The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-08-02 00:00:00

STATE OF THE COLLIERIES.

(From the iliraneehers Careful
FURTHER PARTICULARS.
We last week stated that the colliers around Tipton and
Dudley hail generally refused to work et the reduced wages
agreed upon by their employers, and had withdrawn them-
selves from the pits. The coal masters met zt Dudley on
Thursday last, and caine to a resolution " firmly to ad-
here" to the reduction of which they had given notice, and
l)ich they hold to be " imperatively atecessaty. A de-'
aeration to that effect appears in this paper, with the signa-
tures of the principal firms in the trade. The employers
and colliers ale thus unfortunately at direct issue, and the
ill el., though none quiet, ire, we believe, wholly idle.
On the morning of Thursday a disposition to turbulency
ahli mischief was manifested by a number of the men in
die neighbourhood of West Bromwich and Wednesbury,
and in consequence the Himley troop of yeomanry, under
Major Hawke!, was marched to the spat; and the crowd
refusing to disperse, upon being remonstrated with by that
1-,eittleman, it was thought necessary to read the Riot Act,
which was done amidst the shouts of the colliers, followed
uy a shower of stune3, &c., by one of which, we are sorry
to hear, Major Hawke' was struck in the face, though not
seriously hurt ; some of the yeomanry were also slightly
wounded. They, however. displayed die utmost patience
and forhearance, and at the expiration of the hour the
ground was cleared without injury, as far as we can aster-
lain, to any of the crowd. Several prisoners were captured
by the a:listable& in attendance, and secured.
The continued assemblages of the colliers induced the
civil authorities t ) require the presence of further military
an', and a detachment from the Dragoon Guards stationed
at our barracks, proceeded early on Friday morning to
Tipton, where they remained during the day ; but their
assistance not being required, they did not show them-
selves, and the troop returned in the evening. Two com-
panies of the 32d foot, which halted at IVolverhampton on
the T hursda y, were despatched thence towards Wednesbury
on the evening of that day, to aid the civil power in the
preservation of peace; on their arrival, however, they
found that all was quiet, and soon returned to their
quarters.
A number of colliers are to be seen in our streets solicit-
ing contributions ; but we do not find that they excite corn-
thieerailott, and they will no doubt soon tire of so preca-
riJus a mode of subsistence.

A young man, named Barclay, walked about 105 mires
in legs than twenty-four hours, on Whitby Pier. Ile
limn on Monday night, at seven o'clock, and continued
until five minutes to seven on Tuesday night. lie went
fifteeeti miles of the distance backward-way.
The wreck of the Comet now stands dry at low water,
and a considerable part of the machinery is removed. Vi-
sitors are anxious to get some article or ether as a keepsake.
A gentleman at Glasgow got a ilett•-horn, which is curiously
studded with a number of email white limpets that adhered
to it while in the water. If the wreck be abandoned as
useless, it is very probable that it will soon be demolished
and carried off, and a snuff-box made of the wood of the
Gomel will be as much prized as those made of Alloway
Lae, Queen Mary's yew, or the rafters of the Glasgow
catbedral.—Glargow Journal.

LAW NOTICES.

COURT OP CHANCERY.
lINVORt TII LORD CIANCI• LOR. IN LINCOLN'S INN ■ALL. TAIL DAT.

AT TOO.
Remaining Notions.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
•ZFOSI THS TICS-CDANCSLLOIL, IV LINCOLN'S INN, TM/ DAY, AT
_ _

RALF-PAST
Bankrupt Pet;Gone.
Esparto Milroy re Barlow I Esparta Hall re ITadwin.
Petition• to Stay or Allow Bankrupt Certificates.
Bailey v. Dalrymple Wilcoson v. Birch I Wilbraham v. Greenup
Collins v. Forbes I Hon bank v. Heater
Putter v. Birch Meaburn v. Deacon
Petitions to Supersede Commissions on Ground of Concert.
illshiun v. Houton ilooton v. Houton I Lett v. Eyles
Binches v. Heaton Brainy v. Dimock Hudson v. Clarke.
Petitions to Supersede Commissions on the Ground cf Legal Invalidity.
Fitch v. Edwards Stonehouse v. Gregory I Hubbard v. Hubbard.
Webster v. Gregory I Harper v. Harper

PREROGATIVE COURT.
RIVORR SIR JODY NICUOL—THIS DAT AT TIN.
CAVEAT DAY.—Wednesday, August 2.

