The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-03 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT, Dec. 2.

The MASTER of the BoLLS sat this morning in the
Rolls' Court, Chancery-lane, and heard several motions,
none of which were of any general interest, after which
his Lordship rose,there being no causes ready for hearing.

VICE CIIAIVCELLORS' COURT, Dec. 2.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
TOLEDO V. VIETA.

His Hotroutt on entering Court this morning proceeded
to give judgment in this case, the hearing of which had
occupied several days. It appeared to him that there
was only one question in the case, because, if there had
been no decision at all in the French Court, it was im-
possible to say that the case was not one into which that
Court would have made inquiry before it parted with the
trust fund ; for there was nothing whatever to impugn,
first of all, the proceedings which were had in France, in
consequence of what were called "lettres rogatoires" sent
from the Court of Spain, or to impugn the proceedings
taken in Spain, in what might be considered as a com-
mission of lunacy, and by which it was found on the 11th
of April, 1840, that the Duke del Infantado was of un-
sound mind. It was stated: in the bill that
the Spanish Commission had found that the Duke's im-
becility appeared to have commenced in 1836, and to
have gone on gradually increasing until the year 1840.
However that might be, it was certain that in the spring
of 1840 the Duke was, in the opinion of those who exa-
mined the matter in France, of unsound mind. Then
the question arose, whether he was of such unsound mind
at the latter end of the year 1839, and the four first
days of the year 1840; so that it should be held that
Vieta was not legally constituted the trustee of the fund
in question for the benefit of Madame Josepha Monte-
negro and her children. Now it was impossible
to observe the manner in which the gift was effected
without entertaining very great doubts about the
integrity of the transaction, because it appeared from
Vieta's own answer that 400,000 f., raised on the Duke's
estates in Calabria, were first handed over to Madame
Montenegro as a gift ; that she then returned them to
the Duke ; and that the Duke afterwards dealt with the
sum of 250,000 f., now in dispute, as his own property, by
transmitting it to this country, and investing it in Eng-
lish stock. The Court of Premiere Instance at Paris had
found that Vieta had been legally constituted the trustee
of the property, inasmuch as although it appeared that the
Duke del infantado had been very weak in intellect at the
time of the gilt, he was not of unsound mind. It was to be
observed, however, that besides the facts brought before
the French and Spanish Courts, there was the singular
circumstance of sa inventory having been taken of the
Duke's personal property, from which it appeared that
his personal assets were in a must extraordinary state,
the whole of his clothes and furniture amounting in value
to no more than 387 francs. It was clear that if the de-
cision of the French Court did not stand in the way, the
whole matter should be inquired into by that Court ;
and the only question then was, whether the sentence of
a foreign Court should prevent that Court from examin-
ing a case brought before .it. He did not think that it
should ; and it was evident that if a contrary doctrine
were laid down it might lead to a suspicion of the English
law in cases in which it differed from the laws of other
countries. He would say, therefore, after considering the
whole of the papers, that he was of opinion that there
was quite enough of doubt in the case to warrant him
to make the order for the injunction to restrain the
transfer of the stock.—lnjunction granted.
(Before Vice-Chancellor BRUCE.)
IN RE WITTY.

This case, which has already appeared at considerable
length in The Sun, engaged his Honour during the early
part of the morning in his private room.
Mr. Spencer, Mr. Swanston, Mr. J. Russell, and other
Counsel engaged in the cause, were in attendance. The
hearing was strictly private.

SMITH V. SPENCER.

In this cause, which stood over to be spoke to from
the last week of term, Mr. Pickner addressed the Court
on the issues already decreed in it by his Honour ; but
nothing arose of the slightest public interest.

FISHER AND OTHERS V. WICKS AND OTHERS.

