The Sun.
London, England, 1855-06-01 00:00:00

YOB (TILLS DAY).

LAW INTEL

COURT OF CIIANCERY.
The Lord Chancellor and the Lords Justices of Appeal
sat to day for the purpose ol` hearing appeals.
TENCH v. CHErSE.
Mr. Follett replied to-day on the case which came be-
fore their lordships on Tuesday upon an appeal from the
judgment of the Master of the Ro,ll9,.given in November
last, The pricipal question in this' ease was whether the
trusts for accumulation contained in the will of a persoa
named Sherburne were void under the Tbelluson
Act.
In 1831, Sherburne, who was entitled on reversion in
fee to certain property, made his will, by which be left
that property to trustees to pay out of the accumula-
tions and savings, to Mary Parry Archibad, then Miss
Stephens, an annuity of 5001. for her life. The will thee
weat on in the following terms—" And all the
rest,
,residue, and remainder of my real and personal
i estate, with the accumulations thereof, upon trust
for the eldest son of Mary Parry Archibald
upon her attaining 21, he takin g the name of Sherburne,
and if there should be no'son of Mary parry Archbald,
then upon trust for the eldest daughter ; and in cad,
there should be no child or children of Mary fiturY
Archibald who attained 21, or should die leaving
erson'
lawful
estate, and the accumulaon of any of the rents, dividend
issue, then as to the whole of my ,
and income thereof, subjetict and without prejudice, uPen
Walter
trust for Edward Bevan Tench, the second son of
the
d
said real an p
Tench, of Cainharn, in the county of Salop, be taking
name of Sherburne absolutely." The testator, by
5 cedt,
oil, substituted John Sherburne Tench, the third eon 01
Walter Tench, in the place of his brother, to be the first
taker of the estates and accumulations, on his
t°
arts
of sber
the age of 25, and taking the name
burne, the codicil afterwards giving the Whole
Edward Bevan Tench, in case John Sherburne lenl:h
1835 without issue, and Mary Parry
should die without leaving issue. The testator died 10
annuitant, was still liVing without issue. The snit w°,,
instituted by Edward Bevan Tench and John Sberbf rililia
Tench, the heir-at-law, and one of the next of kin of the
testator claiming the accumulations, under bin wilin;tlei
a period of 21 years from his death. The Mester
beyond ,7.
Rolls was of opinion that the accumulations s a
years were not within the provisions of the Theliti °ld
Archibald, the
Act, and that they must go on until some person shale.
have acquired a vested interest in possession of th
psiclautewdaisspborsoeudgohft.. From this decision the Preselit al).
t the
conclusion of Mr. Follett's reply, gave judgment
The Lord Chancellor and the Lords Justices, 3 or
ing the decision of the Master of the Rolls, revell .
and allow!
og
the appeal, at the same time ordering the CaSO
tO stand the
the paper of the Lordhs
minutes Justices
of the on Friday caret,
for d 11
purpose of having t e
their lordships. decree settle

