The Sun.
London, England, 1855-02-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Feb. 17.

CHANCERY COURTS.

Mr.- Bacon and Mr. Currie, for Mr. Stordy, the sur-
viving devisee in trust, submitted that the trust in favour
of an alien was one which this cot.rt vould not exe-
cute, and that at all events the trust was so uncer-
tain as to be void, or that this court would not in a
case of such uncertainty direct a conveyance to any
party, but would leave the beneficial interest in the
trustee.

Mr. Wigram and Mr. C. Hall appeared for Mr.
Thomas Harrison. of Philadelphia, the claimant, and
submitted that it bad only been found by the Master in
respect to him that he was born at Philadelphia, where
he was a manufacturing chemist, and that he was a
citizen of the United States. It was quite consistent
with the finding of the Master, that he should also be a
British subject. Tke declaration of independence was in
1776 ; the treaty acknowledging the independence was
in 1783. This treaty was referred to, and it was said
that, although the grandfather, the brother of the tes-
tator, continued to reside in America, there was no evi•
derce that he had thrown off his allegiance.to the crown
:of England ; and John Harrison, his son, being an in-
fant, was incompetent to do so, and his mere continu-
ance to reside in America was not throwing off his alle-
giance ; and if that were se, then the Thomas Harrison,
the present plaintiff, being the .son of a person owing
allegiance to the crown of England, was himself no alien,
and, therefore, entitled to have the estate conveyed to
him. But even if the court should hold that he were
an alien, nevertheless the title of an alien is paramount
to that of every other title, except that of the Crown ;
he might have suffered a recovery, he piney convey or
demise, and this title the court ought to recognise, leav-
ing it to the Crown, if it chose, to proceed against the
alien, whose title would, however, not determine until
office found.

Mr. Wickens, for the Attorney-General, submitted
that Thomas Harrison, the claitrant, was an alien ; that
he could have no title which did not vest in the Crown,
and that be was entitled at once to claim a conveyance
from the trustee to the Crown.
Mr. Sergeant, for the heir exparte maternft, admitted
that his client had no interest, and submitted that her
cost ought to be provided for.
Mr. Malins was beard at some length in reply.
The Vice-Chancellor said he did not intend to dispose
of the case at present, but he entered into a long review
of the facts proved anal cases cited, particularly referring
to the case of "Doe dem. Thomas v. A.udlarn," and
expressed the inclination of his present opinion to be,
that the plaintiff was entitled to have the property con-
veyed to her by way of a resulting trust. As his Ho-
nour has reserved his judgment, the statement of his
observations has been reserved till that time.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCE!".
(Before Mr. Justice Erie and Common Juries.)
WITTLESEA. V. HUTWELL—ASSATJLT AND FALSE IMPRISON-
MENT.
Mr. Pearce and Mr. Brooke appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Herne and Mr. Pearson for the defendant.
The plaintiff brought this action for an assault and
false imprisonment. The pleas put upon the record
were not guilty, and a justification of reasonable and
probable cause. In this case both the parties were
tailors, and it was agreed between them that the plain-
tiff, for a premium of two guineas, should come to the
defendant's house and give him lessons in the art of
"cutting." The defendant paid him 2s. After the
third lesson, defendant gave the plaintiff into custody
for having stolen a silver spoon—he was. taken before
a magistrate at the Lambeth Police-coUrt, and, after five
remands, the case was dismissed, and the plaintiff
brought this action for the false imprisonment.
For the defendant evidence was called to make out
this case :—After the second lesson a silver spoon was
missed. On the third lesson all the spoons but one were
locked up, but within half-an-hour of the plaintiff leav-
ing, that spoon, which had been used in the presence of
the plaintiff, was missed ; and as no one she had been
in the room, the defendant believed the plaintiff must
have taken the spoon, and therefore gave him into Cus-
tody.

The learned judge said the question for the jury was,
whether they believed the defendant acted upon a rea-
sonable ground that the plaintiff had committed the
felony.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.
IN RE EDWARD CHABERT.
This insolvent, one of the Italian Brothers, known as
" Edward Bouteiller," described as a gymnastic artist,
applied by rule to be discharged from prison.
Mr. Dowse appeared for Mr. Noakes, hotel-keeper, at
Southampton ; and Mr. Reed supported the application
for discharge.
The insolvent had petitioned the court under the Pro-
tection Act. His debts were inconsiderable, and the
insolvency was attributed to the want of employment,
to the accident he met with at Drury-lane Theatre, and
" being prohibited by Lord Palmerston from ascending
with balloons." It will be remembered that the in-
solvent was advertised to ascend with balloons in a
perilous position. - Since he filed his
.petition he had
been committed to prison, and now applied to be dis-
charged.
Mr. Dowse showed cause against the rule, and con-
tended that the court bad no power to grant the appli-
cation. The insolvent bad, whilst out of prison, ob-
tained his protection to the 22d of March next. He
had been held to bail on a judge's order, and gave bail.
While out on bail he petitioned under the Protection
Act, and after he obtained his protection the action vf as
tried and his bail bad surrendered him to prison, where
he was now detained.
Mr. Dowse declared that the court had no power to
discharge the insolvent, as it was expressly provided for
by the act that the protection was not to discharge him
from a capias to hold bail where a party contemplated
quitting the country.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips thought he had no power
to grant the application.
Mr. Reed said he held his learned friend,'Mr. Griffit's
brief. He had obtained the rule.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips asked what he could do in
the matter ; he bad no power.
Mr. Reed confessed that he had looked over the act,
and could not. find any authority for the application.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips said there was not only
nothing for the application, but everything against it. In
fact, it was expressly provided against.
The rule was discharged, and the insolvent remains in
durance vile.

