The Sun.
London, England, 1836-12-20 00:00:00

CHANCERY .COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

IN RE THE KINGSTON CHARITIES.
This case came before the Court upon petition, praying
the confirmation of the Master's report approving of new
trustees to the charity, in consequence of the old ones be-
coming extinct by the operation of the Municipal Re-

form Act.
His LORDSHIP made the order as prayed, affirming the
Master's report.

PORTS V. MANSFIELD.
Mr. WALKER was heard to-day on this case, following
Mr. Jacob.
Sir C. WETHERELL proceeded to reply, but had not con-
cluded when our reporter left.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

-
His HONOUR took short causes and causes to-day.
cnossmaN V. KENRICK.
Mr. KNIGHT stated that the plaintiff in this case was
a clergyman who had filed the bill for the purpose of
having the difficulties which was supposed existed in
consequence of the words of his marriage settlement re-
moved by the declaration of the Court. The defendants
were the wife of the plaintiff, his children, and the trus-
tees of the marriage settlement. The facts of the case
were shortly these, the plaintiff was seized in fee of an
advowson ; he married young ; the advowson being full
when he married, he made it the subject of his marriage
settlement. Shortly after the marriage, an avoidance of
the advowson happened, and the plaintiff was pre-
vented by the trustees of the marriage settlement ;
subsequently the advowson was sold under the trustees of
the marriage settlement, but it appeared that at that time
the plaintiff had accepted another living, which made the
first voidable by reason of secession ; this coming to the
knowledge of the purchaser, a great price was given for it ;
the secession was afterwards made available, and the plaintiff
lost the living. It was understood among all the parties
that the produce of the advowson was to be applied to the
use of the plaintiff, for his life, and for several years it had
been so applied ; but lately, to the alarm and dismay of
the whole family, doubts had been raised as to whe-
ther that application was not in the teeth of the set-
tlement, its terms requiring an accumulation of the
whole income during the life of the plaintiff, the result
of which would be, that until the death of the plaintiff
there would not be a single shilling available, either for the
support of himself or his family. Such being the state in
which the family would be placed, the bill had been filed to
have the declaration of the Court, that the plaintiff was en-
titled to a life estate in the advowson. This prayer the
Learned Counsel trusted his Honour upon a liberal con-
struction of the settlement would feel himself justified in
granting, and thereby prevent the family from actual
starvation.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR, after carefully reading the set-
tlement, said that however hard it might be, the Court
could not break down an existing settlement, on the ground
of hardship. Virtually, the plaintiff had had the benefit
the settlement intended ; for, in endeavouring to get a
greater benefit, he had in effect given up the benefit in-
tended by the settlement.
Mr. KNIGHT asked his Honour if he would not direct a
reference to the Master, with respect to the wife and chil-
dren, otherwise they must all starve.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR did not see how he could make
any such reference. It was certainly a hard case, but the
Court had no alternative, but to construe an instrument as
Oland it.