LAW IN7'ELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, TUESDAY, AVOCET 1.
WELT.MAN V. BOWIRING.
The Loan CHANCELLOR took ids seat at half-past ten o'clock,
antkproceeded to deliver himself of this case, to the following effect:
—This was an appeal brought by a gentleman of the name of Boo-
ting (the old gentleman who, a few days ago, personally asked the
Court fcr judgment) against a decree made by the Vice-Chancellor,
under the d:curnstances to he described. In the year 1764 a person
of the name of Joseph Bryant and Elie. W ellman were each abso-
lutely cradled to a distinct and separate copyhold estate. In con-
templation of a marriage between them, they agreed that the estates
should be limited to their children, if they had any ; and if none.
that they should go in a certain manner to their executors or admi-
nistrators. The bill stated that there was no appointment made by
the husband, who died first. It went on to state the descent from
him till it pointed out thAt the present defendant. Joseph Bowring.
Was his heir at law. The wife took after the husband's death, as
his administratrix ; and before she died in the year 1803, she made
a surrender, and named her brothers as the persons who were to be
admitted, but who, in point of fact, never were admitted to the es-
tutus. Here was an ejectment brought, and upon that trial the heir
at law of the husband recovered the estates. He recovered on the
ground that the legal estate not having been possessed by admit-
tance, would descend to him. The question then arose, whether
he was to be considered in any other way titan in possession of the
legal estates a trustee, under the effect of the marriage settlement ?
The bill was filed for the purpose of having it declared that, under
the circumstances ot this case, although there was no admittance upon I
toe surrender, yet that the estate in equity would have to be contd.
dual as bourd by Site marriage agreement ; and that being sup-
posed to be hound by the agreement, it was insisted that the wife,
being adininistratrix, took the estate tinder the uses declared in the
deed, in case there was no appointment nor any child. Then an-
other question arose, naniely, if she did so take it, what was the
effect of that, according to the castom of the manor, upon this agree-
ment ? The lielr at law contended, that, according to the custom
of the manor, he was entitled.; and in support of this he produced
the customs. And the quest.on for the decision of the Court' was,
whether this was an estate, under the efil!ct of the marriage settle-
ment, which ought to go as the law had given it, by force of the
ejectment that was tried ; or whether, on the other hand, though
the heir at law had recovered, he was not bound to make
good the agreement that the parties bad made upon their marriage ?
That depended upon this, whether the custom of the 'manor (which
the Court thought nobody could 1.7.0ubt) authorized the husband to
convey to two persons. or to one person, describing that individual
as executor or administrator; and secondly, if it did, what was the
natur e of the interest a person so described took under such a de-
scription in copyhold estate? It was contended, on the part of the
hAr at law, that such a limitation as might be supposed wonld bar
him could not be made; or, if it could. and he was to be considered
as having recovered as a trus:ee, that he was the trustee for the
next of kin himself. On the other hand, it was argued, that if
the executor or administrator took, he took for his own benefit.
And thirdly, if he took as executor, what he did take would have
to be considered as the personal estate of the testator. The Vice-
Chancellor was of opinion that Elizabeth Bryant, as adminis-
tratrix of her husband, was entitled to the absolute estate and in-
terest In the copyhold premises, according to the custom of the
manor, either beneficially, or as trustee for the next of kin of
Josh. Bryant ; therefore he declared her to be entitled to the equit-
able fie of the premises, called upon the heir at law to surrender
to her, and referred it to the Master, to inquire who were the heirs
at law (they not being all before the Conti) in order to agitate the
question with them, whether she took beneficially or as trustee for
the next of kin of her husband. Now, the first question to be dis-
posed of by his Lerdship was, whether the settlement, regard being
had to its ultimate limitation, was a settlement this Court would
carry into effect ? That is, whether the execrator or administrator
could be said to be within the consideration of the marriage settle-
rr,nt, or was he to be looked upon as a volunteer and stranger,
where there were limitations to first and second children, &c. ?
His Lordship had struggled hard to determine it, by making a de-
cree for the heir at law ; but upon the best consideration he could
give to the case, he was b*und to say, this was an equitable agree-
ment that the Court would order to be carried pito execution.
Where there was an estate in a gentleman, another in a lady, and,
where those two were about to intermarry, he •dould not see why
they should not agree that those estates should be considered as per-
son .11 estates ; and where they did so, he could not look upon them
as part of the settlement that was voluntary, because either the bus.
band or the wife would be the survivor, and as copyhold estate
could at any time be converted into personal estate, provided only
a tenant was given to the Lord of the Manor. As to the question
(tire limitation being not to persons by name, but by office) whether
the wife in taking as administratrix, took for her own benefit or
not ? the Court was of opinion that the meaning of the settlement
was, that the administrator or executor should take the copyhold
es ate, converting it into personal estate, notalts a voluntary pro-
vision, but as claiming an absolute and beneficai al interest
in it. The duty of the Court therefore was to ereecra°ren, which it
did, that the Decree made by his Honour the Vice-Chancellor

was right.
By this decision the old gentleman, who has been for a long
time an aucndant in Court, and so anxious to get judgment, itt
abut out.

