The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

CHANCERY COURT-(THIS DAY)
The LORD CHANCELLOR sat in his Court at West-
minster to-day, shortly after 10 o'clock.
VAUGHAN V. ELCIL—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment to-day in
this case, which was argued before his Lordship in the
course of last week, upon an appeal from the decision
of his Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England. The
principal question in this case was whether the testator
in the cause intended by his will to give his wife an ab-
solute, or only a life-interest, in the property bequeathed
by his will. On the case coming on before the Vice.
Chancellor of England, his Honour thought the wife
took a life-interest only, and decreed accordingly, di-
recting the property to be converted. From that decision
the parties appealed, and upon that appeal the Court
now gave jukaient. His Lordship said the question in the
case arose trader the will of Mr. William Henry Vaughan.
The testator appeared to have been an illiterate person
and to have drawn his will himself, and it was, there-
fore, difficult to form an opinion as to what the inten-
tions of the testator were upon an instrument so framed.
The testator began his will by bequeathing the whole of
of his property, during her life, to his wife, and, after
her death to his surviving children, excepting two
small sums which were to be appropriated to the
putting out of his two sons to some trade. He then
gave 1001. each to his two sons, and a similar sum to
his tiro daughters ; and afterwards he gave his books,
pictures, and plate, to his wife. The total amount of
these legacies bore an inconsiderable proportion to the
rest of the property disposed of by the will of the tes-
tator. After these bequests the will proceeded to enume-
rate certain leasehold property, money lin the funds, and
Long Annuities, possessed by the testator, and stated
" all these I give to my wife, and the residue, if any."
Under those words it had been contended that the widow
took an absolute interest in the property con-
tained in that clause of the will. His Lordship was
clearly of opinion that that was not the true construc-
tion of the clause, and that such was not the intention of
the testator. That clause must be considered as extend-
ing to all the testator's property, except the legacies be-
fore given. It would be, therefore, difficult to suppose
that the testator, after having, in a few lines before,
given the whole property to his wife for life, should, in
the same clause, give the property 'to her absolutely. In
the, opinion of his Lordship it was, not reasonable to put
r,uch a construction upon the will of the testator, it
being clear to the Court that the intention of
'the testator Was only to enumerate, in detail,
what he had before given in 'general terms, and
not to make a new disposition of his property. This
appeared to his Lordship to be the true construction I
of the will, and he was therefore of opinion, that the
widow only took a life estate. The next point raised,
was, whether the whole property was to be converted,
or whether it was to be enjoyed by the widow in specie.
His Lordship thought the Court ought to put the same
construction on the will in this respect, as if the
whole property had had been included in the
same clause. His Lordship thought, that as to
the leasehold premises and the Long Annuities
the gift was clearly specific, and that therefore the
widow was entitled to the enjoyment of them in specie.
The decree of the Court below must be varied as to
those two particular subjects, but with respect to all the
other matters it must be affirmed.
Mr. GIRDLESTONE presumed, as infants were con-
cerned, the Court would order the costs of all parties to
come out of the estate.
The LORD CHANCELLOR— Yes ; I think that will be
the proper course to adopt.
MITFORD V. REYNOLDS.
Mr. BETHEL concluded his reply in this case.
The LORD CHANCELLOR postponed hi

s judgment.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

NORBURN V. OLLETT.

