The Sun.
London, England, 1831-05-09 00:00:00

LAW INTELLiGENCE-(TIIIS DAY).

COURT OF CHANCERY.
The LORD CHANCELLOR occupied two hours this morn-
ing in giving judgment in several cases that had previously been
argued before him.
111'CARTHY v. DE CAIN:
In this case a person named Tuke, by birth and every thing
else a Danish subject, married a lady in this country. with whom
he immediately returned to his native place, and became again,
with his wife, domiciled there. By a divorce, regularly obtained,
according to the Danish law. they were very soon separated. She
tame back to this country, and he resided at Santa Cruz. After
her death, he was informed by letters from those connected with
her aflltirs, that she had died in indigent circumstances, that even
the sale of her wardrobe wou'd not pay her debts, though they
were small. In reply, he declined having anything to do in the
tftair,allegi'.g he had been duly divorced from her Subsequently
he was apprised that she had left some trifling assets He wrote
hack, saying, he neither would be responsible for her debts, nor
would he accept of any property she might have died seized of
9e recommended that the trifle should be equally divided be- •
tween her brothers and sisters. Previous to his death, how-
n7er, in the year (ISll` he sent such an authority to this country
is enabled a solicitor to obtain for him letters of administration
to his It turned out that at the death of the lady there
was found to be due to her no less than 7,001'1. for arrears of al)
Annuity, that ought to have been received by her during her life-
time. The contest then was between the personal representatives
of the two in respect of this sum, and the question arose upon
the effect of the Danish divorce and the parole renunciation that
'sad been made by the husband. The Court was clearly of
opinion that the case was ruled as to the divorce by Lawley's
ease, in which it had been h-ld that even a Scotch divorce
!sold not ann 1 an English marriage. 'l' he Danish
tivorce could not operate as an Act of Parliament ob-
ained here. In the next place it was clear that when he made
the renunciation he laboured under a decided mistake as to the
laws of marriage; not only this, but it appeared that the partie:.
here knew more about the extent of the lady's property than
they had thought it convenient to acquaint the husband with
Under these circumstances hi; Lordship was clearly of Opinion
that the Vice-Chancellor's judgment must be reversed, and the
decree made in favour of the representatives of the husband. All
parties to be paid costs out of the funds.
THE AITORNEY-W.:NERA L v. NEWBURY.
This was a matter in which his Lordship was also under the
'sinful neces-ity of reversing the decree below. The bill wa
-Bed for an account twainst trustees on the ground of misapplict-
non of funds. His Honour ordered an account to be taken from
•he filing of the bill. His Lordship, on the contrary, considered
he law to be tt at wherever there was any excusable or unex.
stained misapplication of charity funds by trustees, that the ac-
zount ought tribe taken when the beach of trust commenced,
,nd therefore in the present instance the decree would have tt
:oe taken from the date of the trust deeds in 182.5, and which
happened to be but for a short period back, considering that it.
some cases accounts had been decreed for a period of no less
than 200 years back.
TALMASH v. WAI)DINGTON.

His LORDSHIP, after considerable hesitation, had come to
he conclusion to affirm the Vice-Chancellor's judgment in
:his case.

JONES v. MURREL
In this case the Court had made an order of reference to the
Master which had been acted upon. Exceptions had been taken
to the Master's report, which had been overruled, and the appli-
cation was to reverse the original oriter directing the reference,
which his Lordship refused to do.
GOBLET v. BEECHEY.
The question here arose upon a codicil to the willtof the late
eminent sculptor, Mr. Nollekens. The codicil was written in
his own hand, and in the most unintelligible characters. The
difficulty was to ascertain whether mod (or, as some read it,
mods) meant models? By the will itself, models, written dis-
tinctly, and containing all the letters, were clearly given ; and
though there was much doubt in his Lordship's mind, he feA
bound to come to the conc.usion that the unintelligible word
or characters did not mean models. The Court felt sorry that
Mr. Douce, in whose favour this decision operated, should have
contended the question, as he took an immense sum under the
will as one of the residuary legatees, whereas the plaintiff was a
poor man and took but little; but his Lordship could only admi-
nister the law as he found it. He had no doubt that Mr. Douce
would act honourably and justly.