The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-23 00:00:00

VESSELS ENTERED INWARDS AT THE CUS

TOM-HOUSE, Nov. 22.
The John Bull, Corbyn, from Hamburgh ; Ocean, Morfee,
Antwerp ; Stately, Barnet, Quebec ; Dart, Block, Ostend ;
St. Ann, Thomas, Copenhagen; Jane, Taylor, Gottenburg ;
Ellen, Sebestin, Sierra Leone ; Caroline, Reed, Hamburgh ;
Rattlesnake, Houghton, Antwerp ; Amelia, Gorada, Malaga ,
Friends of Liberty, Goodman, Malaga; William, Soames,
Rotterdam ; Hope, Boxer, Rotterdam ; Diana, Frieze, Quebec.

CHANCERV COup,T._(THIS DAY.

TURNER V. TURNER.—JUDGNIENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment this morning iti
thi* case, Ivbieb was nn appeal from part of a decree of his
Vice-Chaneellof,
lionour by which it was declared
that any child attaining the ag,l nt tWeti74fite, was not to
have any interest in, the accumulations ol !fit!
W&! 8!Id in-
terest ofthe pe to,4oe; Tbe question which gavd !'l3O
tH
this decree; arose upon the wit ot ri t4=r.,,on named
Turner; with gave his real and personal estate Pr trustees,
directing than td ELiiViirt all his effects into money,
invest the proceeds. The tfittOl.eit by his will gave his-
daughter 5001. a year during her liusban ?ife! and after his
death he erioi her another like sum ; to bei' 03,.5t
son he gave 3001. a Y6O; 4,01 her eldest daughter 200/. a
year, and to her other children 7,!ar each, directing
that these annuities should cease when call kbil,l should
attain the age of 25. The testator gave his trustees pOrro!r
during the minority of the children to provide for their
maintenance out of the annuities ; and during the period
when his grand-children should not exhaust the whole
annuity, he directed that there should be an accumulation
of the surplus for the benefit of each child ; he then directed
the income of the personal estate to be applied, together
with the rents, in defraying the expenses upon the real eatate,
and then he directed the whole of that income shall be laid
out until his grandchildren should attain 25, when they were
to be entitled to the property in certain proportions, during
their lives. Upon the different provisions made by the tes-
tator and the circumstances that had occurred, the ques-
tion was what interest the children took in the accumulated
fund which might arise upon the investment of the surplus
income of each share of the child under 25, until the
younger child should attain that age. The decree declared
that a child's interest in the accumulation ceased at 25. His
Lordship thought that was a wrong construction of the
words of the will. The right one, in his Lordship's opinion,
being that each child, upon his having attained 25, was en-
titled to a proportion of the income of the accumulations, as
they should from time to time exist, including the interest
of the income of any child under 25 years of age. The
order, therefore, of the Vice-Chancellor was reversed. The
costs to be Posts in the cause.

COOKCON V. HANCOCK.
His LORDSHIP also gave judgment in this case, which was
an appeal from the decision of the Master of the Rolls,
the effect of whose decree was to declare that the three
codicils did not affect the legatees who were to take, but
only to affect the proportion of those legatees who were to
divide the property of the testator. The testator, a person
of the name of Hancock, by his will, gave 3,0001. to his bro-
ther, George Baker, for his life ; and after his decease
he gave a like sum of 3,0001. in trust for his chil-
dren, share and share alike, provided his wife was not
living ; if she was, 2,0001. only was to be placed out upon
trust for the children, and the interest of the other 1,0001.
was to be paid to the widow for life. Then he gave the in-
terest of 6,0001. to his sister, a lady of the name of Smith,
for her life, and afterwards to her husband, and at his death,
the whole amount was to be held in trust for the children.
He also gave to his two maid servants an annuity of 10/.
each for life, and all the rest of his real and personal
property he bequeathed to his sister, Jane Hancock.
He made two codicils to his will upon the first
of which the question principally turned. The first
codicil was, " I hereby leave my brother George Baker an
equal share of my effects with my sisters, to have the inte-
rest during his life, and after his death to be divided among
his children ; but if his wife should be living at his decease,
she is to have the interest of 1,000/. My sister, Catharine
Smith, is to have the same interest as my sister Hancock."
In another codicil he repeated the bequest of the
annuities of 10/. each for their lives, to his two
maid servants. Upon these two papers, when the case
was before the Master of the Rolls, three constructions had
been put. First, that the legacies given by the will were
not revoked by the codicil, that they did not operate upon
the estate generally, but. only upon the residue given to
Jane Hancock ; that the testator's object was to
leave all as it stood upon the will, except that instead
of giving the absolute interest to Jane Hancock,
he declared that his brother and sisters should take
jointly. The second proposition was, that the codicil had
the effect of revoking the will altogether, as it operated on
the whole property ; and the third proposition was the one
which the Master of the Rolls had adopted, namely, that
the codicil was intended only to affect that proportion of
the estate which was to be taken by the three lega-
tees, and to make that equal which was not before
so under the will. His Lordship was clearly of opinion
that the latter proposition was the correct one, and he
should therefore affirm the decree of the Master of the
Rolls ; but as the question was one of difficulty, and cre-
ated by the testator himself, and as the appeal could not be
considered unreasonable, the costs must be costs in the
cause.