The Sun.
London, England, 1836-12-26 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

dOtill74 OP CHANCERY, DEC. 24.
EAST 21. TWYtOREtw.

The LORD CHANCELLOR, at the sitting of the Court,
gave judgment in this matter, which was argued in March
Ittft;, The ease came on to be heard on the construction
of the *till ti( the late Sir Gilbert East. Some of the
points in dispute wefe Anklet' at the argument, but three
stood over for consideration, ridnitly, 'whether certain be-
quests were void under the statute of rtiortmain, whether
certain estates were to go to the on of Sir W. Clayton or
to the son of Mr. Clayton East, his brother, and whether a
large sum in Prussian and Austrian bonds were to be taken
by Lady East, the testator's widow, absolutely, or as a
tenant for life. With respect to the first point, it was
clear that the almshouses directed by the testator to be
enlarged were not in existence at the time of his death,
and the bequest to them was therefore void under the
statute of mortmain. The testator had however gone on
to direct that the surplus of the fund, after the almshouses
were finished, should be appropriated to the purchase of
bread, which was to be distributed to the poor of the parish,
and it had been argued that, although the bequest was void in
one part, it might be quite good with reference to the
other. His Lordship was, however, of opinion, that, the
surplus not being ascertainable until the almshouses were
built, the bequest was void altogether. On the next point
his Lordship was clearly of opinion that the testator in-
tended the second branch of the family of his sister, Lady
Clayton, to take in preference to the first. With reference
to the third, his Lordship was also of opinion that the tes-
tator had no clear understanding of the distinction between
stock and bonds, and that having disposed of all his foreign
stock in a particular manner he meant thereby to include
his foreign bonds, and to give to Lady East in them only an
interest for her life. His Lordship had no doubt in his
mind that the construction he put on this part of the will
was the true one, and that the will was to be read in all its
numerous branches according to the meaning now affixed to
the points in dispute.

IN RE ANN WILLIAMS, AN ALLEGED LUNATIC.

Mr. TRESLOVE in this case applied for a commission to
inquire into the state of mind of Ann Williams, a lunatic,
of 85 years of age, who was entitled to the interest of
about 30,0001. by the will of her husband. The petition
was presented by the executors, who stated that after every
exertion they had been unable to discover who was the next
of kin. The nephew of the husband, in his affidavit,
stated that he had known Mrs. Williams for forty years,
but that. all he had been able to learn was, that she had
some relations in Bristol.

His LORDSHIP granted the application.
IN RE LYON, A LUNATIC.

Mr. WIGRANI in this matter appeared in support of a
petition for an order that a person named Jefferson should
proceed to Nice, bring home, and deliver the lunatic into
the custody of Mr. James Lyon, the person whom the
Master had approved of to be the committee ad interim of
the lunatic's person.
Sir W. HORNE opposed the application, which was evi-
dently intended to separate the lunatic from his wife, and
leave her helpless and pennyless in another country.
The LORD CHANCELLOR should direct the order to
issue, but with an addition that Mrs. Lyon should have
leave to accompany her husband to England.