The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-08 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY)

RANELAGH t. RANELACH
Mr. PEMBERTON, with whom was Mr. RoMILLY,
moved for an order to the Accountant-Ganeral to
transfer to the petitioners, Ann Marston, the repre-
sentative of Sarah Antonia Jones, a certain fund be-
queathed to her by the will of her late father, and which
was now in custody of the Court.
The testator, Thomas Lord Viscount Ranelagh, made
Iris will on the 20th August, 1814, and a codicil thereto
on the 18th December, 1818. By this codicil he be-
queathed to his daughter, Marianne Jones, 200/. to be
paid forthwith; to his daughters Sarah Antonia Jones,
and Louisa Jones, the sum of 4,0001. sterling each; and
to his two sons, Thomas Cowley Jones, and Thomas
Edward Jones, 2,0001. each during their natural
lives, with legal interest at 5 per cent., to be paid to all
of them in equal quarterly payments, commencing from
the day of his decease, till his son, the Hon. Thomas
Jones, or his heir in entail, attained his or her 21st
year of age, and in case of the demise of any of the
above parties without legitimate issue, then his or her
proportions to be divided equally amongst the sur-
vivors; and the testator's son, the present Lord Rane-
lagh, was appointed residuary legatee. A bill having
been filed, it was contended on behalf of the two daugh-
ters and two youngest sons, that they took an absolute
interest in their respective legacies, on the ground that
the gift over in case of the demise of any of them
without issue was to be referred to an indefinite failure of
issue. The case came before the Master of the Rolls in
1832, and his Honour decided that the presumption was
that the testator had not in contemplation an indefinite
failure of issue, and his Lordship directed the sums to be
secured in Court, and the dividends paid to the legatees
for their respective lives, with liberty to any person to
apply on the death of each legatee, and on appeal the
Lord Chancellor (Lord Brougham) confirmed the judg-
ment of the Master of the Rolls.
One of the legatees, Sarah Antonia Jones, being dead
without issue, Mr. PEMBERTON applied on behalf of her
executor to transfer to her her portion of the funds in
Court, and contended that if any of the legatees died
without issue, the testator intended the gift over should
take effect.
Mr. TINNET and Mr. BIGG on behalf of Thomas Cow-
ley Jones, and Mr. KINDERSLEY on behalf of the other
surviving children, contended that the death of the
legatee could not determine that she took an absolute
interest. The Court having said that she was not en-
titled to it when the case came before it on a former
occasion, it lay upon them to show that though not
entitled to it when the decree was pronounced, subse-
quent circumstancesgave it to her, but the circumstances
that had occurred, prevented the possibility of her
having a better interest.
Mr. TURNER argued that the fund should be divided,
and one-third be given to each survivor.
Mr. PEMBERTON rose to reply, when
His LORDSHIP observed, that he feared the decision
of the Court was binding upon him, and requested to
hear the Learned Gentleman on that point.
Mr. PEMBERTON said they must altogether discard
the report, except as a legal authority. This legacy
having been carried to the separate account of this lega-
tee, that legatee was entitled to present a petition for
the purpose of obtaining payment. And lest Isis
Lordship should say, that to make this order con-
clusive against the right of the party, it must be
so clear as to prevent doubt, the only proposition
in support of this argument was to suppose the parties
entitled now were entitled at the time when the case
came before the Court. If that could be maintained, he
admitted they were concluded, but otherwise not. The
simple order being to carry the fund over to the se-
parate account, and the dividends to be paid to the
legatee for life, with liberty for other
persons to apply
at her death, what he was asking was not
fienrcrsistent
with an absolute interest. He would, there
to his Lordship that in conformityiahtt p
sith the practice submitof
m
the Court, whatever weight be p,_eivenctoice t
authority of this case, there was notning in the
order produced to exclude the right of the
repre-
sentative of this lady from saying that, inthe
event which had happened, no person could claim in
competition with him, and therefore he hoped the Court
would make the transfer to him.
Lord LANGDALE said the case came on under circum-
stances of extreme difiiculty. He must assume, in the ab-
sencestatement to the contrastrhlyne,atdheaitnthtielevpelreyadTnignt;
of any
in the case contended for to-day was
beyond all doubt it was& discussed hearing of the cause
made that Sarah
Antonia Jones
and a claim then being
was entitled absolutely Us this legacy, the Court deter-
mined that she was entitled only to an order to place
thiS money to her account, and ordered the dividend to
Le paid to her with liberty to any. person to apply at her
death. He emild not help concluding from that that
that claim of this lady was absolutely negatived by the
probability o bhaebiillailtry of
of
Court, because notwithstanding . the
a claim to be afterwards raised o
children, there being then an interest, alleged
to be vested, it seemed to him incumbent on the
Court to decree specifically that the right existed, or to
do that which would amount to a negative as, that right,
and he thought the Court had done the latter. It, there-
fore,
appeared to him that, under the form of the order,
he was precluded from decision. If it were not so, then
Caine the question, whether, there heirsg no decision in
the case there would be authority binding him to act ; but
all preceding authorities being in favour of such a con-
clUsion the question was, whether he was not bound to
adhere to those authorities, and whether it would be con-
sistent with his duty to snake a decision to that effect
directly contrary to that of preceding Judges. If
both these difficulties were got rid of, he should
still have exceeding difficulty. The words appeared
to him extremely doubtful, and he must have taken
considerable time to consider them, but under the
circumstances, he thought himself precluded. He
thought it, however, better not to say further, be-
cause, if the parties had a right, they had a right to bring
it before a tribunal not fettered by the decision in the
case. The costs must be costs in the cause.

ial••••=glamm.ll.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
(Before Vice-Chancellur WIGRAM.)
CLAYTON v. MEADOWS.
The further hearing of this cause was adjourned till
to-morrow.
THE EAST INDIA COMPANY V. THE COOPER'S COMPANY.
This cause, which was the eighteenth on the paper,
on the application of ALr. Cooper, was ordered to stand
over generally.
The Court rose at three o'clock.

A Cabinet Council, which was attended by most
of the Ministers, was held at the Foreign Office to-day
at three o'clock.
The Earl of Ripon arrived in town on Satur.
day from his seat in Yorkshire,