chancellor, who, without professing at the present
Words say say What the testator really meant to pass by the
Word .1,13 ed in the codicil, undertook to decide that the
relation estate," coupled as it was with the words having
prise
.. More particularly to personal estate, did not corn-
rtre2eal estate, and, consequently, to that extent the will
the Tea e unrevoked, and Mr. Blundell would be entitled to
as of tehree asked for the administration of the real as well
Would he Personalty. What portion of ihe personal estate
and it Pass must remain until the accounts had been taken,
the ess s ascertained whether there would be a surplus for
,uP_osticil to operate upon.
api,earu the Cause again coming on in February last it
Pups, ed that the debts would more than ab'orb the
(!odingal estate, leaving therefrom nothing on which the
14 could operate.
aPPeal was ith the view of esabshng tha the
es 'ate was operative in favour of Rowe,tli asi to the real
eudinA. and also generally as to the extent of the gift by such
torP, 11.ut the Lords' Justices being divided in opinion,
irer'erju.'llee Knight Bruce against, and Lord Justice
re
am,n in favour, of the codicil being operative upon the
of :he effect of such decision is to confirm the judgement
Ar),:,4le court below—but as there might be a question
nitßht Ras enrfootthe Words all other his personal estate might, or
agate
, mean personal estate equsdem yaueus with what
u re specified, counsel might be at liberty to speak
Pon that part of the case.