The Express.
London, England, 1850-11-21 00:00:00

lab, 3intelitgence.

staun"T COURTS.—YreTEIDAT
lemeas Tica.Cmeceugia Beim
Me TIM MArrsa or mts Tsuern• Itittritr ACT, ens tle
vas Marren or Decloos's Taos?.
Bis Browse rtes judgment upon this mite, is which a
peddles had been presented to elsternias tlis sight to the
11,14804 s of aum of 10,000 L, width had bola paid into
court soda the sat. It was stated by toe[petion that by
the will of the late Major Gisser•l Dleksem, the But ladle
Come gal's service, dated in 1848, a au of 10,0001. was
bequeathed te trustees open trust, to laved the sem in
paiismesitm or real securities, and to pay the asnual pro-
duce of such investment to the testator's daughter, Mary
Eleanor Dickson, to her serrate use, without power of
aatkijation , with remainder for the benefit of any Imo eke
might have, with ultimate ressiador, in default of Lae, to
the testator's two soca. By a codicil, baring the same date
ss the will, the testator, atter referring to the gift la his will
in favour of kis daughter Mary Ziemer, and her shildren,
reseeded to direct that, in case she should take the veil
sad become a non, or cooties. to raids in • conveat or In
any way eases:Ore herself permanently withould Boman
esthetic establishment of that caters, she shforfeit all
elates to a benefit from the said sum of 10,0001. Aod
ues the
testator d.clarod that he thereby revoked the said beqt,
and that in order to prevent any portion of his property from
Wag appropriated to other purposes than the benefit of hie
/amity, he thereby occluded his said daughter, Mary Eleanor
Dickies, from all rewnsionary advantages whatever from his
said will. The treater dW shortly after the date of the
oodieff. The trustees and ezicaton proved the w ill ; and
L ving administered the estate, scope the suss of 10,0001.,
paid that fend into court, andel the provisioas of the us.
Ths present petitioa waspwaisted by Buy Blame Dickson,
kr pays's.% to her of the dividend, which had served due
upon the had since the death of the testator, sad of all divi-
dends which might hereafter scene due thereon in her life-
time. It won admitted by counsel for the petitionerthst she had,
two yeas On the testator's death, takes up her abode
in a Bases catholic establishment in the nature of a con-
vent, and that she had now bums permanently connected
with such eetlibliehleenr. Upon the hearing of the petition
ea the 4•11 Instant, it bed been argued by Mr. Bethell and
Mr. Fleming for the petitioner, that she wee entitled to
the benefits gives her by the will, the eoadition in the
codicil bele is terraces only. For the parties entitled to
lie testentia tesidsety estate, it had bees esateeded by Mas
r.
Juan Parker sad Mr. Blasky, that a the eveditioa w
not uNgd. NW the petitioner had brought herself within it,
it took sleet. They 'need that the doctrine that each con-
ditions wan in unarm 'sly, was derived from the civil
law, sad was eeslssd to cases of conditions in restraint of
ould
marriage, sad eaditices of forfeiture if the legatee sh
dispute the will, ha which do opelseisatical and equity courts
had a oosserrent jattediation.
The Yee...Chancellor said that the relief asked by the
petitions would be a matter of course, if the title to it rested
se the will alone. The question was hew fa her right
ander the will wee affected by the codicil, it being admitted
by her casaba that she hail smoelated hermit permanently
with a Boman catholic
thestablishment in the eaten of a con-
vent, and that she had us brought herself within the pur-
view of the clause of forfeiture in the codicil. The
was
question was what, under the circumstances of the sus, was
th intuition the testator had expressed. Of this the tents
oft the left no doubt. It was Impossible that
the intention to revoke could be more elealy ex-
ruled. Nest, was the intention so *errand a
lawful one 1 This was equally free from doubt.
