The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-07-10 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGEA'CE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, FRIDAY, JrLv

SAUNDERS V. SAUNDERS.
The LORD CHANCEI.t.ox entered the 11811 at twenty minutes
past eleven, arid proceed+ d to quote decided cases and other au-
thorities illustrative of the principles and reasons on which his
Lordship had granted a writ of assistance to lilt. lAwatt nn 'Weil-
yesday last. His lordship thcn entered into an hianncal druid of
executive writs of the Chart of ('hancery, and concluded by statioq
his decided opinion) that the motion for the writ of assistance ought
to be granted. _

BARRER AND WILAV.--.APTFAL.
His Lonrstor then proceeded to pronounce his jittlganent in
this case, declaring it to he the most important he had ever tnet.
'fhe grounds of the suit in litigation were briefly these :—Mr.
Edmund Henry Wray, of the county of York, niade a will in
the year 170, by which he devised the greater part of his estates
,o his nephew, Edmund Barker, sod his heirs male; and in default
of such male issue of Edmund Barker, to Edinoed's brothars in
seeeession ; first to Henry, then to Thomas, next to Frank ; anti
in default of male issue by them, the estate was to revert to the
testa or's cousin, the Rev. T. Barker, of Cherry Burton. and hie
heirs in tail male. 'l'he four brothers died without male issue.
The plaintiff' in the case at present is the grandson of the Rev.
Thomas Barker. The defendants are two ladies daughters of
B,imund Barker, the eldest of the four brothers. The plaintiff
e :inlet! the estates by virtue of the provision of the will, as sole
lair male of the testator. The defendants objected to his claim
that his (the plaintiff's father) was ; that conrequently
the plainulf is not the' :nala heir; and that the estates ought
to revert :o them, the legititnate co-heiresses of Edmund Bather.
v:to I,lls the heir at law of toe testator, Edmund Wray. The
.ineuion bahte the Court was, whether the plaintiff was entitled.
his claims, to the disputed inheritance 2 'rile will ender which
the claimed rite estates having been led, the proota on
both rides consisted principally of oral evidence and traditional
reiftratvin. Uhe case: made its first appearance in the Court of
CM,^r• r 7 in the year 1810, and was roma:ea up to the present
slat. b, Cie process of fiiing bills sad answ.rs on both sides, con-
ti ti-c usual contradictions and counter statements. The V ie.:-
Chainceilnr at length made a decree. die .ct int; two issues to he tried
at comremt leer b.. fore a jury. The first issue was. h.:her the
Thintiff's father was the legitimate son of the Rev Thomas liar.
key ? and secondly, 'bother the plaintiff was entitled to the eststca
as heir male under the will of the testator ? On every consideratioa
of the ease, his Lordship decided that these were not the issues
ulti h oug to be tried, or at least not the only immes. The V ice-
Chineellor ought tint to lnive taken it for granted that the testator's
wi I, which the plaintiff alleged the defendant's to hare destroyed,
was ever in existence. The proper hams ought to have been—first,
cad to try the fart expressly, whether Edmund Henry, Barker.
uncle to the defendants, had fraudulently secreted or t.estritvei
srich a will? and the second, whether the plaintiff was the legai.
tirtie heir male to the testator's estates, tinder that will so destroyed ?
IThe it3D:l then sitir,.ll be altered, and his Lordship should du that
woh his orm hand.
Vice-t:hancellnr's decree reversed.
After his Lordship had ceased,
Dlr. H worn was pmaatding to make sonic observations in rather
a dec,,iye manner, when
The LORD ( 11140:CELT.OR smilingly said—Mr. Health. 1 ti3Tr.
1111' you'll be a Judge yourself one of those days; and if you
don't use more hesitation in declaring your opinions than you now
do. I tell You you'll make a very bad one.
Itlr. II faun— l'erhaiis so, my Isord ; very few Jnalges sit judi-
cially on eases in which they have pleaded as lounarl.
The Luau CHANCULLOA—I don't know that either, 31r.
Nee:.'.