Mr. SWANSTON, en behalf of the plaintiffs in this case,
moved for an injunction to restrain the defendants
from receiving the rents of certain leasehold pre-
mises, and to have a receiver appointed. The plain-
tiffs were the surviving partners of Thomas Fisher,
with whom they had carried on businesss as
bankers in Cambridge, and they claimed, as equi-
table mortgagees, for a sum of 8001., of the estate of
a Mr. Redfarm, deceased. The defendants were the
executors of Redfarm, and Sarah, his widow, who also
had been appointed executrix by her husband's will, and
had since married Wicks. Redfarm bequeathed to his
wife all his effects and personal estate. She had
also obtained possession of the testator's leasehold
estate, which consisted of certain premises in Cambridge,
where he during his life had carried on business as a
tailor and brogue-maker. The goodwill of the trade
carried on by Redfarm in those premises had been
made over by his widow to a person named Bailin],
in consideration of which the latter paid her an
annuity of 40/. a year, and the present application was
to restrain the defendants from receiving the rents and
profits of the testator's estate, and the annuity of 40/.
His HoNomt—This is in fact a creditor's suit.
Mr. SWANSToN—It is so.
His HONOUR—Take then
aa order for the receiver-
ship without an injunction.
HOWELL V. TYLER.
This was a suit instituted by the plaintiffs as legatees
against the executors of the legator.
The bill prayed an account of what was due to the
of
for pi.rine_ipal, and interest in
outn:, and that that respect
ef a legacy
plaintiffs, accordingamoun
might be decreed to be paid to the
to their respective interests,out of the personal estate of
the executor and heir-at-law, or, in case
of deficiency,
mortgage.
His
account applicable to
the amount to be raised by rtg
His HONOUR decreed the ordinary
the personal estate of the debtor of a legacy.
The COURT rose at a quarter past four o'clock.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
His rioNoux took his seat at ten o'clock this morning
in one of the New Courts, Old-square, Lincoln's Inn.
This Court adjoins that of the Vice-Chancellor.. Bruce
m
The surprise generally felt at the astonishing expedition
with which these Courts have been erected was increased
this morning by a view of the interior. Ihe buildings are
not more substantial than the general arrangements are
elegant, and complete. Curiosity, or business caused the
Court to be crowded during the whole day.

JONES V. S3IITH.
His HONOUR gave judgment in this cause. By the
settlement made upon the marriage of David Jones with
the defendant Sarah Jones, then Sarah Hartley, which
was dated the 30th of August, 1820, the messuages,
lands, and premises, which it was the object of
this suit to redeem, were conveyed to the use of
David Jones for life, with remainder to the use of Thomas
Hartley, brother
of Sarah, during the life of David
Jones, to preserve contingent remainders, with remainder
to the use and intent that Sarah should receive out of the
premises an animal sum of 1001. by way of jointure, and
in bar of dower, with remainder to the first and other
sons, with remainder to David Jones in fee. The settle-
ment contained a power to David Jones to charge the
property- with 2,000/. David Jones died on the 22d of
February, 1836, leaving the plaintiff, the eldest son of
the marriage, and entitled, as such eldest sop, to the
messuages and premises in the settlement, subject to a
charge not exceeding 2,0004 It was admitted that the
power to charge this sum was well exnuted, and that
Esther Smith, as the executrix of her late husband, was
entitled to the benefit of it. The bill was filed to redeem
the property comprised in the settlement, upon payment
of that sum. The defendant, Esther Smith, claimed 4,000/.
to be due to her late husband's estate, and submitted that
the estate could only be redeemed upon payment of that
larger sum. On the 20th of August, 1820, the premises
were claimed for a term of 500 years, to secure the re-
payment of a sum of 1,8001. and interest. A further sum
of 2,000/. was advanced by Thomas Smith to David
Jones, upon which a deed was executed by the latter,
purporting to be in execution of the power contained in
the settlement. The question was whether Esther Smith,
widow of Thomas Smith, and defendant in the cause, was
entitled in equity to the benefit of the term of 500 years,
for securing the 2,0001. exceeding the amount with which
David Jones had power to charge the premises. This de-
pended upon whether Thomas Smith was affected with
the necessary and instructive notice of the set-
tlement of August, 1820, before advancing his money.

An account was sought by the plaintiff of all the transac-
tions connected with both deeds. Mr. Parrey had been
appointed as receiver of the rents and profits under the
word of those deeds. His Honour, after commenting
upon the evidence as to constructive notice, and citing
a number of cases on the subject, pronounced the follow-
ing deffee :—Refer it to the Master to inquire whether
by thellealings and transactions between Mrs. Smith and
Mr. Parrey after the death of David Jones, Mrs. Smith
had constituted Mr. Parrey her agent. The usual de-
cree for redemption must be made, treating Esther Smith
as mortgagee for 4,0001. The costs of the suit, so far as
it is a suit to redeem, must follow the usual decree in a
suit for that purpose. But so far as regards the costs,
which have been occasioned by the litigation respecting
Mrs. Smith's interest in the 500 years, I shall follow the
precedent afforded me in the case of Hanbury v. Lich-
field, before Sir John Leach, and give no costs for those
parts of the suit. Liberty to apply must be reserved.
LITTLE V. GREVILLE.

In this case the bill was filed for the purpose of com-
pelling the defendants to pay into Court the sum of
6,0001., of which they had become possessed in the
character of trustees, under the will of the testator, Mr.
Priest.
The arguments, not being concluded at the rising of
the Court, are to be resumed to-morrow.