The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-01 00:00:00

CHANCERY COURT-(THIS DAY.)

BLEWITT V. ROBE ILTS•--•BEEWITT V. STAUFFEI

This was an appeal from the decision of the Vice-Lhancel-
lor, in a cause arising out of a dispute as to the right construc-
tion of a will.

tiffs • aneMr. Jacob, Mr. Girdlestore,
lUr. Wiaram and Mr. Macdonald appeared
4.1 Mr. Sharpe for
the 'defendants. Mr. Richards and-
,str. Loftus Wigram also
appeared for Mrs. Stauffer, or 'tile plain-
:: of the children of the testator.
The testator who possessed of coi4siderable property
left to his wife an annuity of six hundred pounis a year for
her life, awl. "aireeted that after her death the said annuity
should-; .Je equally divided between his six children, men-
tif;a-ed in the will, or the survivor or survivors of them, and in
addition to this he gave his said children 1001. a year for.
their lives, with power at their death to leave the " said re-
spective annuity" to any person they might marry, or to any
child or children they might leave.
The Bill was originally tiled by Reginald James Blewit, the
residuary legatee, to take the opinion of the Court, as he con-
ceived he was entitled to the fund out of which the annuities
w.-re wanted when the annuities ceased. When the widow
died, application Was made to the Vice-Chancellor as to whe-
ther her annuity was divisible between the chldren
as annuities, or whether they became entitled to
the fund, and the Vice Chancellor held that they were enti-
tled to hare the fund paid to them. With respect to the 1004
a year given to the children, when one of them died unmar-
ried, a question arose whether the annuity contlnued payable
to the survivors, or whether it did not become capital, which
should be divided between the survivors, and it was held by
the Vice Chancellor that each had the power to dispose of the
capital producing 1001. a year. and that if it was not cisposed
of it went to the survivors.
The case was proceeding when we went to press.

VICE-CHANCER.Y.-(THIS DAY.)
:MANSON V. THE NORTHERN AND EASTERN RAILWAY

COMPANY

This was an application to diisolre an injunction to r: strain
the defendants from building a bridge, except at a certain
height, over a stream on which a mill, the property of the
plaintiff, was erected.

His Honour the VicE-CHANczt.LoR dissolved the injunc-
tion without costs.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

BROADHURST V. MILBANKE

This was an action brought by the against the de-
fendant, au officer in the 2d. Dragoons, quartered at Birming-
ham, to recover 3/. 95., fur goods sold and delivered to defen-
dant at Heaton Norris, in Cheshire, in 1837.
Mr. PRICE had obiained a rule, cang on the plaintiff
to show cause why proceedings should not be stayed on
payment of 31. 95., ,he amount of the debt without costs, on
the ground that at the lime of the commei:cerneiet of the ac-
tion the plaintiff was lodging in Waterloo-street, Birmingham,
within the jurisdiction of the Birmingham Court of Requests.
Mr. CIEs WELL, showed cause against the rule, and after
commenting severely on'the defendant's affidavit, which set
forth that the writ had been served 'on or about Feb. 15, when
it had in realty-been served on the 29th of January, in the
b rracks, which are out of the jurisdiction of the Court of
Requests, proceeded to read the affidavit of the servant in the
house where the eefen.lant was represented as lodging, which
stated that the defendant had never slept in the house—that
she was not aware he had lodgings there, but that he fr, quently
called there. The Learned Counsel also stated that an appli-
cation of a similar nature had been made to stlr. Baro.i Alder-
son. at Chambers; and refused.
Mr. Justice Cot,EitiooE ordered the rule to be discharged,
with costs.