The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-14 00:00:00

CHANC RY.—(Ti t
•he L (2! Chanc ler at Lt,
o,e Hall, Lincoln's- no, to hear appeea.
IN LE SHREWSBURY CHARITIES.—IN LE SUREWSBUP.N
GRAMMAR SCHOOL.
His Lordship having dispoaed of thee c.:scs,
time before him upon petition, proccedrd to hear tle
further arguments in the part-heard cese
ALLFREY V. ALLFREY.
This case came before his Lordship upon appeal from
the decision of the Master of the Rolls, declaring that
the plaintiff was not bound by the • etdemeet teentioeee
in the cause, and directing certain eceounte. When tht
ease came before the Master of the R, lls the arguments
occupied the Court no less than three days. Though the
eetails, from the nature of the case, comprise numerou,
ecuniary transactions, matters of account, and a lor:
n d tedious statement of minute particulars, tending to
Show that the accounts were erroneously made out, anti
Purposely so as the bill alleged, yet the main facts of the
i
case itself are not at all complicated, and may be stated
briefly as follows:—Mr. George Allfrey, of Sussex, w ine
Merchant, died on the 22d April, 1802, intestate, leaving
his wife, Kitty Allfrey, three sons, and one daughter,
then born, and a fourth son afterwards burn, him sur-
viving. The names of the children in the order of birth
Were George, Edward, Thomas, John Stamnise, Mary.
and Williatm. The intestate at the thee of his death
also left his mother, an only brother, Edward Allfrey,
and several sisters, him surviving. He was owner
of some real estate, of which part was freehold and
descended to his eldest son George, and the other part
was eopyhold, or borough English, and descended to
William, the youngest child, who was born on the 25th
of September, 1802. There was also personal estate,
consisting of 9,1001. Three per Cent. Reduced Stock,
standing in the name of the intestate, some cash, and
other matters. One-third of this of course went to the
widow, and the children took each two-fifteenths. All
the children being then infants of very tender years
end the widow, Mrs. Kitty Allfrey, not applying for
administration, Mr. Edward Allfrey, the testator's only
trother, took out letters of administration on the 17th
of June, 1802, to his brother's estate, and on the 9th of
November following he got himself- appointed guardian
of William, as to the copyholds by the lord
of the manor. The whole affairs of his brother's
family were afterwards managed by Mr. Edward Allfrey.
In 1808 he filed a bill in the name of his ward William,
to compel disclosure of a notice to quit given to Elphick,
a tenant of part of the lands, with a view to an ejectment.
So matters went on till 1822, on the 22d of January of
which year Mrs. Kitty Allfrey died, Navin'by her will
appointed as her executors Mr. Edward Allfrey and
another, who renounced. On the 25th of September,
1823, Mr. William Allfrey came of age, and some time
after his uncle put the books of accounts into his hands,
but from some inaccuracy in some of the items, the
matter stood over the 7th of May, 1825, when William
Signed a memorandum of approval, but without examin-
ing the accounts, his uncle intimating that George, his
brother, had examined them on his own ac•
count as well as on that of his sister
and brothers, or some such observation; and William
then received a balance of 171. or 181. On the 6th of
June, 1834, Mr. Edward Allfrey died, raving appointed
Lis wife Margaret, his son Robert, and his nephew, the
said George Allfrey, the youngt r, his executors. On
the 11th of August, 1841, administration deliveries were
taken out to George Allfrey, the intestate, and on the
4th of September, 1843, to Kitty Allfrey, by George
Allfrey the younger. The papers of Mr. Edward All-
frey‘ coming by some accident into the hands of William,
Looks
haPp-ned to observe that credit was not given in the
of account for halt a year's rent of the real
estate after his father's death, and that circum-
stance exciting his curiosity, he examined fur-
ther, and found other errors, and at last of
Such a kind as to excite his suspicion. The result was,
that after two years negotiation, and some offers of ac-
commodation, he filed his bill first to open the account,
les regarded his own particular estate, notwithstanding
lls signing the memorandum, and to set aside the ar-
,ate,
a went itself. He next filed a bill for the general
administration of his father's estate, praying that an
account might be taken thereof, and of the balances in
the hands of Edward Allfrey, from half-year to half-
-3 Car, and that the amouws of stock and inters-st thereon
(from(fro time to time), which could be purchased with
srp might
with be allowed ; and that if Edward
4,lllreY trafficked such balances, the amount
his profits might be taken, and the
benefit allowed the plaintiff It appeared that
• Edward Allfrey, among other things, had
sold out the stock, and used it in his business, being en-
gaged
he edin large transactions, as one of the distinguished
firm of Blakes, Robson, and Allfrey, underwriters, and
accounted for the dividends from time to time
1, ()ugh there were none. The items were gone into
',11,17 minutely, and several errors were pointed out, the
t"Ills in the aggregate not being of very great amount, '
tbe some of the entries of alleged sums being, as in
case of the stock, certainly fictitious as to the real
nature of the transaction, though in the result, perhaps,
'43 involving any great loss to the estate of the intestate.
At the conclusion of the arguments, the Master of the
Rolls took time to consider his judgment, and ultimately
e that decision which was now appealed from, stating
_ that there were circumstances in the clauee which
_rendered it probable that the plaintiff had a very inaccu-
rate notion of the benefit he was likely to derive from
° suit, and at the same time observing that probably it
would beadvisablefor him to put an end to
.Liegation. The Master of the Rolls, however, thought
bound
he was entitled to a declaration that he was not
of the
by the settlement, and to have the usual accounts
Aulitihe estate of George Allfrey, possessed by Edward
b freY, and its application, and to an inquiry as to the
alariCeS in hand at the end of each year, after the death
i)11 George Allfrey, with a view to the consideration
ereafter of what may be proper to be done as to the
liiterest or profits arising from the employment of the
balances, with librrty to state special circumstances.
-D
-".ruth this decree the present appeal was brought.
The case appears likely to occupy a day or two in ar-
gument.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
GRAY V. kiRAY.
The further arguments in this part-heard case were
resumed to-day, and occupied the Court the whole
morning. The only question in the case which turned
on the will of a person named Thomas Gray, was,
vihether an unapplied income, in the hands of trustees,
'who were possessed of it for the benefit of the testator's
801 l John and his children, belonged to the next of kin
of John, who died without issue, or whether it had been
given over by the will.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
Ilia HONOUR having disposed of the bankrupt peti-
"°ns in his paper, heard causes, and the arguments in
the case of Powell v. Dodson occupied the Court the
11ole day. The case involves no point of interest ex-
"Pt to the parties concerned.
(Before the Vice- Chancellor WIGRAM.)
".'S Honour having disposed of the case of Fuller v.
`"ennett, which stood in the paper for judgment, pro-
eeded to hear the further arguments in the part-heard
t'tase of Dl‘Calmont v. Rankier, which occupied the Court
remainder of the day.

