The Sun.
London, England, 1862-06-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—June 4.

(Sittings in Banco, before the Lord Chief Baron
and Mr. Baron Bramwell.)
STUBS AND ANOTHER V. STUBS—CURIOUS CASE.
This was an action in detenue to recover a grant
or patent of arms, which came on for trial at Guild-
hall, when a verdict was taken for the plaintiffs
by consent, subject to the opinion of this Court.
The case stated that Joseph Stubs, of Warring-
ton Lancashire, having by his own industry
amassed a considerable fortune, and been placed in
the commission of the peace, was desirous to possess
the right to wear armorial bearings, and obtained
a grant for that purpose from the College of
Heralds, paying fees to the amount of 176 10s.,
in addition to £3 3s. the charge for the Heralds'
painters. He had no lineal descendants, and the
grant extended the right to wear the arms to the
two sons of his deceased brother, Peter and John ,
Stubs, who were the present plaintiffs. On the 20th
July, 1860, Joseph Stubs made a will, in which he
left absolutely to his wife, the defendant in this
action, all his household goods, books, pictures,
plate, Ste. ; and shortly afterwards died, Under this
bequest the widow claimed the grant of the College
of Heralds ; and it was agreed that if the Court
thought she was entitled to possession of the docu.
ment the verdict should be entered for the defen-
dant.
Mr. Brett, on the part of the plaintiffs, contended
that the patent belonged to the sons of the testator's
brother, in whose favour it was granted.
Mr. Baron Bramwell—lt does not appear that
they ever consented to wear the arms. Can the
Earl Marshal inflict arms on a man without his con-
sent ? (Laughter.) Ought we not to see whether
the article is a picture ?
Mr. Grove, who appeared for the defendant, said
it was contained in a very handsome box.
(The grant was subsequently handed up to their
lordships. It was a large sheet of vellum engrossed
and surrounded by a coloured border, containing
the Stubs arms.)
The Lord Chief Baron—The wife can bear the
arms during her widowhood.
Mr. Brett thought she could not.
The Lord Chief Baron—Yes ; and when she dies
the arms of her husband are put on her achieve-
ment.
Mr. Brett submitted that the wife had no legal
right to the arms of her husband.
The Lord Chief Baron—Unquestionably she has,
and she may say " I will keep the grant, in order
that I may justify my use of them."
Mr. Brett—Supposing the testator had a son,
would he not as his heir be entitled to the grant,
the right to bear the arms having descended upon
him ?
The Lord Chief Baron—The right to bear arms
belongs to all the children of a family equally, but
with certain heraldic distinctions. Instantly old
Stubs got the grant his lineal descendants were en-
titled to wear the arms.
Mr. Brett said there might be a disposition on
the part of his learned friend to treat the case with
ridicule, but he thought the elder Stubs was rather
entitled to credit for the course he had adopted.
Being desirous to found a family, instead of doing
what some people did, put arms on their plate and
carriages without having paid the necessary fees,
he went and got a grant from the College of Arms.
The Lord Chief Baron said it was a pity there
should be a family quarrel about nothing. This
grant was literally of no value whatever, having
been enrolled in the College of Arms, and that en-
rolment was as good for proving the title to the
armorial bearings as the patent itself.
Mr. Brett referred to some old authorities to
show that the horn being outside a castle gate,
showing the tenure by which the estate was held,
passed to the heir, and that no action for trespass
brought by an heir would lie against a person for
having disturbed and appropriated the armour or
banner which had been placed in the church in
honour of his ancestor. He, therefore, contended
that this grant, being an honour conferred upon
the testator, his lineal descendant was entitled to
its possession.
Mr. Grove, on the other side, said that the real
object of the Heralds' College was to keep records
of this description, and that the document claimed
by the plaintiffs was really nothing more than a
copy of the grant, which remained in the college.
The Lord Chief Baron, upon looking at the docu-
ment, said he was not quite certain that it was not
the original grant.
Mr. Grove said it was open to both the nephews
to get copies for themselves.
The Lord Chief Baron was of opinion that judg-
ment should be entered for the defendant. She had
a right to keep the grant to justify, herself in using
the arms of her husband, and nobody could take it
from her. It was not a sort of instrument which
any one could specifically claim, like a patent for a
peerage, but it might be that the plaintiffs could
file a bill in Chancery to prevent the widow defac-
ing or getting rid of the document.
Mr. Baron Bramwell being of the same opinion,
Judgment was entered for the defendant.