It had been argued for the petitioner that the eau foil within
the rule of law said to be established b 7 the cues that where
there is WO at solute gift to a party with a condition subs.
smut revoking such gilt on non compliance with the wadi-
Cift, and no gilt over on such non-complicit.' there the
condition become inoperative, and won to be treated as is
terrines only. The authoi iges could not, he thought, be
(erase to that event. On reviewing the authorities he had
bead that then were numerous cues of bequest subject to
itiffeiter• es the searriege of this legatee. or on their disputing
the will of their testator, in which it had been held that the
senditioa was Is terforese only, and that the bequests were
aboolute. But then wets cans depending upon the maxims
el the 41,11 law, and not epee thews of the common law. By
the Civil law which was followed in the ecclesisatital courts,
esaditioas In restraint of marriage, and conditions of for-
feiters oa isontestius the will of the testator, were held to oie
is terrorern only, and that on this ground tli at sueh conditions
were contrary to the liberty of the law, insomuch as the he
clesiaatical Court entertained suits for the recovery of legacies,
thie court having a concurrent jurisdictien in that respect, had
for the sake of uniformity of the law always considered
itself bound by the decisioas of these courts. In cues,
therefore, of conditions in restraint of marriage and of for-
feiture on disputing the will, this court had always regarded
the testator as attempting to impose a ristrktioa which he
bad no eight to impoes. The rule thus adopted bed not
been rec,ivid with much fever, awl had often been desig-
nated as unsatisfactory ; hat being now an established role
it would be unsafe to question it. The rule to bar observed
in the present and other like cases would depend not upon
the form of expression, but upon the nature of the condition
itself. If the condium aubsequent were to be considered un-
lawful then without doubt the rule of the civil law would
prevail. If, on the other hand, the bequest were to be
bricked on breech of a coVition not illegal, or if there was
• gift over oa breech of the conditi,n then • different tale
would apply. If the condition in this case had been in re-
steatite of marriage, or a condition of forfeiture in cam the
legit, • should dispute the will, then the doctrine of the
civil law would have applied. Here, however, there was no
Mover, and the comb:ion imposed by the testator was per.
7 lawful. This being so, and the, intention i xpremed
by the testator being demi, that hie daughter should not,
la the swot which had Imputed, taks • benefit under the
will, he was of opinion that she was not entitled. and that Ma
petition must be dismissed except as to the dividends of the
heel which had 'tented prior to the bleach of the coaditioa,
which would be paid to the petitioner.

coußr OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—YunaDA7.
lierrupos ut auffo.--nooli loan Cenreati., Ma. fumes CPA.
BMA. WM lonics EWA:
Tim QUSIN O. vns CALSOOKILN RAILWAY L:OUTLNY.—
KAIWASICA.—JUDGME/it.
Lord Campbell said this was • mendsmus to the Cale-
donian R,ilway, Company, commanding them to complete
a certain bridge over their railroad in the cLy of Carlisle,
as by law they were bound to do, and according to the plans
and moat sections deposited with the Clerk of the Peace foe
the °oust, of Cumberland. This being a peremptory mar
damns, it lay ea the prosecutor to show that all that had
teen commarakil by the mandamus was a duty imposed by
law. It was necessary to show that there was an obligation
to make the road ia question seconding to this rates of in-
clination delineated in the plans and sections deposited with
the Clerk of the Pesos. He thought that the 9 h males of
the 9th and 10th Vic., c. 269 (the Supplemental Act),
which had been relied on, did not apply to rates of lattice-
lion, but only to the heights and 'pane delineated on the
plans and sections. The court was, therefore, of opinion that
that part of the mandamus coal not he sustained, and
therefore judgment must be (or the defendant.
Judgment for the defendant accordingly.
LaCIZJI V. JOIIN PAZATON Aso 01111111.—
CaIITION.AIII.