ittings
(IT, ERNS BENCH.—(THIS DAY )
at Westminster, beforethe LORD CHIEF Jus

TICE and a Special Jury.)
Tkts ; TRE QUEEN V. THE MARQUIS OF CHANDOS.
case was called on at the sitting of the Court. It
elea Prosecution against the Marquis of Chandos, the
tw-nest son of the Duke of Buckingham, at the instance of
ttou Parties named Hitchcock and Waters, as we under-
eoLdefor the commission of witul and corrupt perjury
m
tileitted in reference to some property. But ten of
11.h° sPecial jury appeared, and Sir Frederick Thesiger,
appeared for the defendant, having prayed a
4 tales
~,, a jury ortwelve was sworn.
pear ',ill'. May was called by Mr. I'etersdorff, who ap-
Peg'
for the prosecution, but not appearing.
per-,°rd DENMAN, after more delay, enquired if any
ts" was appointed for the prosecution, and, if so, if it
intended to proceed with it?
Sir
TetEsid'Ert—Yes, my Lord, my Learned Friend
tavelOunsel for the prosecution, and I appear here with
tej Learned Friend for the defence, and I am quite ready
intPeer°ceed• I wish to know whether my Learned Friend
kees to proceed with the prosecution.
teen r• PETERSDORFI intimated that arrangements had.
tuade for the production of certain documents in
p r The attorney had gone for them, and was not
tree.:llt4 This bein the case, he did not think he should
gi:;stified in addressing the jury in opening the case.
• TRESIGER—If your Lordship does not open
teoa,e, I claim an acquittal.
tirehrti DENMAN said the Court knew nothing of any
absCstallees which might account for any person being
ttfee,,,. The Court only knew that no evidence was
ky'teh''
'torf the prosecution, and therefore the jury must
full the defendant was not guilty. There had been
°?Portunity of bringing the case forward.
tjlair,peJurY therefore, under the direction of the Lord
JUstiCe, returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
C(AA,v-
(Si alMoN PLEA s.—(THIS DAY.)
ttings
Au Banco before Justices COLT3IIN, MAITLE,
CRESSWELL, and WILLIAMS.)
4IIp sr MoRRISON v. CHADWICK.
f,,:r* 'Justice CrLTMAN delivered judgment in this case.
tllid this was an action by a lessor against his tenantl
,
te:de,°ll promise• to use the demised premises during
Was th"' lo a tenant-like manner. The breach alleged
es..likut the tenant had used the premises in an unten-
:4to manner and had suffered them to fall
lion state.' The defendant had pleaded evic-
'ne 4,-,„"t4 Part of the demised premises, during part of
repo-a".4,PeY ; but the Court was of opini.on. that that
Qiidio:'lcin could not be supported. Eviction by the
' t uf his tenant from part of the demised pre-
vietio of
a suspension of the entire rent during the
I)„l3aaes: and until the tenant was restored and resumt d
"; but there was no authority for holding that
IdditieeenancY NI as thereby put an end to. In
:laieta,:' to the suspension of rent, the lessee might
jhieh `.ll au ectien against his lessor for the eviction, by
7,(),as ,blis*,was presumed he obtained satisfaction for any
'uowei",'eh he might suffer. The Court, therefore,
"t that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment.
tfe. XDMONDS AND OTHERS V. CHALLIS.
No. JUStiee CuLT3IAN also delivered judgment in this
be shliP said, this was an action
.brought against
dtsvie E'ellff of Middlesex for not having taken a re-
Nrsa "ouci, in conformity with the statute. The
wag tried before Mr. Justice Cresswell,
1,11 verdict was found for the plaintiff for
I'llttitnt leave was reserved to the defendant to show
et abue bond was sufficient for the purposes of the Act.
\‘'l4etived by the Judge's report that the distress out of
the vit,.h? Ection arose was taken within the district of,
hltechapel County Court, in the county of
l'Alik.AeL'x; and the condition of the bend was that the
'uolsrjy,r `,;should appear at the next county court to be
Ilfaea7 the county of Middlesex in the Sheriff's
alret;ited the
The bond which had been
this case was in the form often used before the