The Sun.
London, England, 1807-06-24 00:00:00

Samuel !.;id fame; Kirby,. of Sheffield, cutlers. May 13.
Elizabeth Llewellyn alzd Catherine Slater, of Liverpool,
liner,-drapers, j tine 6.
Icahn Edwards: and William Jewell Edwards, of Portgool-
lane, .(;ray's-inti-lane, pawnbrokers, June 1.•
Charles Nicholas N-liette; Matthew Trocquerrw Micite, and
William Hall, of Canterbury, lune 8.

LAW REPORT.

• courq OF CHANCERY, JoNEI3..
BEFORE HIS HONOUR THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS.

CHILD V. LORD lIIINTINCiFIELD.

, .
Tuts extraordhiary case came before .the Court
upon the construction of the last will and lestathent
of-Maria Mordett, of the, city of Utrecht; in the,
,United Provinces. This will. devised Jarge property.
in Holland,
.and likewise a sum 015000 guilders, to
be vested in the Funds, in England, for the use of
the-nephews and nieces of the Testatrix, for their
natural lives, and, from and after their decease, the
usufru4l to go to their children .in equal moities ;
sonic of the Legatees died before the Testatrix, and
at the date of the 'will some of, the children : who
were to take in remainder were , four-and-twenty
Sears old; and residing in this country, but, by the
laws of Holland, they were minors until within ten
days of the age of 25. One of the nieces, named
Ann De Brysaac, covenanted with. the Deputies of
the Court, of Orphan Chamber, in• Holland, to let
her moiety go to the children before mentioned, in
reversion, provided She, should have the interest se-
cured to her for life, and toany husband-She may
marry, for his. life, in case he sur.'ived her. The
Defendants, Lord Huntiogfield and Mr.' Wal-
pole, are the Trustees under this deed of con-
tra& . made with the Orphan Chamber and Ann
Dc BrySaac. The contra& was acted upon for
twenty-seven years, by all the parties ; but one of
them now contends, that it is not binding on him, in-
asmikh as he was, at that time, a minor, domiciled
in England, iwhere the property, or part thereof,
was then and still remains. The question is quite
new and-difficult : Whether the will or deed-made
in Holland shall be carried, as to the liMitatibns
thereof, . into effe& in this country ? or whether the.
laWs of England shall not govern the appropria-
tion of all, such pioperty as vests in any person liv-
ing within these realms, the property be here,
no matter
.where the deed or bequest may have
been executed ? Of this opinion his Honour seemed
.clearly decided. But another question 'arose 'oil
,the
construction of tenautcy in, common and joint ,•te-
nantcy, by the Dutch laws, a point which governs this
case in a great measure. Another greater ditEcolty
arose. from , the nature of this Court of- Orphan
Chamber, which his honour could not clearly dis-
tinguish, by the deed, from a kind of registry where
such dee:issare recorded. There was a great Doelor
,of the Civil Law of 'Leyden exaivinedto the, 'cps
lity and 'regularity of this deed.. of trUst, according
to the Dutch law, -and he was the only Deponent in
the cause. Upon reading the will, .which ,was in
French, his Honour at once,.settled). that it was a
joint-tenantcy rattier; but the ease being so very
uncomnion, under existing circumstances, and no
Counsel, Its Sir SANIUgI, Rommt,v observed, having
any case similar to refer to, his Honour: took time,
until Thursday morning, to deliver his judgment.

HEWIT V. SIR JOHN MACARTNEV.

Thie- wac a Bill for foreclosing a mortgage of a
colliery pasSed to the Plaintiff by the Defendant; who
had:quitted this country, and .of course was now
out of the jurisdielion .of the Court. Thera.,N)wed
objeZt of the foreclosure was to bring the Defer ant
to bear, or in terrorein. A party was made a Co,
Defendant with Sir-John in the Bill, but who nvde
no ,Claim whatever upon his (Sir John's) right or
estate in the mine; but. claimed a lien for money
laid out on the place, and works for their improve-
'Merit, to the amount of seventy-thousand pounds.
Thi; Defendant, by. his Counsel, opposed the fore.
closure, strenuously, on the ground that he must be
implicated with Sir John in the decree' for foreclo4-
ing, althoUgh not a creditor or claimant in any way
ag-airist Sir John's right in the colliery ; he com-
plained of being brought before the. Court in this
m;ay, quite unnecessarily, and Without his consent,
and moved that the Bill, as against him, might be
dismissed with costi; "but after some doubts and ar-
gUments, it was ruled,- that the Defendant must re-
main included in the decree, by the Rules of equity,:
and that only remedy to be relieved,
,tSby filing a
bill for an acCount, as the title of the mortgagee
would not be complete without him. There was a
decree to foreclose.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WESTMINSTER, luxit 23

ASSAULTS.

THE KING V. BISTE.

This was an indidruent for an assault. The par-,
ties were both dustmen, in the neighbourhood of
Holloway, and,' it appeared,. had been rival candi-
dates for the contract for the dust of that distrid,
when the Prosecutor, Robert Laycock, became the
fortunate bidder, and obtained the 'ccnt,rad. The
ProSecutor having some reason' to-susped that- the
Defendant wasin the habit of trespassing ,at times
upon his district, and secretly carrying away brist,
or dust which properly belonged to hiM, set, some
of his people,to watch his motions, and, upon the.
ith of Deceniber last, they discovered him carry-'
ing awaydust in bags,• in a cart, from a Oentle-
man'S honse in Highbury-place. He was traced to
a fitrrier's,- in the neighbourhoOd, where the Pro
secutor came pp with his cart, and, while in the
ad of standing on the wheel, in order to asCertain
what.was in the cart, .the Defendant came: b'ehind
him, and struck him a violent blOw, on 'the 'right
side of his face; he then struck hird several. other'
blows, and kicked his shins t 6 such a degree that one
of his legs became double its natural size. He suc-
ceeded, however, in bringing, the Defendant 'befcre.
the Magistrates; at Worship-street,-. who convicted'
him in a.penalty of 40s: for, trespassing Upon. the
distrid of another dustman. "
, On the part of the Defendant several withesies.
were called to prove a son assault (first assault by
the
,Prosectitot) ;*but 'Lord ELL BC)itOtrOtl
of opinion, that even if the Defendant coitia proi'e
a son' assald t , yet, 'as the Prosecutor was Tir the of-
apprehending hiM, in an illegal ad, aiid'whieli the-
lftw. author'iied hini to do, that could not'avail him
in the -present prosecution, as be had.poright 'to re-...