The Sun.
London, England, 1825-07-23 00:00:00

SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 23, 1825

Vii
.11/4LLING-et JC.6, July 21, IBis.

fr.. . COMMISSIONERS for VICTUAL-
LING His MAJESTY'S NAVY, i-e. do hereby give
Notice, that on Friday, the 29th ,Instant, they will be
ready to receive Tenders in writing (sealed up), and treat for"
Thirty - Tons of OATMEAL
One Hundred - NarSIC.OEVR.AI)O SUGAR. •
Ten - ..
Twenty - - CHEESg
AV/ y - , COCOA
Thirty - .: VIRGINIA LEAP' TOJIACCO
To be delivered into his Illaj,sty's' rid al/ling Store, at
Deptford, one-stqf by the Ist September, and the remainder
by the lat October n cal,
_ _

Samples of the Otthnefl, of not less than two quarts each,
and of the Sugar and Cocoa, of not less than three pounds
weight each, will he required to he prodneed with the Ten-
ders tOr the supply of those articles respectively.
The Conditions o/ the Contracts mail he seen at this Wire.
Each Tender must specific the Price in words at lengths,
and he delivered before One o' Clock -on the day appointed;
and the Person who maker the Tender, or some Person on his
behalf, must attend to answer when called for

M. ff:II,I,F,R CIIFTON.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JULY.
IN RE FRANK, A LUNATIC.
The LORD CHANCELLOR heard an application inthis matter
in his private room.

NOTIONS.

•
His Lounsu IP stated, that as next Tuesday was "seal-clay,
he wished it to he understood that he should hear no motion
of which notice had not been previously given ;
,and, with re-
ferrence to the extension of the seal; he should not allow, unless
under particular circumstances, a motion to be. brought in of
which notice had not been given-before the seal-day

BowEy V. STRATHMORE.
His LORDSHIP made some observations ispon this case, but
without giving judgment, which he deferred till to-morrow,
when it was his intention to go at length through the evidence
in this important case. His Lordship remarked that the Master
of the Rolls had dismissed the petition (though without costs)
for want of jurisdiction ; but it might appear that the Court,
under all circumstances, had a civil jurisdiction, by virtue of
whiCh the money obtained from the hands of the Court by the
process stated in the bill might be diricted to be replaced in
stutu. quo.
The case, therefore, stands for judgment to-morrow.
ALLEN V. GLYNNE.

Mr. HEALD was heard on behalf of the defendant, Thomas
Gwynne, who possessed the estate through his father John
Gwynne. Mr. Heald re-capitulated the facts, which showed
that no fraud was imputable to the devisee under the will of
David Allen. The object of the testator was not so much to
benefit John Gwynn,-, as to disapppoint his own family, of
whom he had so much reason to complain ; he therefore gave
the estate in succession to GwYnne's brothers, in case the de-
visee should die before him. The plaintiff never had any equity
in the case, and had no remedy at law. Mr. Heald mentioned
an instance of an Attorney becoming the devisee of the client,
in spite of refusal on his part ' • but when the testator died, the
magnanimous Attorney called together the relatives of the de-
ceased, and divided the estate amongst them to the last farthing.
Such was the feeling of the gentlemen of the county where the
lawyer resided (the East Riding of Yorkshire, not a great way
from Beverley), that they gave him so much employment, that
he speedily.realsed a larger fortune than he had given away.
This was noble conduct ; but others were r. ;t to be charged
with fraud if they did not choose to imitatOlt.
Mr. BicKERSTET followed on the same side. • ,
Mr. HART replied.
The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that this was a very
important case. The trial of the action of ejectment had been:
of no use, and it did not appear that an issue could now be pro-
perly sent to a Jury. His Lordship proceeded to remark, that
there was some appearance of advantage taken of the 'elder
len; but the transaction was so old, that it was unsafe for the
Court to meddle with it, after the lapse of half a century. The
smallest circumstance might make out the fraud, and .a very
small circumstance might turn ti.i scale 'the other way. His
Lordship thought that when the deed of compromise-was exe-
cuted, David Allen and Gwynne were intent upon the will.—
The Court could not say that an-attorney could, not-take a de.
vise or bequest of his client's estate, or provide that if he .died
the gift should go to his brothers, whom the testator did not
know. He thought that Gwynne had acted indiscreetly in let-
ting his clerk copy the will front his own draught, and locking
up the original in hii closet, without giving his client a copy.
His Lordship,considered that the Court had jurisdiction to say
that if the will had been vitiated by the finding of a Jury, the
fine would not avail ; but the true question was, whether the
fine could be connected with the alleged fraud. The fine need
not have been levied on account of the lady Air. Gwynne was
about to marry, had the will been good. It was necessary for
the Court to go carefully through the pleadings, and consider
of all the circumstances found there: The case was not only
important, but not very easy to.decide. His Lordship then ad-
dressed a serious admonition to the solicitors of the Court, ob-
serving, that nothing was more delicate than fur an attorney or
a barrister to appear as the abSolute devisee or legatee in a
client's will. He hoped they would lay this seriously up in
their remembrance.