Mr. PEmßEferox and Mr. BOLT stated that this suit
was instituted by one of the trustees and executors, who
was also a a legatee, and interested in remainder under
the will of Thomas Norburn, deceased, for the purpose
of having the accounts taken and the trusts of the will
carried into execution. The testator was a farmer in the
county of Norfolk, and made his will on the 30th of
June, 1832, and thereby devised his real estate, subject
to certain annuities and legacies, fo his daughter, Mary
011ett, the wife of the defendant, 'with remainder to his
son in tail, with remainder to his daughter in similar
manner, and with remainder over to' the plaintiff, who
was testator's brother, and testator appointed plaintiff and
Mrs. 011ett his executors; and, having died Oct. 29, 1835,
the will was severally proved by them. It was alleged by
the plaintiff that some years before the testator's death
the defendant had occupied and been rated to the parish
for a farm belonging to testator, and had possessed him-
self of stock and effects, on account of which he
was indebted to the estate in the sum of 1,0001,
and that on application he had refused payment of the
legacies and an account of the assets. A bill was,
therefore, filed by the plaintiff, praying that the will
might be established, a receiver appointed, and the
trusts carried into effect. The defendant, in his answer,
alleged that the testator, at the time of his death, was
indebted to him to a considerable amount in respect of
ploughs and other agricultural implements supplied by
him to the testator in his lifetime, and in respect of pas-
turage on a farm of the defendant. He admitted that he
had occupied the farm of the testator, but alleged that
he did so under an arrangement, by which he was to
hold it without payment of rent. He also alleged that
testator had engaged to give him a portion of 2,2001. on
his marriage with testator's daughter, but had not done
so ; and that he was ready to pay the sum charged upon
him on payment of this sum, but not otherwise.
Mr. KINDERSLEY and Mr. BLUNT, on behalf of the
defendant, said their client was willing to give an ac-
count of the assets, but denied that he was liable to be
charged with an occupation rent. The defendant hazing
married testator's daughter, they had all lived together
and defendant had constantly acted in the arrangement
of testator's farm, but under the direction of testator. In
the original bill nothing was said about defendant's occu-
pation of the farm; but defendant having in his answer
suggested that the estate was indebted to him in a con-
siderable sum of money for which he was entitled to ac-
count, the plaintiff thereupon amended his bill, and in-
troduced the allegation that the defendant was a tenant
of the farm, at a rent of 1501. Defendant also alleged
that the marriage portion due to him, had never been
paid, and that he had expended more on account of the
testator than he had received of his personal estate, and
that plaintiff had also received considerable sums of
money on account of the estate for which he ought to
account. It appeared from the evidence that although de-
fendant was rated to the parish on account of his occupation
of the farm, those who had dealings with the testator in
respect of it, and the labourers and others connected with
the farm, all considered testator to be the occupant, and
that he had constantly exercised authority over it, and
controlled the acts of the defendant, and had repeatedly
stated that he would never give up the government of it
as long as he lived.
Mr. 1103IILLY, on behalf of the trustees, appeared and
supported the case of the plaintiff.
The MASTER of the ROLLS said it appeared to him to
be a question whether the answer of the defendant was
sufficient to allow him to let in evidence. The sole ques-
tion in the case was, on what terms the defendant en-
tered on the management of the farm, it being alleged
by the plaintiff that he did so as a tenant, and liable to
pay a proper sum for use and occupation ; and on the
other hand, it being alleged by the defendant that he
occupied it at the desire of the testator, and for the com-
mon benefit of the testator's family, of which he had re.
cently become a member, and in consideration of certain
things held out to him ; and this appeared to him an
extremely natural arrangement. If the defendant's an-
swer was inconsistent with the evidence he must re-
ject the bill; but if it was not, he did not see why he
should be charged with rent during the testator's life-
time. He would give his decision on this point on Mon-
day. The accounts must be taken, and the will esta-
blished.

VICE-CHANCERY-(THIS DAY.)

SALISBURY V. NORRIS.

The further arguments in this part-heard cause, the
facts of which we have already stated, occupied the
Court the whole of the day.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
BOWSER V. COLBY.

His HoNoun disposed of several of the points raised by
the Counsel in this cause, but reserved his final decision
with respect to the argument that the plaintiff had no
right to relief because he had not paid the rent within
the time required by the Act. His Honour, after
examining the cases cited on that point, said he thought
the plaintiff had not lost his right to relief at the hearing
of the cause, if he were otherwise entitled to it, simply be-
cause he had not paid the money into Court within forty
days from the filing of the answer. He thought that he
would be at liberty to give relief, if a case of relief were
made out. With respect to the argument as to the re-
entry of the landlord, on that point, also, he was of
opinion that this case was within the ordinary cases in
which the Court could give relief. Another point was,
whether the defendant should be at liberty to show that
there had been breaches of the covenant. He appre-
hended that nothing could be more clear, than that
where a party came to a Court of Equity for its
assistance, the Court would inquire whether, if
the party had been in possession of the right
he claimed, that right would, or would not,
have been forfeited. The defendant, therefore, had a
right to bring before the Court any breaches of cove-
nant, and, if committed, would occasion a loss of the
lease. Whether these breaches would be proved in the
cause, or tried by an issue, must depend very much upon
the course taken in the pleadings. He would, however,
reserve his final judgment until he had examined the
papers.
LYDALL V. DODD.
This was a bill filed by John Lydall Dodd, against
Thomas Dodd, the surviving executor of his father, and
a number of other persons, praying generally for the per-
formance of the trusts of the will of John Lydall, in the
pleadings mentioned.