COVENT-GARDEN THEATRE.
CONST HARRIS.
LORD CHANCELLOR—OentIemen, I have seen the Masters in
the care of Canal against Harris. We had it stated here yesterday,
and really I had myself so understood it, and I do now so under-
stand it, that where a Receiver has been appointed by an interlocu-
tory order prior to a decree being pronounced, and afterwards
decree is made, that that decree, carrying over generally most inter-
locutory orders, carries over the order, and abates the Receiver into
the office of the new Master. In the present case, as I understood
the matter from some part of the Bar yesterday, and as I really un-
derstand it myself, but I am now undeceived in that respect, I
thought it carried it over to the new Master under the decree,
exactly in the state in which tt stood in the office of the Master,
who had it immediately before that decree was made. I thought I
hail a recollection, and I still think I have a recollection, that ac-
cording to the old practiceehough it carried over the accounts to the
Master's office, in order that they might be ceirried over in the same
state in which they were in the former Master's office, either that
decree itself had luguage, or, which was the more usual way, it
wus accompanied with an order that the Master should not unsettle
any thing that had been done in the former Master's office. It ap.
pears, that after the decree was made in this case, as the Master
has stated to me, both parties attended him ; that he had himself
decided all the disputed items, and was ready to make his report,
but that the decision upon those disputed items was not embodied
in any report actually made and signed. The decree occasioned
the difficulty Well caused the application to be made to the Vice-
chancellor for an order upon Master Cross, calling upon him to
deliver over the papers in his office to another Master, and upon
which he was pleased to say, he considered the practice so clear
that Master Cross should deliver them over, that lie should make
no order upon it. Now, upon looking at the decree, it is a decree
made in a form itt which, as far as my poor recollection goes, I
never saw a decree before ; it directs the matters to be referred to
the Master, and then, "that Mr. Robertson, the Receiver, should
be continued. And It was ordered, mat he should continue to act
under the directions of the order made in this cause on the 8,11 De-
cember, 182.5." Now from this it seems to have been understood at
first by both parties, as I confess it would have been under-
stood by me, that the order of the Bth of December, 1825, was an
order, by which I had referred it to Master Cross to take all those
accounts, and the receiver to pass his accounts ; and that the decree
ordered the receiver to act under that order or the Bth of December.
I should have supposed that this decree was not intended to carry
the accounts over to the new Master; but, upon stating to the Vice-
Chancellor the difficulty that arose from the wording of it, he
thought 3t so extremely clear that he would not add any explana-
tory words to it. The consequence of that is. that I have found
myself totally mistaken as to the practice upon this point. Master
Dowdeswell assured me, in the presence of Master Cross, that it
the papers are to be delivered over to him front Master Cross. and
which I think cannot be done without an order, because I think the
Master entitled to have in his office some document ate hot izing him
to part with the papers, though merely for the sake of form ; but
Master Cross not heeling signed his report, but only gone through
the items in a loose way, Master Dowileswell is of opinion that he
cannot interfere ; and that is stated to me to be the practice in the
office, unless under some special authority co to 11[0, inasmuch as
the signing of that report would carry the testimonial of Master
Dowdeewell, and not of Muter Cross, though the former Master
could know nothing of the Items. Therefore, without some special
directions, Master DI owdeswell cannot intertere,unless he goes over
again the whole of what has been done. As this is the practice, I
am very glad to have been infomnd of it, because some order must
be nude to prevent the suitor from having to go through all the
proceedings upon taking the accounts in the Master's office, under
an Interlocutory order, and then through the same proceedings
again under a decree. The question, therefore, here is, whether
some order should not be made in this ease, calling on Master Cross
to conclude his repast according to the interpretation to be put upon
L this decree; and then, with respect to the next account, that Master
Dowdeswell should proceed with It ? I think there will be no in-
, justice in that, and I shall tell you to-morrow what order I
shill make. Rut It's a terrible thing for a suitor to have it said,
that after a Master has settled all disputed items, both parties ha,.
pig attended him, that the whole should have to be gone through