The Sun.
London, England, 1837-01-21 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JAAT. 20.

CHAMBERS V. TAYLOR.

The LORD CHANCELLOR, at the sitting of the Court,
gave judgment in this matter, which was argued in .May
last. The case came before the Court on a motio n for
the production- of deeds and papers in a bill of disco very
filed by the plaintiff to aid his defence to an action of
ejectment. It was agreed by the parties that the ques-
tion of the production of the deeds was to bind the parti,ls
with respect to their construction ; and that if the Court,
under the form of the : motion, decided that the deeds
could be of no use to the plaintiff, that would put an end
to the quest!on pending in. this Court. His Lordship
commenced by observing that this form of proceeding was
productive of much inconvenience, and that it was very
unusual to ask the Court to give an opinion on the effect
of a deed by a motion calling on the other side to produce
it. Two questions were raised, whether the remainder to the
heirs female on the original settlement was good ; and, se-
condly, whet estate the (laughers took under it. His Lordship,
after an examination of the:instrument in question, now said
he was of opinion that the remainder to the heirs female was
void in the former as well as in the present state of the
law, and for authority on this point, his Lordship referred
to the notes of Mr. Hargraves's edition of Coke upon Lit-
tleton. On the second point his Lordship was also of opi-
nion that according to the true legal construction, the daugh-
ters took an estate for life only, and he was satisfied at the
same time that this true legal construction of the instru-
ment was:confoamrble to the intentions of Mr. Chambers,
the original Settler. The deeds, therefore, must be given
up to the plaintiff.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JAN. 20.
SALVIDGE V. TUTTON.

Tlie argument in this case occupied the whole day. The
suit was instituted to administer the trusts of the will of a
testator who had directed his estate to be sold, and certain
legacies to be paid. The residuary legatee charged the
trustees and executors with a breach of trust in not effect-
ing a sale of the property sooner, as well as with general
mismanagement of the estate.

His Honour{ was of opinion the trustees were justified,
under the circumstances, in the course they had adopted.
He therefore directed the usual decree to:be taken.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, .TAN. 20.

Mr. Justice COLERIDGE was unable to resume his seat
on the bench to-day.

DOE AND REED V. HARRIS.

This was an action of ejectment brought to try the vali-
dity of a will under which the defendant claimed to bold
certain premises in the county of Glamorgan.
The COURT—A will was a most solemn instrument ; to
make one the law required the observance of several forma-
lities, and it could hardly be less careful about requiring
proof of the intention•of the testator havini, changed, and
of his desiring to destroy, what he haci made. The mere
attempt to learn which the testator allowed to be so easily
frustrated, and which he had not afterwards removed, was
not sufficient to show his intention, and the rule for the
new trial must, therefore, be made absolute.—Rule absolute
accordingly.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, J. 20.
MORGAN V. PERRER.

This case came before the Court upon demurrer to seve-
ral pleas. It was an action of assumpsit.
The COURT, after hearing Mr. Bagley in support of the
demurrer, and Mr. Gale on the other side, were of opinion
that this was a valid contract, and could not be considered
as a wager against sound policy, or coming within any of the
exceptions laid down in the authorities which had been cited.