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

LAW IN TELLIGEA SCE.—.Dec. 5.

VICE-
CilAiCrreThis suit was instituted for the purpose of establishing
sfnTj. sTrri‘ti:lB.
S . COURT.
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 truxtees, 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,
1350, or that portion of it which :authorised the court to
make a vesting order, applied wh ere there were two er
more trustees, one of whom was •out of the jurisdiction.
His Honour had taken pains to ascertain the practice,
and found that such orders as that asked in the present
cue were made. He might alto 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 remaining
upon the construction of the Trui.: tee Act in this respect.
Under those circumstances, the order might be taken,
vesting in the new trustees jointly with the continuing
trustee such gstate in the freehold and leasehold property
as was vested in the continuing trustee and the trustee
out of the jurisdiction.
THE INCORPORATED SOCIETY FOIL PROMOTING THB EN-
LARGEMENT, BUILDING, AND REPAIRING OP CHURCHES
AND CHAPLES V. COLES.
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
be applied in the purposes and uses of that society. 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, 3De Gex, Mgt, 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-
titled to the whole of the property sold or unsold. The
gift was of the whole land or produce of land.
The Vice-Chancellor 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 laud, 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.
WALTBRS V. THE OFFICIAL MANAGER OP THE NORTHERN
COAL MINING COMPANY.
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 he contended they had agreed to be
bound, although it had not been fc nanny 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 Vice-Chancellor, after going elaborately through
the evidence, which chiefly consisted of correspondence,
dismissed the bill without costs as against the company,
and with costs as against the other defendants.

ROLLS COURT.
LORD KENSINGTON V. BOUVREIV.

This case stood on the paper for judgment, which the
Master of the Rolls this morning pronounced. The case
arose out of incumbrances created by a former and the late
Lord Kensington on 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 under 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.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

The Court was occupied during a part of Monday
afternoon, and the whole of Tuesday, with an action on
a policy of insurance against fire, in which the defence
was fraud and arson. We abstain from printing a re-
port until the case shall have been concluded.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

TO3ILIN V. THB GENERAL STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY

Mr. Atherton, Q.C., and Mr. Hawkins appeared for
the plaintiff ; Mr. Knowles, Q.C., Mr. H. Hill, Q.C.,
and Mr. Wilkin, for the defendant.

•
This was a running down case, the plaintiff being the
owner of a barge called the Duke, and the defendants of
the screw steamer Clarence. The evidence was of the
most contradictory description, and
The jury, after retiring to consult, returned a verdict
for the plaintiff, damages 481. Bs. 10d.

INSOLVENT DTBTORS COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Murphy.)
IN RS THOMAS BIILLINARIA.

This was the day appointed for the hearing of the
insolvent, who had been admitted to bail on the 22d
ult.

The insolvent's attorney, on the case being called,
appeared with his sureties, and produced a medical cer-
tificate, showing that the unfortunate man had on the
previous day committed suicide.
Mr. Commissioner Murphy—Poor creature ; what was
it for ? His debts are only. 3311. 65., and there is no-
thing in the schedule that could occasion a remand.
The attorney said the insolvent's wife was confined
on Thursday, and he had thought he had ruined his
family, and said that everything had gone wrong.
His Honour said all he could do was to exonerate
the bail.

Order accordingly.
IN BE THOS. GEO. CONINGHAM.

This was a rule to restrain the provisional assignee
in some Chancery proceedings.
Mr. Tyrrell (of the Chancery bar) and Mr. Sargood
supported the rule ; Mr. Nichols and Mr. Dowse were
for the provisional assignee.
After a long argument,
_ _

Mr. Commissioner Murphy said if the matter was not
settled he should discharge the rule, and, if he had
power, give the provisional assignee his costs.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

GUILDHALL—Mr. Deputy Hicks, a salesman in
Newgate-market, waited upon Sir John Musgrove, to
offer a few words, confirming a statement he had made
a few days since respecting the wholesomeness of some
beef which was consigned to him for sale from Norfolk.
It was seized by Inspector Pocklington, who stated that
the animal was diseased, had died a natural death, and
had been slaughtered afterwards. This statement he
(Mr. Hicks) immediately denied, relying upon his judg-
ment from the appearance of the meat, but as the in-
spector insisted upon his representation, he (Mr. Hicks)
had written to the country to ascertain the facts. The
consigner replied as follows :—" The beast which you
have written to me about was blown from food, and im-
mediately he dropped his throat was cut, and he was
afterwards taken to the butcher's to be dressed. There
was no disease of any kind upon him." This letter came
from Mr. Spink, an inspector of the Live Stock Insur-
ance Company.
Sir John Musgrove said it was very satisfactory to find
Mr. Hicks's opinion thus confirmed by a competent
authority.

CLERKENWELL.—Mr. Stephen ,Dewall, brewer,
of York-street. Clerkenwell, was charged with "sing a
furnace not constructed to consume its own smoke, and
fined 51.
Mr. John Rob€rt Sinclair, brewer, of the Bagnigge•
wells road, was also fined 51. for the same offence.

MARYLEBONE.— Thomas Curzon, living in Yeo-
man's-row, Knightsbridge, was charged with bigamy,
The prisoner said that his first wife went off to India
with a married man, so he got married again himself.
Remanded.

TlLomas Wren, a journeyman plasterer, who had been
remanded from the preceding day, was examined on a
charge of being concerned with two others in the follow-
ing outrage :
Mrs. Caroline Lane deposed, that en Saturday night
last she was in front of the Mitre Tavern, Stangate,
waiting for her husband, when two men approached and
grossly insulted her. She complained to her husband,
who cane up at the moment of their conduct, and he
asked them what they meant by such behaviour. Their
reply was, "We'll soon square you," and one of them
instantly knocked him down twice, and while struggling
tohergeertso7nnghiscemleeauglrsiagere, again, the prisoner rushed towards
him, and kicked him violently on the face. By the ex-
traordinarythetthwe
oc
pomrniessntoaewbelhr first
t
e whoworsu cameill
vs
eue
dp
ghooe on
, away husband
als
also
gotut away,e negligence
of
ntdhinesisting on the policeman doing
his duty and taking him. -
Robert Lane, the husband the wirto3.9lst *Mo.