ROLLS COURT.
HONETMAN V. MAERTATT.--JIIDOMESS.
His Honour, the Master of the Rolls, PO • e
itolgteipene,
oinpothnisacase, which came before him a short ti°lll3B,
by
the
demurrer put in by the defendant to the bill filed
ea
plaintiff for the specific performance of so alleged
scuontraect to sell to the plaintiff a mansion, and 15:0$10:0s/;
Therrounding it, at Wimbledon, for the silo of
one
balleged contract consisted of two letter, l'll Ae.
by the agent of the plaintiff to the agent of thei•to
ftehnedan , and the other by the agent of the dePdelliair
ofgent of the plaintiff, the former stating the we11,,a0003
nofessethe plaintiff to purchase the propertY ht
IP'. the
25,0001., and the other accepting the offer, 013°Ilia be
cenditions that the terms of the contract 011°11,„t
arranged between the solicitors of both parties, t1;01
depositthe
oof 1,500/. should be paid in specified tiloe'mril
contract coriclrided altogether by the 201):°fa. Blame
lwaasts.
ask Negotiations took place between the Por'''e-ntract,
asked and given for the completion of the ec/''s 00$
and on the part of the plaintiff the stiPulti°l3defer
having been performed, notice was given by 0.4 pOt
dant
to the plaintiff that, if those stipulationa Were
complied with by a day named, he should 4%00
theto
ocontract at an end, and should intrust bieth asi
put the property up again for sale. On "-001/
named the deposit money was not aid, but ° fell el
refue,a
afterwardsto
ob it was tendered to the dPefendant, oildrato,,-
received by him. In this state of circt-aacc of
thethe cpelaintiff filed his bill for the specific perfor7 , de'
murroentraet, and to that bill the defendant Putdreefi est
r on the ground that there had been 0 4 a litllAt'
concluded between him-,elf and the plaintiff, l'e cll4lll
even if there had, he had broken its stipnlati°4°,:forar
not, therefore, entitled to a decree for a speci6cuPl to til
once. His ,
lHonour,ear pe afterienni
egtehotieen ghpeaarttthsi
parties,
tmne
01 eadoggrto:erw'ev delvedt. t.eto;
ebaeseen, statedconc hdiesdc
bet
wo
demurrer to be allowed. The effect of thisan decisi°lll'
put the plaintiff's bill out of court.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCIS. obeli,
(Sittings in Banco, before Lord Chief Justice C°3:l P.
Mr. Justice Coleridge, Mr. Justice Srlei Al)
Justice Crompton.)
ao
of Theircaooatliso nloontrod
terhhoeicpossvageurai vnoegn jeou.ffdotmuhreetnhsthoii in
fp
tthis
frce
fags
le, /Pi :
cos
~,:toool,(_,Ocaw:g:
THOMYSON AND OTHERS V. GILLESPY---.—ahich ' °,,
less 5 per e°l/". tli.
mission and the insurance. The 'defence we' th„afjer b°
freight had not become payable, and the questi°'iled cill
decisionch
case
sre
voyage.in oofut
rh emlCtoonwudiraltlywb,
sea simw
that the vessel in
Sunderland, thence to proceed to 00nstet`r° at 000
question
phree recollectedtshsloieorandehdtweh
haas
etiiiw: el
i.hg: bid
elp;oo3grepto6iii(l,lo:::: il
orders, and deliver her cargo either there..leti iv b„eirl
other-port in the Black Sea—that having't: iaelt° -,,
cargo she moved out into the roadstead ...ii,ociiir
atant, take her crew on board and have the b,41 „tie 0 gil:t
signed, anl before these things could be ""0, toccera
sprung. up and she was lost, with all the °re 'peat'
one man. At the trial the learned illtendoet °:
the jury to find a verdict for the de'-fseelit -°
the
eer
pgoroeu charternadb
potvaherat
yt , t
buthe
stated. shipmThove hadierdi
oior
lordships
tbtihpossari loeadd s Pt; ," .
of notri
re the;ciisad tbvw.7 bo tobee
concurred in the opinion of the learned jedge a for t
the case, and therefore the verdict must 03°
,
defendant, and the rule be discharged' ~, 30°1
DOWELL V. THE GENERAL STEAM NAVIGATI°`. C°
'O6
JUDGMENT.
fondantw This
as a n case,fo which has already been tried t.bsrestettbie 'doe;
actionrthe
rberooouvgerhitogbyoftchieanfalgaintiff A 440010
of his collier by the defendants' steaeras fe:rit'ell::etpbpel;fujecifis
Light, and again carne'before the court °Il au tiff, Tftbe
for a rule to enter the verdict for the Ple'enfote ° well
lordships, after minutely recapitulating thticos, 0 to
case, and rgferring to the Admiralty reg°l3 id, bf left
as the elaborate exposition of the law to the
tiiestioe9
id
learned judge who tried the case, and the
1 role 012°
to them for their decision, directed tbat tb ,
be made absolute. . 1 Jodi
0°
(Before Mr. Justice Wightman and a°P aOP
BRAY V. BRAIN. ~.., and ~,,r,
Mr. James, Q.C., Mr. Brarawell, (2,t1,6, Teieb-
,l Sir '''
Hawkins appeared for the plaintiff, an- cifil
Q.C., and Mr: Gorth for the defendant. laintifti,'6 00/4
This was an action brought by the
„pi) 0' to e%;
engineer, to recover of the defendant Olio, c.orpose ,ci
and a'further sum of 611. odd for time, leiv,,,a Putio, liela
ploring certain ports of AllaoriCS for I% pla:ie t woe ,1
As the question turned on the skill °f lee objec
to 0,11
a variety of reports with reference te4 °pin iriiej
have to be contrasted with the be
a, wbie JogePbs
as a number of witnesses several be co311113ectolora.:00700,t),°011
pbryosbairbirli.tyT,hwesoiugledr olcautptyheroostodasta_bitratiotiow.
adopted would be to refer the case to !,`_`., the l'''
was agreed to by the learn`nnsel for
ad
-e,QUEO' roP,
COURT OF EXCII.i, b. fOa
(Sittings in Banco, before the Lord c
_arletin.)
AO
ot t° 00
Barons Alderson, Platt, and ...31
LAMONT V. BLUINSFISLP%efevaiI to filie_,
behalf of the ° ~iff er' 'i
Mr. Jones appeared on .1 o plai toga .0 o
the Court for a rule calling liPee t ' ~ iuterf 9 I,' pill
cause why he should not answer certadiorser o f tbe v,
The declaration was made by tat, etniiediesecheeatdlittiprtiioos
exchange against the acceptor,
was to show that the defendant ",,sci tba theintereoge",oo)
t towelieenv
extract
took the bill without consideration.. IL iii„l (7,., vitino
the drawer and acceptor, e' rebe ir, Jo.. to
proposedeirryot onir administeredebateshoenpablaiien ti
plaintiff
the scei:mAeru.:l:isurfateie e:ittiet::cieje r:ii,lejeee:
seheainndgs.thecttu:::eicvetso
I..P:abltr_votio;
the bill came into his
made by the defendant, which wiliseberge".ooe, °;000
stances under which the bill was des
couserliA witii‘r too
the drawer and the accepter. '-1-.l.'id be that oter,. ,
fusing these interrogatories wei."i'verpeol torie;totio
would have to be brought from -'-'
4. from
the interViir° tl:riel'ttici
questions proposed to be Pe-
~.,,,,,ation, tbae nes.e
In the course of some con v-_. 0 less
_0 sagrber,
raid he perceived that there were Chief )33.,.0 rorvii,.
two interrogatories, and the Lordiiod reaucecio' pr o 0 001:
that these should be simplifie l'_.,, of 13ar?ould bile ce°,
Finally, on the recorarrendatorogP3._..iO3 sue. to tt
0.00
It was agreed that the intertir . . tur'eforrbne bee v
plified, and that the caseChambers u.
„se, ,
sideration of a Sedge in
I to be adopted.

ti/
Nbl
LEWIS V. .10051 000,, oie 0
silos
Mr. WelsLy applied for a rule Dot Oho to
High Sheriff of Montgomery sf norDeintg:s
imm of money—about 10/.--for tr;eceivi3s
of a house, out of moneys be 1355
seeds of ranted.execution.
Rule g

,