The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-10 00:00:00

ROLLS' VOURT, Nov. 9.

The Master of the Rolls was engaged nearly all the
morning in hearing consent petitions.

COOTE V. COOTE.

Mr. TINNEV presented a petition from Eyre Coote, an
infant, praying that Mr. Oxford, the receiver of his Irish
estates, might be appointed receiver also of his English
estates, in the place of Mr. Baldwin, the late receiver,
deceased ; or that it might be referred to the Master, to
inquire whether it would be fit and proper that the re-
ceiver of the Irish estates should be appointed receiver
of the estates in England.
His LORDSHIP said he should feel some diffi-
culty in appointing a resident in Ireland receiver
of English estates, because, although not beyond the
jurisdiction of the Court, he was somewhat removed from
it. He would, therefore, order it to be referred to the
Ala.ster to inquire whether this gentleman was a fit per-
son to be appointed receiver of the estates in both
countries, with directions if he should so find, to state
special reasons for it in his report.

lIINDE V. BLAKE.

Mr. PEMBERTON, presented a petition from John
Hinde, Francis Blake, and one of the next of kin of
Francis Blake, a lunatic, deceased, praying for an ac-
count of the lunatic's property, and an inquiry as to the
nest of kin.
Mr. TINNEY, on. the part of General Blake the
committee of .the lunatic's person and estate, ob-
jected to this, on the ground that he had considerable
claims against the estate of the lunatic, which lie
was entitled to set off against it, and for
other reasons ; but his Lordship interrupted the Learned
Gentleman by saying that he did not see how General
Blake could be prejudiced by his granting the prayer of
the petitioners, and he should therefore do so.

HEMPSTEAD V. HEMPSTEAD.

Mr. PEMBERTON presented a petition from the trus-
tees and executors of the will of Mr. Ilempstead, pray-
ing for the confirmation of the Master's report in the
Zue s
(.7 . It appeared that the testator died, having
hisde-
vised estate to his three children in distinct gifts,
j sub to the payment of his debts. It having been re-
ferred to the Master to inquire whether the personal
estate was sufficient for this purpose, and if not, what were
estate was also nt
the real estates,
full. It
estate was not the Master found that the personal
et sufficient
sufficientfor th
fi this
rp uprepyoms ee,et andef thatthe
debtsthe
beih,hehreen referred to the Master to inquire
among others that I,:tere on the real estate, it was found
to Messrs what charges
por-
tion of the property of 2521. was due on one
tutor, and that the title dessrs. Wear;
solicitors of tes-
sited with them, and eeds of this portion were depo-
them fur their debt. thatmess they claimed a lien upon
thereon before the Masrts. IV
ettre also claimed inte-
resttained amount , on the, eToeur, ,tthough for an unascer-
the demand under the 4 statnu't that they had made
having been complied with, they
were
and that, it not
The Master, however disallowed thisreeflititled to interest.
re-
port was admitted. .The estates having been and
his
to be sold, that portion subject to the die-- been ordered
Weare was sold, subject to their lien, and
and of Messrs.
of the estate had offered them the sum? t
of 252/ h
the purchaser
' refused to deliver up the deeds without receiving'u.t they
interest. The whole prixluce of the estate was
si the
Court,
and all that remained was to pay the , andcosts
.apportion
it among the creditors.
Mr. KINDEBBLEY, on behale IV the defendants, con-
tended that the Master's report was novxception to their
claim, which he could not allow under the decree, be-
cause it happened to be dated a fortnigllVOr three weeks
before the notice was served.
Lord LANGDALE said it having been referrred to the
master to see what sums were dne at the date of the
decree, the Master found among others this sum of 2521.
and in. this respect it was admitted that the
Master was ' right. The purchaser had tendered
this sum, and the defendants might have received it, but
they ;had raised a question about the- interest. That
might be a question between them and the purchaser,
but it could never be a claim against the estate—it
would be quite contrary to the decree to have allowed it.
The report must be confirmed.

NAcKENZIE V. MACKENZIF:. •• •
.0
Mr. PEMBERTON said this hill was filed by tneperso•