The Sun.
London, England, 1854-12-06 00:00:00

/Ililg NUN, LON'DON, WEDI,TESDAY EVEN_INIG, DEC.EMBEIt 6j 1484.

LAW IIV±ELLIGEiVCE.—Dec. 5,

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT.
SMITH V. SMITE.

This suit was instituted for the purpose of establishing
the trusts of a marriage settlement by means of a copy
of it, the original having been lost. The bill also prayed
for the appointment of new trustees, in the place of a
deceased trustee and one out of the jurisdiction, to act
jointly with a continuing trustee. The property included
in the settlement consisted of freeholds, leaseholds, money
in the funds, and furniture.

At the hearing, inquiries had been directed as to the
lost settlement, and the cause now came on for further
consideration upon the chief clerk's certificate, finding
the execution and loss of the settlement, and authenti-
cating the copy.,
The Vice-Chancellor, having directed the case to stand
over until he could inquire into the practice, now said,
the question in this case was, whether the Trustee Act,
1850, or that portion of it which authorised the court to
make a vesting order, applied where there were two or
more trustees, one of whom was but of the jurisdiction.
His Honour had taken pains to ascertain the practice,
and found that sach orders as that asked in the present
case were made. He might also say that the Lords
Justices concurred in that view, and had themselves
made such orders. His Honour, therefore, wished it to
be understood that there was no doubt now remainir'g
upon the construction of the Trustee Act in this respect.
Under those circumstances, the order might be taken,
vesting in the new trustees jointly with the continuing
trustee such estate in the freehold and leasehold property
as was vested in the continuing trustee and the trustee
out of the jurisdiction.

THE INCORPORATED SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING THE EN-
LARGEMENT, BUILDING, AND REPAIRING OP CHURCHES
AND CHAPLES V. COLBB.

This was a bill filed by the above society, which was
incorporated by an act passed in the 9th of George IV.,
the object of which was to obtain a declaration of the
right of the parties, and the execution of a trust in con-
formity thereto. The facts were shortly that a testator,
Mr. James Harrison, formerly of Oak-lodge, at Har-
blington, in Hampshire, by his will, dated in February,
1838, devised two freehold houses in Selwood-place,
Brighton, upon trust, to sell the same, and to pay the
interest or dividends arising from the purchase-money
to his widow for life, and at her death to pay over the
principal sum to the treasurer of the above society, to
ha nrrliod ;n the purport.; and {ASCII of tkobili aocioty. The
houses had not been sold, the widow receiving a larger
sum from the rents than she could from the dividends

from the purchase•money after a sale. The trustees and
heir-at-law were desirous of having the opinion of the
Court, in the first instance, as to the invalidity of the
charitable devise.

Mr. Rolt and Mr. Kenyon, for the society, con-
tended, upon the authority of the decided cases—Dixon v.
Butler, 3, Von. and Coll., 682, and the Church Society
v. Barlow, 3 De Gax, M`N., and Gordon, 120—as well
as on the construction of the statutes, that whether the
property bequeathed was to be treated as money or land,
the society was entitled to the legacy. The trust for
converting the property into money could not alter the
rights of the parties. The mischief intended to be pre-
vented by the Legislature was the devise of an unlimited
quantity of land to charities. The plaintiffs were en-
titlei to the whole of the property sold or unsold. The
gift was of the whole land or produce of land.
The Vice-Chanceller said he felt he could not sustain

the legality of the gift, and as he could not sustain it in
its entirety, he did net think he could sustain it as a gift
of 5001., for it seemed not to be given in the form con-
templated by the Act of Parliament as land, but as the
produce of land, which did not seem to be within the
scope and intention of the statute. He must, therefore,
dismiss the bill.

WALTERS V. THE OFFICIAL MANAGER OF THE NORTHERN

COAL MINING COMPAN7:

This case was argued during the last month, the bill
being filed by a reversioner of Old Roddymoor Colliery
and the Whitelee Colliery, in the county of Durham,
seeking to charge the company with arrears of rent under
a lease by which be contended they had agreed to be
bound, although it had not been f( raially accepted and
executed by them. The company's affairs had been
wound up in the usual way. The facts of this case were
complicated, and quite uninteresting to any but the

parties.
The Vioe•Chancellor, after going elaborately through
the evidence, which chiefly consisted of correspondence,
dismissed the bill without coats as against the company,
and with costs as against th• other defendants.

ROLLS COURT.
LORD KENSINGTON V. BOITVIEIE.

This case stood on the paper for judgment, which the
Master of the Rolls this morning pronounced. The case
arose out of incumbrances 'treated by a former and the late
Lord Kensington •n that part of the family estate which
the latter was, by virtue of a deed of settlement of the
estate, empowered to raise money upon, by way of
mortgage, to a limited extent. The question raised in
the case was merely to have it settled by the Court what
was the extent of the claims of certain assignees of some
mortgagees against the present plaintiff, who is the re-
mainderman, and is desirous to pay off the encum-
brances created by his deceased father and another
party. The encumbrances amounted to 60,0001., the old
mortgage, and 20,0501. raised under the marriage settle-
ment, and it was found that the rents and profits of the
estate were not equal to the charges created nader these
two mortgages. The deficiency had been made up by
the late lord from the income derived from another of
his estates.

His Honour held that, under the settlement, the late
Lord Kensington could only charge the estate to the
extent of the value of the receipt of rent and profits.
Judgment was entered for the plaintiff.