The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-17 00:00:00

ANDREWS V. LOCKWOOD.-JUDGMENT.

The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment this morn-
ing in this case, which came before his Lordship in
November last year, upon appeal from the decision of
the Vice-Chancellor of England. The case was one
of a bill of revivor by the personal representative of
one of the defendants in a cause of " Lockwood v.
Abdy." The bill ruled the case had been heard, the
plaintiff's bill dismissed with costs, and that certain
documents were by consent to be delivered to the
defendants. Andrews had since died, the plaintiff in
the present suit beirig his personal representative, and
the bill prayed that the decree might be revived. To
this bill of revivor Lockwood, who was the party to
Pay the costs, put in a plea that the documents or-
dered to be delivered had been delivered, and the de-
cree therefore being executed before the filing of the
plaintiff's bill, except in so far as respects the taxa-
tion and payment of costs, that was a bar to the bill,
and to all the relief thereby sought. The question
therefore was, whether upon the death of the party
who was to receive the costs a bill of revivor lay when
nothing remained to be done under the decree but
the taxation and payment of costs. When the matter
was argued before the Vice-Chancellor, his Honour
held that the plea was good, because the practice
which prohibited the filing of a bill of revivor for
costs had been too firmly established to admit of any
alteration on his authority. From that decision the
present appeal %as brought. His Lordship, in giving
Judgment, said that two points were raised in this
ease—first, whether, in the case of a decree merely di-
recting the payment of costs, and the subsequent death
of the party to whom the costs were to be paid, the
Personal representative of the party to whom the
costs were to be paid could revive the decree for the
purpose of taking those costs. With respect to that
question, his Lordship entertained no doubt that he
could, and it was unnecessary for him to say more
upon that point The second question was, whether
the Bill of Revivor had properly raised the question
in that suit, and whether a plea could be maintained
against it, on the ground that it had not. The Vice-
Chancellor of England, on the case coming before
him, decided that such a plea could be maintained,
and ordered it to be allowed. The Lord Chancellor
was clearly of opinion that the allowance of the plea
Of the court below was erroneous. The appeal, there-
fore, must be allowed.-:—Judgment below reversed.

MINOR V. MINOR—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR also gave judgment in this
case, which came before him nearly twelve months
ago, upon appeal from the decision of the Vice-
Chancellor Knight Bruce, dismissing the bill of the
plaintiff. The suit was instituted for the purpose of
corn pelling the defendant, who is the uncle of the
plaintiff, to account for certain sums which he
received as executor and trustee of his brother, and
which had not been handed over to the use of the
plaintiff. The Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce, on
the case coming before him, and upon a review of the
Keen
was of opinion that the matters in dispute had
'leen made the subject of family arrangement to which
the plaintiff was a party. His Lordship was clearly
of opinion that the decree of the Court below was
correct, and ordered the appeal to be dismissed with
costs.

WELLS V. HYDE.—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment in this
case, which also came before his Lordship upon
appeal from;the decision of the Vice-Chancellor Knight
Bruce. The bill was filed for the purpose of carrying
out the trusts of a deed of arrangement with certain
of the plaintiff's creditors. The defendant, by his
answer, raised a new issue, and the plaintiff pro-
ceeded to the hearing of the cause without asking for
leave to amend, but the Vice-Chancellor Knight
Bruce, before the case coming before him, gave that
leave, and from that decision the defendant appealed.
His Lordship, after going at some length into the
ease, stated his opinion clearly to be that the order
appealed from was wrong, and ordered it to be dis-
charged.
After some short discussion, at the suggestion of
his LORDSHIP, who stated that besides those in to-day's
paper there were only four appeals ready for hearing,
It was arranged that the case should stand in the
paper for hearing after the appeals already set down.

ETRE V. GREEN.--JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR also gave judgment in
this case, which was also an appeal from the decision
of Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce. The only question
in the case was, whether a jointure to the widow of the
testator was chargeable on the real and copyhold estates,
or only on the real estate. The Court below decided
that it was chargeable on both, and from that decision
the present appeal was brought. His Lordship
ordered the appeal to be dismissed with costs.—Judg-
nient below affirmed.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE CORPORATION OF

LUDLOW.
On the application of Mr. M. D. HILL, this case
was ordered to stand on the paper on Friday for
argument.

AXE v. ANDREWS.
The further arguments in this part-heard appeal
occupied the court the remainder of the morning.

ROLLS' COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
MARTIN V. THE MARQUIS DE CROISMERE.
This cause came before the Court upon further
directions and costs. By a marriage settlement the
personal and real property of the defendants was sub-
ject to certain limitations, and a covenant had been
executed, to the effect that any property accruing to
the parties subsequently should be under the same
provisions. The Marchioness became possessed of
considerable real property, and the question at issue
was as to the mode in which the terms of that cove-
nant could be carried out, the Marquis being an alien,
and consequently incapable of inheriting the real
estate, and two of the children of the marriage being
born abroad. The plaintiffs w ere the trustees to the
marriage settlement, and they prayed for a declara-
tion of the Court to enable them to carry out the
trust. The arguments being concluded,
The MASTER of the Ron's postponed his judgment.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
His Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England was
occupied the whole morning with the further argu-
ments in the part-heard case of Strother v. Dutton,
the facts of which present no feature of interest except
to the parties concerned.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN V. CHADWICK..---MARRYING A DECEASED

WIFE'S SISTER.
This was a writ of error upon a special verdict
which stated that on the 14th of Sept., 1845, James
Chadwick was married to Anne Fisher, and after-
wards on the 2d of March, 1846, at Manchester,
to
Eliza Barton, the said Anne Fisher being still
Annealive,
and the said verdict being to the effect that
Fisher was his lawful wife. The defendant had pre-
viously married a sister of Fisher who was deceased.
The
matter was indicted for bigamy and discharged.
matter was carried to this court.
Sir FITZROY KELLY said the question for the de-
cision of the court was, whether by the laws now in
force, a marriage with a deceased wife's sister was
lawful or altogether unlawful and void. He had to
submit to their Lordships in support of this rule, that
such a marriage was good and valid by the law of this
country. The law of the realm, on the matter was
contained in two Acts of Parliament—the 5 and 6
William IV., c. 54, and the 32 Henry VIII., c. 54.
The later Act enacted that all marriages solemnized
before the passing of the Act within the prohibited
degrees should not hereafter be annulled by any sen-
tence of the Ecclesiastical Court,. except so far as re-
lated to any suit pending at the time of its passing.
Then came the substantive enactment, that all mar-
riafies hereafter celebrated by persons within the pro-
hibited degrees of consanguinity and affinity should