The Sun.
London, England, 1839-02-05 00:00:00

T_PE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1839.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, FEB. 4.
WARDLE V. CLAXTON.

......___ _ _
Mr. KNIGHT BRUCE (with whom was Mr. Purvis) appeared
in support of a demurrer to a bill by a husband and wife, on
the ground that the property to which the suit related was the
wife's separate estate, and that she ought to have sued apart
from her husband. The question as to the nature of the pro-
perty arose under the will of one Thomas Smith, who directed
the residue of his property to be laid out in Government se-
curities, and the dividends to be paid to his wife for her life,
" to be by her applied to and for the maintenance of herself,
and of such child or children as he might happen to have
at the time of his decease, or who should be born in due time
afterwards ;" with a gift over in default of children of his
own, to the children of his brother. There was no issue of
the testator's, and his widow married the plaintiff; and the bill
was Sled in the names of both'pf them against the executors
find trustees' for the usual accounts. The Learned Counsel
contended that the words of the gift implied a gift to the wife's
separate use; but
His HONOUR, without hearing the other side, declared he
was clearly of opinion that the words lid not create a gift of
that nature. In all the cases which had been .elied upon the
gift was to the solo use of the woman. He should, there-
fore, overrule the demurrer.
- - -

ATTORNEY-GENERAL /7. TIARPER.
This was an information to set aside a lease of a certain
charity estate at Worcester. A decree to that effect had been
pronounced, and the only question now was upon the minutes
to what extent the executors of the lessee against whom the
suit had been revived, and the decree pronounced should be
responsible for the rents which their testator and themselves
had received. On the part of the executors it was contended
that they ought to be held liable only as executors, as they
might have been compelled at the suit of creditors to part with
such rents and profits as they had received pending► the suit,
but- . .

Ills HONOUR said—At the time when the information was
filed it was net known whether the property belonged to the
testator or not. The decree determined it did not, and there-
fore the executors, who had intermeddled with the property,
were personally responsible for the rents.

COURT OF QUEENS BENCH..-FRB. 4.

THE NEW BRUNSWICK AND NOVA SCOTIA LAND COMEANY

V. 13AINBRIDGE.

This was an action for calls alleged to be due to the Com-
pany. The declaration stated that the Company had been
incorporated by Act of Parliament; that the defendant had
become a proprietor of the Company ; that certain sums were
due from him in respect of calls, duly mado by the Directors
of the Company ; that he had been duly required to pay the
same, but had not paid them. There WAS a demurrer to this
declaration, stating as special ground of demurrer that the de-
claration did not set forth in detail the clauses of all the Acts
which by the Statute were necessary to constitute a valid call
and give a right of action.
Mr. PLATT appeared in support of the demurrer; and Mr.
PETEIVIDORPP to maintain the sufficiency of the declaration.
The COURT thought that to enable tho plaintiffs to recover
in an action given by an Act of Parliament they must show
that every one thing required by the Act, as preliminary to
the right of action had been done. The mere allegation,
therefore, in this case, that the money had been duly demanded
was not enough. The declaration ought to have set forth all
the steps required to be taken by the Act, and to have shown
that they had been taken.
The plaintiffs had leave to amend.
THE NIELTENTIAM AND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY