The Sun.
London, England, 1855-07-13 00:00:00

LAW" /NTELITGENO.P..-(TILTS DAY).

(BE-forc.,. file Lords J,,ustices of Appeal.)
IN RE LAN:I3IEAD'S TRUSTS.--JUDGMENT.

The Lords Just ces ge ,re judgment thii morning cn
this case, whicl, ea: ae before them upon appeal from the
decision of the 3,1 aster of the Rolls, approving of an
agreement that ]lad 'bean entered into among the parties,
who had carried on the business of brewere, for tho final
settlement of all Faits and subjects in contest. Their
lordships agreed. -win the deel ion of the Court below,
and ordered the appall to '.oe discharged with costs.
The Court the at proceeded to hear lunatic petitions.

IN RE FERGUS OeCOIT..NOR, LATE M.P. FOR NOTTINGHAM,

A LUNATIC i—Tral NATIONAL LAND COMPANY.

This was a p etition presented by parties who are the
purchasers of Tart of ?,and in Worcestershire, which had
been conveyed to Mr. O'Connor, during the existence of
the scheme for the fo:.nnation of the National Land Com•
parry, and the object of the petition was, that by the
order of the Corjt Vac) official manager of the National
Land Company inight be ordered to convey the estate
to the petitione rs in the place of Mr. O'Connor.
The Lord istice Turner inquired whether a con.-
mitteo had been appointed of the person and estate of
the lunatic I

The counsel for the petitioner stated that no such ap-
pointment hal taken place, and that such was the pre-
carious state of Mr. O'Connor's health that it was very
doubtful if ever, a committee would be appointed.
Their lords'aips made the order as prayed, and
directed the costs to be paid out of the estate of the
National Larad Company, and not out of the private
estate of Mr, O'Connor, the lunatic.

ROLLS COURT.
SMITH V. ARMSTRONG.-JUDGMENT.

The lraAer of the Rolls gave judgment this morning
in this case, which came before him a short time since
upon motion, and also on the certificate of the chief
c'erk. Tlie question in the case was what were the
intentions of the testator in the cause, Mr. Jas. Arm-
strong, when he used the following words in his will :
" I forgive my nephew, Jacob Appleford, the debt of
2,0001., money lent him ; and I also forgive him the
principal sum of 2501., for which I held two bills from
him." The testator had been in partnership with the
plaintiff, Smith, and upon his retiring his nephew, Jacob
Appleford, joined the firm, to whom the testator lent
7,0001., in order to enable them to carry on the
concern with vigour. Of that 7,0001. 1,0001. was paid
off, the debt due therefore to the estato of the testator
was 6,0001. Smith's interest in the partnership was
two-thirds, and Jacob Appleford's one-third ; and the
principal question in the case was, whether as his
nephew's debt to him from the partnership, according to
his share in it being 2,0001., he intended to exonerate
him from that debt or to make him an absolute gift of
2,000/, His Honour was of opinion that the words of
the will made the 2,0001. an absolute gift, which
the testator could not recall, and that his intention was
that his nephew should be excused from paying his part
of the 6,0001. The certificate, therefore, of the Chief
Clerk must be affirmed, and a decree made to that effect,
without costs.

(Before Vice-Chancellor Wood.)
RIDER V. WOOD.--JUDGMENT.

His honour gate judgment in this case, in which the
principal question was whether a decree of copyhold
was good. The court held that it was, and decreed ac-
cordingly.

MARKET NEWS.-(THIS DAY.)