The Sun.
London, England, 1852-01-14 00:00:00

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

SMITH 1.), PINCOMBE,
This was an appeal from a decree of the Vice-Chasid'
cellor, setting as idea compromise effected between the
parties in respect of their rights to certain propesti;
situated in Devonshire. The plaintiff is the natural
daughter of John Pincombe, who died in 1838, devising
to her, by a will executed in 1837, a considerable Sbaro
of his estate. Of this she remained in possession sotne
time, until some legal defect having been discovered in
the execution of the will of 1837, an action of ejectment
was commenced by the trustees, the defendants in the
present suit, but before the action came to trial a way
promise was effected' between the parties, disadvanta‘ .
genus to the plaintiff, as compared with the interest she
had formerly eijoyed under the will of 1837, Imfor
diately after the execution Of this compromise the plaixr
tiff 's attorney 'having been led to suspect that another
will, legally executed, was in existence, succeeded to
discovering a will in the keeping of a third party, legally
executed, bearing date 1834, scarcely less favour'
able to his client than that which had been set
aside by the agreement. Upon this the plaintiff
mediately repudiated the compromise, and filed
a: hill in Chancery to set it aside, on lbo
ground that she had been induced to enter into it hi
the defendants having fraudulently concealed the axis"'
enco of the will of 1834, having had knowledge of "
themselves during the whole time. The defendants, ellA
the other hand, in their answer, denied that they heeitim"
known of the existence of any such will, and inststel
that the plaintiff herself had had cognizance of it, an
that she had entered into the agreement knowing fall
well its contents. On the hearing of the suit, at will° f
voluminous conflicting evidence was read in support e
the allegations on both sides, the Vice-Chancellor Pr °;
flounced a decree granting the prayer of the petition, a°'''
setting aside the compromise on the ground of frausWe
lent concealment of the will by the defendants. Tha
defendants then appealed to the Lord Chancellor, an
the suit was heard before him in the course of last terri
The LORD CHANCELLOR, in giving judgment, aa
that the case, from the conflicting evidence given by ae'",
side, was ono of considerable difficulty. He had, he
sa,'
ever, gone through it with great care, and after 4r„
liberate consideration he had come to the concluele;
that the plaintiff had executed the compromise in (lafst
Lion without being aware of the evidence of any on,
will than that of 1847, and that the defendants bad beee.
aware of it, and had concealed it from all the mernbe,r;
of the family, and, in fact, from all the world. The
weight weight of evidence certainly inclined to that side, ancieo
was scarcely probable that the plaintiff, had she knowi,
of a will, legally executed and indisputable, and scarce?,
less favourable to her than that under which she 1,:
then in possession, would have consented to a comprv...
raise so greatly to her disadvantage as the one in qua°,
Lion. Relying, then, on tile principle of law that render,:
a family compact binding, a full disclosure was necassaq
on all sides of all facts bearing in any way upon thw
matter in question, and considering that such disclosi
had been withheld in the present instance on the side :0
the defendants, he should cenflam the judgment of th
Vice-Chancellor, and dismiss the present appeal "NP—
costs.—Appeal dismissed accordingly.
(Before the LORDS JUSTICES.)
LUNATIC PETITIONS.—IN RE CAMPBELL.
In this case, which was heard before the Lord Chaff,
cellor last term, a petition was presented by Lady Carl.,
bell, praying that a trustee might be appointed i° tote
place of Mr. Archibald Campbell, the trustee to a 9;0
clement under which she took interest, who was. .be
she alleged, a lunatic. His Lordship then made •
usual order for the Master to inquire and report.
ask b,
Mr.,Gae SSE, on the part of Lady Campbell, now a'
their Lordships to confirm the Master's report, whle,
was to the effect that a new trustee should be appointed
Mr. BETHELL, on behalf of Mr. Campbell, present!,
a cross-petition, praying that the allegation of lunty#
might be dismissed, and the suit transferred to Cheii',
perfectly willing to agree toto
trustee, but was anxious to ba
n,
hiAthtetrhebeprehsaednt;cooo,
appointmentct
le.imputationiii cloii nroaatf iwilluuearanwsaat? Er:7lu° mv removed.
went he was
immediately on the elk gallon of lunacy having 043a0
made agaiust him. He was under no restraint, and le.
out every day in hie carriage unattended, and, h
?hued, was admitted to bo perfectly sane.
Mr. GLASSE consented, and the suit was transferred'

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS 11)11*)
(Before Sir RICHARD KINDERSLEY.)
IN RE HULL AND LINCOLN DIRECT RAILWAY costr,-
0;4,
CLEMENTS V. BOWES. •
Mr. Wilcock appeared for the directors, and
Manus, Q.C., and Mr. Miller for the defendantS: pd
A bill Lod been filed by the directors of the hill 9 of
Lincoln Direct Railway Company for the dissolutiollect
their asecciation. In the terms of that bill it apPesfhe
that a meeting having been held it was agreed thb4.cjecl
assets of the company should be realised and aiviic*
pro rata among the shareholders. Under the resole aid.
adopted for this purpose the sum of 17e. 6d. was eOl.
to a certain body of the shareholders on each share,
another sum of 11. Bs. 6d. per share upon their, de
to another
MA body t.t sha.
Mr. LANS havingreholders opened the general merits d the
case, 01°
Mr. MILLER cited a number of cases, to show the
no company could be legally dissolved underie
of
" Winding-up Act" without the consent of the WO: the
the shareholders. It appeared by the accounts °:d ov
company that the sum of 26,9001. had been realise
Feb. 6:b, 1847, out of which the payments spokiftbos
above had been made; but after the expenditure °. bioh
amount the sum of 1551. had been received, of *lthef
1504 had been raid away, and subsequently an rod
1001. had come into the hands of the directors, whi"„der
no doubt been honourably applied, but defectively
the Act. ,
His HONOUR said that there did not appear to v'tthci
implication of the conduct of the directors, and thil",,ete
had legally acted under the direction of the Delia'
tart' statute. tia
The demurrer was consequently overruled, sib
common order being given, it was arranged o'3 00
weeks should be r,llowed for putting
an ananswer
bill.