DEVAYNES V. NOBLE.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, suggested that as this appeal
would occupy much time, and as only two days for appeals re-
mained, it would be better that it should stand over till after
the long vacation ; which his Lordship agreed to.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Jur.l.- 22.
DUNBAR AND OTHERS V. BALDER° AND OTHERS.
This case came before his Honour upon exceptions to the
Master's report, and involved a question upon the construction
of a will under the following circumstances. The testator,
Mr. Grey, a gentleman who had realized a fortune in the East
-Indies, bequeathed the Sum of 20,0001. to the plaintiff's, as
trustees, to be applied to the erection of an Hospital at Elgin, in
Scotland. Ile also bequeathed the interest of 6,0001. to his
sister, Mrs. Williamson, for her life ; and 4001. "to each of
her children who might be living and unprovided for by mar-
riage at the time of her death ;" the residue to be applied to
the support of the intended institution. After the will was
proved the 6,0001. were paid into Court by the trustees, and
Mrs. Williamson continued to receive the interest during her
life. Upon her death, a petition was presented to the Court to
declare who were entitled to the legacies of 400/. under the will
of Mr.. Grey. It was referred to the Master, and he reported
that Mrs. Williamson had left several daughters and one son
living, of whorls he considered the son, and one of the daughters
who was a widow, to he excluded by the terms of the will from
any claim under it; the others, being unmarried daughters",
were clearly entitled to 400/. each. To this report the son and
widow excepted ; and contended by their Counsel (Messrs.
Horn and Wyatt) that under the words " children unprovided
for by marriage," they also were entitled to similar legacies ;
for the son had not been married at all, and the widow's hush
band being dead at the time of Mrs. Williamson's death, she,
too, was then unmarried. Besides, she must be considered as
unprovided for, having only a trifling income of DOI. a-year.
Messrs. SHGDEN and RO3ll r. LI", on behalf of the trustees,
argued that the testator -had no intention of bequeathing lega-
cies to any sister's children, except her daughters,who were un-
married at the time of her death ; for in another part of his
will, after complaining of his sister's foolish marriage, which
had obliged him to support her family for 20 years, and re.
main ten years longer than he intended in India, he said, " I
have left small legacies to my sister's children, in order that
they may not, in their turn, bedome the prey of unprincipled
men." It was clear, therefore, from these words that he did
not mean to include his sister's sons, as they could not become
'6the prey of unprincipled men," And with respect to the
widow being unmarried at the tune
.of her mother's death, it
was decided in several cases .reported Vevey, that the word
" unmarried" meant " never having been married."
The VicE-CHANceN.Lon. over-ruled the exception with re-
spect to the son, whom he considered the teietator did nut con-
template as a legatee; but his Honour tion
allowed the exce
respecting the widow ; for, although he agreed with the deci-
sions in those cases which had been cited, yet in the present
case the widow was in that situanon(although not, perhaps,
ttt siou isters),
to s ),
become which
by
in an equal degree with her lees experienced
n erieri
seemed to have in view—namely,:i
marriage the prey% of an unprincipled man ; and she could not
be said, from the trifling income lie poeessed, to 'be pro;
vided