The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-07-23 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGRATr.

COURT OF CHANCERY, FRIDAY, Jutt 22.
The LORD CnawattAot said, al Tuesday was the seal-day
he wished it to be understeod that he would hear no motions but
those of which notice. had been previously given, and to prevent
the extension of the seal beyond the time usually allowed, he
desired it to be further understood that he would hear no motions
of which such notice bad not been so given, with the 'exception of
those in which circumstances arose that prevented the giving of

0111110Wb f. TIMDALL.
The Lost CrtawcziLoa said, the question in this ease was
whether Illegitimate children could be considered as taking under
the general description of child or children in a will ? It had been
decided in the House of Lords, in the ease of Wilkinson, that they
could not be so Considered, unless it appeared upon the face of the
will that it was the testator's intention 10 to crinsider them. and he
had expressed himself to that ,effect in various parts of the will.
In this decision of the Rouge of Lords he agreed, and would admit
of ao evidence deliver the will. Such was his opinion, and he re-
gretted that he had been obliged to form it. He had tried hard to
get rid of it,.bot he had found it Impossible consistently with the
law. In cases of this kind it was unfortunate that the heads of'
Judges could not be spoken to through their hearts ; as an indivi-
dual, no one could feel more for Illegitimate children so situated
than he did. His Lordship then adverted to some irregularities
which hail (snorted in filing the answer, and said that he would
finally give his judgment on the ease on 111onday next, when he
would treat the case as a rehearing.
BOWYS p. IITHATIIIIORZ•
MI LORDSIIIIP observed, that this was a caseof great Import-
ance, not only to the elitlties immediately interested, but to all
infant! whose property was under the protection of the Court. Is
was an appeal from the Mater of the Rolls, who had dismissed the
petition without costs, ah else pound that he had no jurisdiction,
while at the came time by so dismissing the petition, he did noel
mein to say that it was not a case for the consideration of the '
Count. It was his (the Lord Chancellor's) opinion, that if the ease I
were referred to as a case in which the Court wete asked if it had
civil jurisdiction for the purpose of compelling the parties to btingl
t back into Court the sum of 6,0001. or 0,00(1(.3 per Cent. Con:mil-
dated Anncities, the answer would be, that the Court had inch
l civil jurisdiction, but that the mode of proceeding must be by a
bill filed, and not by • petition. This, however, was not the view
he took of the case. Tile natation b2fore him was this—iYhether
if a sum of money hall Wen got out of Court by an application
made on behalf of an infast(as application in which the whole of
the circumstances had been disclosed to the Court), the Court
wouhl not have made answer, that such a mode was a mode of
`dealing with Its process which it would not permit. In a cage of
1 so much importance, it was necessary to go through a long state-
I ment of its particulars, which he would do to-morrow morning.
and would now merely state the principal circumstances out o:
which it arose. The father of this infant was entitled to a moiety
of the interest of the fund, and the brother of the Infant was e: -
tided to another moiety. But the father Of the lady had the
power of appointing the capital of his daughter to he taken by her
at such periods as he should think proper to mark out, and in order
to vest in her an absolute right, lie made an appointment which
diveited him of all interest in the fund, and her brother also made
an assignment of all his interest in the said fund. This appoint-
ment and this assignment baring been made, the infant stood abso-
lutely entitled to the fund the moment the indenture had been exe-
-1
cuted. There was then presented to the Court in het name, and
by a person who acted as her trustee by the said appointment
and assignment, a ition, praying that the money might be paid
over to her trustee, norther absolute and individual use and benefit.
But in this petition the infant 'did not appear as an infant. The
petition haring been thus presented as the petition of an adult,
although she had not then attained the age of 21, and in considers-
lion of the absolute interest In the money having become hers, the
course that was taken was this--an order was made in the case as if
there were no infant, but en adult to be considered. But although
the parties obtained this order to receive the money, they did not.
act upon It until the infant became really of age. This was the
first instance of the kind that had occurred in this Court, and he
hoped it would not again occur. It was a thing which the Court,
ought not to do, and might be a thing which, when the infant
cameo( age, it would be the last that would be done. The money,
however, was so paid over, and lent on mortgages, which on one
side it was contended, were good securities, and which on the
other side It was as.srted were no securities at all, or were im.
proper securities. This was the transaction that had been brought
About upon the petition that hail been presented to the Court.
The question before hiss was, whether, even if the Court should
not wake an order to biting back the money Into Court (on which
point h e would deliver his judgment to-morrow), the Court co uld-
rsfuse td. make such order, without taking abundant care that
cases should not be acted upon according to an arrangement of the
Court. which was in direct opposition to Its practice, and which
arrangement would not have been wade if all the circumstances et
such cases had been brought before the Court. - • -
VICE-CHANCIVAISIWURT, FRIDAY, JOLT 2.