IN RD H. D. KING-ANOTERR COMMITMENT BY A COUNTY
COURT JUDOS.

To-day (Saturday) the discharge of this insolvent took
place from Whitecross-street prison, where he bad been
committed by the Cie' kenwell County Court judge for 40
days. The frequency of these cases loudly calls for some
legislative enactment. Persons who petition Ruder the
Protection Act are protected, as they imagine, from im-
prisonment, but County Court judges, notwithstanding
the order of the court, issue their commitments, and tke
parties are put to great expense and trouble, being
placed in the " remand ward" of the prison. Mr. Dowse
applied for the discharge, and the application of the in-
solvent showed that he filed his petition for protection
we the 24th December, which was issued two days after-
wards. Soon afterwards a County Court summons was
issued, returnable on the "23d" January. An order
was made for payment, and in a short time a judgment
summons was obtained, returnable on the 13th Pbbruary
inst. An order of commitment was, however, made,
and the insolvent was taken to prison.
The court held that the case came within the rule laid
down by the commissioners, and ordered the discharge
to issue.

DEPARTURR OF TER 11.1fERICIN MAILS.—The British
.and North American Royal Mail steam-ship Canada,
Captain James Stone, sailed from the Mersey ea Satur-
day, at 11.20 a.m., for Boston and Halifax, with the
usual mails for the United States and British possessions
in North America, 96 passengers, and a full cargo of
merchandise on freight.
HALIFAX, Feb. 10.—The market here today has
Nhpira eztremo dNlaeAp itz laud every (I'm:hunt.

(0,1

{. L

RITTSON V. STORDY.
In this case very important questions affecting the
rights of American citizens to succeed as devisees to land
in England were raised. The questions arose out of the
will of John Harrison, a Cumberland farmer, whose will
bore date the 16th of November, 1826. By that will the
teqatur devised his messuages and hereditaments to his
friernis Thomas Stordy and John Stordy and their heirs
as to a certain portion thereof upon trust for the testa-
tor's niece for her life; and after her death, upon the
following trusts. In trust "to convey all the above-
mentioned real estate and every part thereof to the heir-
at-law now in America, his heirs, and assigns for ever."
The niece having died, Elizabeth Ilittson filed this bill
against Mr. John Sturdy, the surviving trustee ; Mrs.
Hannah Rooke, the testator's heir-at-law expart e materna,
and her Majesty's Attorney-General, claiming that she
(the plaintiff), as the heiress at law of the test atn. not
an alien, was entitled to have the devised property con-
veyed to her. The cause was heard on the 10th March,
1852, and a decree made, by which the Master was di-
-rested to ascertain who Nvas the person described in the
will. The rest& of the Master's advertiernents for
claimants was, that one Thomas Harrison claimed to be
the person entitled. It appeared he was born in 1806.
He was a manufacturing chemist at Philadelphia, and
was the only son of John Harrison, of the same place,
who VVIV:, born in 1773, and died in 1833. This John
was the son of Thomas Harrison, the only brother of
the te-tator, and he emigrated from England to the
United States in 1763, and died in 1815. The ca,e now
came on for further consideration upon these facts.
Mr. Maims and Mr. Greena, for the plaintiff, submit-
ted that she was not only the testator's English heir-at-
law, but would also be the beir-at-'avv, according to the
law of England, of the two deceased Harrisons in
America, if they were capable of having an heir ac-
cording to the law of England, and: if Thomas, the
American claimant were not such heir. They submit-
ted that Thomas, the claimant, was clearly incapable
of taking, being an alien, and that the words were not
sufficient to constitute a designatio personm " heir-
at-law" without more, must be taken to be an heir-at-law
who can properly represent that character, which a person
who is not an heir, but an alien, cannot represent. They
also insisted that even if the words were a sufficient de-
signatio personao, still the fact that the individual
was an alien was so clearly a disqualification to take,
that the court would not do so idle a thing as to direct
the'trustee to convey to a person over whem the crown
would have a paramount title, and which therefore
would be a nugatory act. There was, therefore,ras they
contended, a resulting trust in favour of the plaintiff;
which the surviving trustee was bound to execute by a
conveyance to her.