In this saes • rule had bees obtained by Mr. Martin,
Q V. (11_ow Mr. Baron Martin), milling upon the tows Goan-
el of Halifax to show oases why • writ of certiorari amid
not lane. In order to bring into this court • certain order
made by the town council, which confirmed a report of the
council. The report related to the payment of a bill of coots
to the town clerk. It appeared test the borough of Halifax
was incorporated la Marco, 1845, arid • Mr. Wayvil
was appointed tows sleek in April, 1849, upon the
resegnatila of • person named Todd. On the oar
aka of Mr. WspriPs eppointment a committee of
the tows sawn was formed, ley the purpose of
aseeffelaireg what ought to be the eatery of the town curt
and what were tbe duties of the officer. A report was accor-
dingly wade by the committee. At the time when Mr.
Werra became town clerk, the COT pration was is a state of
pecuniary difficulties bons the difficulty of making a rate.
It became net-weary to raise a sum of 2,0001. and upwards
for certain local purposes, and this they proceeded to do by a
borough rate, based open the ropolution of the town council.
Accordingly. the mayor of Halifax issued a warrsnt to the
overmans of Halifax to levy a rate, and also to the overseers
of North sad Booth Aroma, two outlying tewaskips. The
mosey was raised of these two townships, out when the war-
rant wee issued to the °veneers of Halifax, they on-
salted Mr. llolrayde, a solicitor who had bees a rival ear
&date with Mr. Ward for the office of town clerk. Mr.
Holroyde informed the overseers that the warrant was
defective is point of form, and advised them sot to obey it.
It was then teceseary to consult counsel en the put of the
corporation, sad Mr. Wardl was instructed to take that
step, and alto to attend a.oonforenet, which was to be held in
London. The tows council resolved fully to empower the
limes committee to take all such necessary steps as they
might deem 'triton% to enforce the payment of the borough
rate. I. November the general elections took plate under the
Mosier* Corporsions Mt, and the new mayor and town
museti adopted the resolution of their predecessors in of
whisk related to the enforcing of the rate. The question
now was whether Mr. Woe vil eat entitled to charge as a
solisitee for what he had done on behalf of the corporation,
or whether he had a right to any additional remoaeration
beyond his misty as town clerk, which war 2501. per annum.
Oa Saturday last, the Bolitor-Cieseral, Mr. Cowling, and
Mr. Atherton wove heard on behalf of the town council, and
then wood that the bushier which Kr. Wayvil had trans •
acted la preventing litigation between the corporation and
the overseers of Halifax was not a part of the ordinary duty
of town dark, sad he war therefore entitled to make an extra
&ergs as an attorney.
Mr. Peacock, Q.C., en behalf of Mr. Nara, today con-
tended that it was not possible to dollen the claim of Mr.
Wayvil by saying that the huffier, which he bad dose was
severed by his salary of 2501. per annum. The duties which
he had discharged, in settling the dispute between the corpo-
ration of Halifax and the overseers, could not be said to
Goose 'rabbi the duties of a tows clerk, as ereilied by the
6th & Bth of William IV.. cap. 76, me. 9. The lose of time
sad expose. incurred by Mr. Wayvil could net be satisfied
by his Wary, because it wee impossible to my what amount,
inuring for the corporation is • ease like the one for educe
M *bawd, his expenses might have easeaded Is.
air Ir. Thalia, on behalf of the menses, sad ratepayers
of Naha, submitted that the aide, of the lasses sem.
mines of the taws myself aught to be qua* as there had
act bees a make sweetmeat of a ',drakes' adviser
M do sees eseaaLL, la sash a ~was at Is entitle
aria la mama Amp for the menial els silasarry. Bat,
=VMere lad best s molar appellants* of a tali.
. Warta had eons/ to de as Mims whisk he
asts asught t• imp kr, ia tole abassulut ef cwt els*, the
tam er whisk saes was MK 6*i:ll:WM et Um
mews= ef Eakin, be (Ilk 1. ) asserted that
wasamritare khe bamd GAL kr Kr. Wa-
in irosisain. mg ea Or mom Mr suporaiss