1 such notice.

DIUNDAI AND OTREIIIi V. ITOLMERO AND °THEWS: •
It appeared that in chit case,Mr.Alex.eray, after havingacquir-
ed a large fortune in India, left the bulk of his property, 20,0001.
i 7; trust to Sir W. Dunbar, and others named in the will, for the
parpoi," of founding an Hospital at Elgin, in Scotland. Among
other legacies"; he made a bequest to his sister, Lyliaa
of the interest 0i.13,0001., of which, after her death, 4001. was to be
given to each of her e-tdelren that might be alive, and unprovided
for by marriage at the tii."o of her death. The remainder of the
money was to be given over "a the trustees of the Hospital at El-
gin. There was also another ii."(ase in the will, which it may be
material to mention, purporting, that Zalliougit his sister had made
an improvident marriage with a man who had no prospect of pro-
viding for a family, which had thus become chargeable to him, and
obliged him to remain in India ten years longer titan he originally
intetided, yet he bequeathed her an ample provision ' • but that her
children might not, in their turn, bocnme the prey of unprincipled
men, he only 1.41 them 4001. each. - 'Upon the testator's death the
, money was paid into Court, and the interest made over to Mn.
Williamson, and since her death an order had been obtained from
his Honour, directing the Master to invire who were the persons
entitled to the 4001. fhe Master had mad* his report, by which
he derided t hat a son of lira. Williamson, a married daughter,
and another a widow, with a provision left her of 901. were ex.
eluded from the legacy by the mesisinig of the testator's will. Three
ether unmarried daughters, he declared, entitled to receive the
4001. legacy. The case now came onto be heard on exceptions to
the Master's report.
Mr. Ho tort was now heard on the exceptions. The construction
put on the will by the 311 liter, he contended, was erroneous. The
Master thought that the testators meant by " provided for by mar.
nage" the simple tact of marriage. But he (Mr. Home) must con.
tend, that a simple marriage was nota provision ; for if it was the
niece was here badly provided for, as she bad married a man in re-
duced circumstances. It was also clear that the testator himself
did not consider the mere marriage a provision ; for although his
sister was married it was clear he did not consider her as provided
for, by his having left her the interest of 60001.
His lloactua said, he thought the only points of difficulty
I regarded the widow, and perhaps the son, though he certainly
I thought that the will was only meant to apply to daughters.
' 31r. SUODE X, fur the trusteed, contended that the tact of mar--
rlage was sufficient to exclude thajn front the benefit of the testa.
tor's will; for the danger " of falling a prey to unprincipled men"
• could not apply to married women, and it seemed, upon that con-
elderation, that the testator meant, if there was any meaning, to be-
queath the 4001. It was quite clear that it could not mean to in-
, elude the eon, for he was in no danger of falling a prey to un.
principled men ; besides which, he was married at the time of his
• mother's death, and what was more, enjoyed considerable property
belonging to his wife. He (Mr. Sugden) should, therefore, hope
that his Honour would confirm the Master's report.
Mr. ROM ILLY followed on the same side, and instanced the
r cases in 3d Veaev, 461. and 7th Vesey, 436, where it had been
decided that the word unmarried meant a person never having
been married. He, therefore, submitted that the widow could not
claim.
I MI 110X0U11, was clearly of opinion that daughters only were
I meant by the testator to he included in the bequest. The only
I luestion was as to-the widow. lie agreed with the CARS referred
to, that unmarried meant Dever having been married ; but he still
thought that the testator considered a woman not having a husband
as exposed to the danger of becoming a prey to unprincipled men,
• sod thrrefure the widow was entitled ta the legacy. The excePa
none respecting the other parties were overruled.