The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-09 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 8.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat shortly after
ten o'clock.

RICHARDS V. LORD MACCLESFIELD

Mr. STUART said that his Lordship would recollect
that the case of Richards and the Earl of Macclesfield
was a few days since ordered to be transferred from the
paper of Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce to that of the
Vice-Chancellor of England ; connected with the peti-
tion in that case Were three causes, all of which were set
down for hearing before Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce,
and as it was most probable that upon the hearing of
that petition the form of the decree to be pronounced in
all these causes would be determined on. he had to ask
that they might also be transferred to the paper of the
Vice-Chancellor of England.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, after inquiring whether all
parties consented, and being informed that they did,
made the order as asked.
IN THE MATTER OF JANE HOE, A LUNATIC, DECEASED.

Mr. PURVIS applied in this Case on behalf of the indi-
vidual who filled the office of executor, committee, and
residuary legatee of the lunatic who was dead, that he
might be excused from pissing his accounts, that the
costs of an arbitration which had taken place might be
taxed and paid out of the funds of the lunatic, and that
after payment he might be entitled to the residue of the
lunatic's property.
His LORDSHIP made the order as prayed.
BRIERLEY V. BOUCHER.

The COURT then proceeded to hear the further argu-
ments on this part-heard appeal from the j udgment of his
Lordship the Master of the Rolls. The only question in
the case was whether under the will of Owen Gray,
Nathan Gray, his son, took an absolute interest in the
property in question or only a life estate. The Master
of the Rolls decided that Nathan had an absolute in-
terest, and from that decision the appellant presented an
appeal.
Mr. Bethell and Mr. Metcalfe appeared for the appel-
lant ; and Mr. Richards and Mr. Steed Girdlestone
supported the judgment in the Court below.
His LORDSHIP, at the conclusion of the arguments,
said that his present impression was in favour of the
decision of the Master of the Rolls. He would, how-
ever, read the bill, and should his present views be
changed by that reading he would let the parties know.
—Judgment deferred.

PEPPERCORN V. PEACOCK.

This case came before the Court upon the certificate of
the Court of Common Pleas. The bill was filed by the
plaintiff; Mr. Peacock, together with a person named
Harrod, who were the trustees for sale of the property
in question, for the specific performance of a contract
entered into by the defendant Peacock, for the purchase
of certain estates from the plaintiff. By a conveyance
sated in March, 1838, the estate in question was con-
veyed to the plaintiffs as trustees to sell; in that charac-
ter they caused the estates to be put up by auction,
stating that the subject-matter of the sale was the rever-
sion expectant upon the death of a lady who was then
forty-four years of age. The conditions of sale were,
that the purchase should be completed before the 2bth of
March, but in case it was not, the purchaser was to pay
interest on the purchase money at the rate of five
per cent. At that sale the defendant purchased a
part of the property, but on inquiry he objected to
the title which the plaintiffs derived under the will.
Upon this objection being raised, considerable corres-
pondence passed between the solicitors of both parties,
and ultimately the plaintiffs filed their bill to enforce the
specific performance of the contract. Upon the case
coming on for argument before the Vice-Chancellor of
England he directed a specific performance of the con-
tract, and from this decision the defendant appealed, and
upon that appeal being argued before Lord Cottenham
he directed a special case for the opinion of the Court of
Review as to whether the plaintiff's under the will had a
good title to the estates in question. That special case
having been argued before the Court of Common Pleas,
that Court certified that a good title had been shown,
and in that state of things the case now came before the
Court. The Court of Common Pleas having decided in
favour of the title, the principal questions now for consi-
deration were as to the payment of the interest by the
defendant and the costs.

Mr. TINNEY and Mr. TENNANT appeared for the
plaintiffs, and contended that the defendant ought to pay
interest, at the rate of five per cent., and all the costs.
Mr. GIRDLESTONE and Mr. WRAY, on the part of the
defendant, submitted that, in consequence of the circum-
stances that had taken place, the defendant was not
bound to pay interest, and that the costs ought to be
borne by the plaintiffs.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, at the conclusion of the ar-
guments, gave judgment, decreeing a specific perform-
ance of the contract of the purchase, ordering the de-
fendant to pay three per cent. interest upon the purchase
money, and directing each party to pay his own costs.

ROLLS' COURT, Nov, 8.

RANELACH V; RANSLAGH.

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
is 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, 2001. to he
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 ou 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 derniso 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 ally .of the legatees died
Without issue, the testator intended the gift over should
take effect.

Mr. TINNEY and Mr. Exec on bel:alf of Thomas Cow-
ley Jones, and Mr. KINDERSLEY 01 t behalf of the other
surviving children, contended that the death of the
legatee could not determine that e took an absolute
interest. The Court having said that she was not en-
titled to it when the case came Tx fore it on a former
occasion, it lay upon them to show that though not
entitled to it when the decree was; pronounced, subse-
quent circumstances gave it to her, but the circumstances
that had occurred, prevented the possibility of her
having a better interest.

Mr:TuaNER argued that the fund should be divided,
and one-third be given to each survivor.

Mr. PEMBERTO-N rose to reply, W hen
Ilis LORDSHIP observed, that b e feared the decision
of the Court was binding upon him, and requested to
hear the Learned Gentleman on th: it point.
Mr. PEMBERTON said they mus t altogether discard
the report, except as a legal au6aor.ty. 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 his
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. It 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 inconsistent
with an absolute interest. lie would, therefore, submit
to his Lordship that in conformity- with the practice of
the Court, whatever weight migh t be given to the
authority of this case, there was nothing in the
order . produced to exclude the right of the repre-
sentative of this lady from saying that, in the
event which had happened, no person could claim in
competition with him, and therefore he hoped the Court
would make
the transfer to him.
stances
Lord T
statement *
...ANGDALE.said the case came on under circum- •
of extreme difficulty He must as sume, in the ab-
sence of any
in the case contended
beyond all doubt it was ill
foto the contrary, that the very point
to-day was made •in the pleading;
and a claim then bein focussed at the hei :ring of the cause
was entitled absolutely tmeatisthat Sarah Antonia Jones
deter-
mined that she was entitled
tkis money to her account, and to an order to place
legacy,the Court
ordered the dividend to
be
hidpa to her with liberty to "a
absoluatelingenegatived byat herthe
from that that
tdheaatt
claim He o
fctohuilad
lad n oyt
wh cols
to any
toapply
t interest,t
ivoenof probabilitytha that
ri
or t„
behalf of
Court, because notwithstandin
claim to be afterwards raised
a
children, there being then an
to be vested, it seemed to him irscumbet alleged
Court to decree specifically that the right existed Ono
It, there:
do that which would amount to a ner,e
and he thought the Court had done the, latter.
fore, appeared to him that, under the fo rm of the order,
he was precluded from decision. If it I:ere not so, then'
came the question, whether, there bei ag no decision in
tliecascthere would be authority binding him to net ; but
all preceding authorities being in favo:ar of such a con-
clusion the cuestion was, whether he. -was rot hound to
adhere to those authorities, and whet her it would be con-
sistent with his duty to make a decision to that effect
directly contrary to that of pre:eding 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-
glad a right to bring
it before a tribunal, not fettered by the decision in the
case. The costs must be costs in the cause.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 8.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR .of ENGLAND.)
Pleas,•dernurrers, exceptions, and further directions,
occupied his Honour the whole morning.