The Sun.
London, England, 1852-12-06 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

EQUITY COURTS.—DEa. 4.
(Before the Master of the Rolls.)
MORRIS V. GAULTIRB.

Plaintiff is a clergyman and defendant is a school-
master at Sydenham, carrying on a boarding school
there, in premises known as Sydenham College. Plain-
tiff purchased a partnershipin the school, the considera-
tion being 750/., of which he paid 5001. in cash, and
gave a bill for the remaining 2501., at six months, de-
fendant signing a memorandum that he would not nego-
elate the bill, and that plaintiff was to pay it by five in-
stalments, at intervals of six months. Subsequently
defendant was in want of more money to carry on the
business, and it was agreed that the partnership should
be dissolved, which was done," and that a fresh partner-
ship should be entered into between plaintiff and de-
fendant's son, " on terms hereafter to be agreed upon ;"
and a friend of the plaintiff's, a Mrs. Nelson, advanced
460/. ; to the younger Gaultier, for which plaintiff be-
came jointly liable. When this was done, however,
defendant and his son issued a fresh prospectus, leaving
out plaintiff's name altogether, and they unfurnished his
apartments in the school, and, as plaintiff alleged, took
measures to exclude him from the partnership. Plain-
tiff also discovered that defendant had negotiated his
bill, by getting it discounted by a Mr. Moses, who sued
him upon it. Plaintiff thereupon filed his bill, praying
that the partnership accounts be taken, and for a disso-
lution of the partnership, and the cause now came on on
a motion for an injunction to restrain the defendants
from receiving the partnership debts, and for appointing
a receiver. It was alleged, on the part of the defendant,
that plaintiff engaged to procure for the younger Gaul-
tier, a title to holy orders, which he had not done ; but
this plaintiff denied, though he alleged his willingness to
have done so, provided he had found him qualified.
His Honour granted an injunction in the terms
prayed, and appointed a receiver.

(Before Vice-Chancellor Stuart.)
LORD MIDDLETON V. LASH.

This case had been argued some time since at con-
siderable length.
The Vice-Chancellor now gave judgment. He said
the question involved a construction of the Thellusson
Act, on the direction in the will of Mrs. Beaumont for
the accumulation of the interest and annual proceeds of
a sum of 50,0001. during the life of her son Wm. Beau-
mont. The first question, and only question necessary
to consider was, whether the trust for accumulation was
within the exception, or the second section of the statute,
which excepts from its operation provisions for raising
portions. The first trust of the annual proceeds of the
50,000/. being for the maintenance and support of her
son William, with a trust to accumulate the surplus of
the annual proceeds ; and, after the death of William, to
dispose of the proceeds of the 50,0001. and the accumula-
tions, or a competent part thereof, for the maintenance
and education of his children during their minorities,
• or until their portions should become payable under
her will, and as soon as they should attain
the age of twenty-one years, or if daughters, at-
tain that age or be married, then . upon trust to
call in the 50,0001., and all the accumulations, and
pay and divide the same amonc, all the children of
William, in the manner particularly directed in the will.
The words of the second clause in the statute, which are
applicable to this case, are those which mention, except
from its operation, " Any provision for raising portions
for my child or children of any person taking any inte-
rest under such conveyance, settlement, or devise."
The children provided for by Mrs. Beaumont out of
these accumulations are the children of her son 'William.
This provision, to which the accumulations are dedicated
by their grandmother, she describes as their portions ;
and, so far as appears, is the only provision made for
them. Therefore, if the question comes to be consi-
dered without reference to decided cases upon the con-
struction or this clause in the act, there would seem
little difficulty in holding that this was the case of a
trust for accumulation on a provision for raising portions
for the children of a person taking under the ivill which
directs the accumulation, that it was within the excep-
tion in the second section, and therefore not to be re-
stricted to the statutory period of twenty-one years from
the death of the testatrix. But decisions by judges of
learning and experience support the proposition that the
trust for accumulation in this will was not within the
exception as to provisions for portions, and that for the
excess beyond the period of twenty-one years the trust
for accumulation was invalid. The decision of Lord Lang-
dale in " Eyre v. Marsden" (2 Keen, 564), of the Vice-
Chancellor Knight Bruce in "Morgan v. Morgan" (20
Law Journal, 109) ; of the Vice-Chancellor Kindersley
in "Bourne v. Buckton" (2 Simmons, N. S. 91) ; of
the Vice-Chanhellor Turner in "Jones v. Maggs" (9
Hare, 635) ; have all been quoted and relied on in the
argument of the present case to support the construction
that the accumulated dividend on the gift in Mrs.
Beaumont's will of 50,0001. is not within the exception
of the 2d section of the act as to portions. Of the
cases quoted at the bar the decision of the Vice-Chan-
cellor Knight Bruce, in "Beach v. Lord St. Vincent"
(19 Law Journal, 130), proceeded on a just construction
of the exception as to portions. It had seemed to his
Honour at the time that the trust for accumulation was
a valid trust to the full exteit. directed by Mrs. Beau-
mont's will. He had expressed this opinion with diffi-
dence, and he had postponed the judgment in the
present case that he might be guided by the Lord Chan-
cellor's opinion in the case of " Lord Barrington v.
Liddell." Having had an opportunity of reading the
note of that judgment, it was a great satisfaction to
find that upon a review of the authorities which so un-
fortunately confined and embarrassed the construction
of the exception as to portions the Lord Chancellor,
if he has not restored, had at least established a just
principle of construction, and had held the trust for
accumulation in that case of "Lord Barrington v.
Liddell" to be valid, and within the second section of
the Thelluson Act. He was bound by the principle of
the decision in " Lord Barrington v. Liddell," inde-
pendently of his own clear opinion, to hold that the
trust for accumulation in the present case was entirely
valid. The decree would contain a declaration to that
effect.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT—SATURDAY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Phillips.)
—_

IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT P. PETTIGREW.-111 SCENE HT
.

COURT.

This insolvent, a tailor, applied to be discharged o n
tail till his hearing, and a scene occurred which caused
a sensation in court. One of the proposed sureties was
George Holyoake, described as a bookseller, author, and
editor, of Woburn-buildings, Tavistock-square. ere
was some objection to take the oath as required, and
the party wished the following remarks to be read to
Mr. Commissioner Phillips :
" This gentleman wishes to state to your Honour,
'that, upon a late occasion, when called upon to make
. oath in a Chancery suit, he, before being sworn, obtained
permission of the judge to declare that while the oath
was legally binding on his conscience, it was not a pro-
fession of his faith, and he prays leave to make the same
declaration now."

Mr. Commissioner Phillips asked him what he meant
by the paper just read. Did he mean that by it not
being a profession of his faith, that it was not on the
faith of a Christian ?

Holyoake—Yes.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips—l think so. Pray what
do you call yourself ?
Holyoake —A "secularist."
. Mr. Commissioner Phillips asked him what he meant
by the term "secularist ?"
Holyoake said it meant one who gave the preference
to the duties of this life.

Mr. Commissioner Phillips was not satisfied with the.
answer. He had put himself forward as one of thcl
bail, and demurred to the oath. Do you (demanded th.f.3
learned commissioner) believe in a God ?
Holyoake—l am not prepared to say.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips indignantly declared that
he would not hear him. Not prepared to say (remarked
the learned commissioner) whether you believe in a God.
You put yourself forward in a court of justice, and
bring scandal upon it by saying that you are not pre-
pared to say whether you believe in the Deity ! Go and
attend to your "secular" business.

Holyoake, who had some days previously sworn an
affidavit of bail, stood down, and made his way out of
court.

The insolvent went back to prison.
IN RE CHARLES PIGGOTT.—PETITION DISMISSED.
This insolvent, who applied under the Protection Act,
was opposed by Mr. Sargood for Alexander Jones, a
bill-discounter ; Mr. Dowse supported.
The insolvent was a boot-maker at Romford, and
complained of free trade in the agricultural district de-
-Pressing his business. Tie paid 30s. to Mr. Jones on a
201. bill as discount, and other sums for holding over.
It appeared that upwards of twenty years ago the insol-
vent took the benefit of the act, and still owed some of
the debts. In the schedule the present debts exceeded.
2001.

1, Mr. Commissioner Phillips held that, as the insolvent
"no ad more than 3001., and being a trader, he had
Iriadiction, and dismissed the petition.
in° Petition was accordingly dismissed.

MANgiox
conductor, Was HOUSE.—,lames Bagmen, an omnibus
man.
charged with having personated a police-•
Williams, a City Policeman, in plain clothes, said—l
saw the defendant y at,
morning pushing the people
about as he walkedealoerday
Som:gfe, and he was particularly rough
in his conduct to
knometles. I said to him, "If I
were you I would not
Whoi.„,l am ? lam a police-
constable." I said,
collared
Re said, ,c If 3,-4uyron,otumghintdn,otltiotatt-
in that way."
you to the station-house," and he
him there was no occasion for that, for , me. I told
police-constable and would go along tt washi myself a
ne
we came to the top of Bow-lane, he said , m-uld s When
Would
me his authority, and he struck me a violent hi how
the nose. I then took him into custody. .o won
Sir R. W. Carden—It is very well for you that the
policeman has not charged you with the assault as well
as the act of personating a constable. If he had, your
punishment should be one which you would have cause
to remember. As it is, you are fined 405., or must go
to prison for 21 days.
GUILDHALL.—Alfred Grossmith was charged with
stealing 25 sovereigns, and a large quantity of valuable
property, belonging to Messrs. Taplin and Co., carpet
iwarehousemen,s of Wood-street, Cheapside, his employers.
considerThc ase had been remanded, the Alderman wishing to
how far a promise held out to the prisoner
would affect the evidence subsequently obtained, air
whether his confession, under such circumstances, cou , I
be received.
Alderman Farebrother
laid he could not finish t IliS
case without expressing his' regret with regard to the
conduct of the pawnbroker, in taking goods in Fledge I