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

BIIRXEgTER V. PARRY.

In this case the parties had agreed to take the opinion
of the Court as to the construction of the residuary
clause in the will of a testator, who died in 1790, whereby
the testator gave all his personal estate to his wife, with
power to dispose of the same as she should think fit ;
but in case she should die possessed of any part thereof,
without having made any disposition, then the trustees in
trust to divide the same amongst his three daughters,
or such of them as should be living at the time
of her decease, and testator appointed his trustees
executors. The executors proved the will, and testator's
debts being paid, there remained a considerable residues
amongst which •ere certain turnpike securities, which
were handed over to the widow, and the profits of which
she enjoyed during her life. At her death the three
daughters conceived they were entitled to them under
the residuary clause, and entered upon the receipt of the
profits of the securities, and continued to receive them
until the death of the eldest daughter, who made her will
and bequeathed all her property to one of her sisters, who
then took two-thirds of the profits of the securities, the other
third being enjoyed as before by her remaining sister.
This second daughter also died, and the remaining sister
took the profits of the whole securities, and died, leav-
ing a will by which she appointed the plaintiff her exe-
cutor, and gave the residue of her property to the de-
fendant, who claimed them as part of the estate of the
surviving daughter. On the part of the plaintiff, who
was one of the administrators of the widow's estate, it
was urged that under the words of the clause no trust
attached for the benefit of the three daughters, but that
the will vested the estate absolutely in the widow.
His LORDSHIP, after hearing Mr. Pemberton very
briefly for the defendant, ordered the plaintiff to hand
over the securities to the defendant. It appeared that
an arrangement had been made- between the parties as
to costs.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 9.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
His HONOUR was occupied the whole morning with the
further arguments in the part-heard case of Fletcher v.
Northcote, which came before the Court upon exceptions
to the Master's report.
His HONOUR rose early.
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
lIENSLOWE AND OTHERS V. LAMBERT AND OTHERS.
This was a question as to the construction of a will
and codicil. The testator, Mr. Lambert, had left at his
decease several daughters, some of whom were previously
married, and others were married after his death.
Provision in his will was made by the testator for each
of those daughters, with reference to their respective
conditions in life, and the immediate question was, as to
what might be the interest taken by one of the daugh-
ters, Mrs. Henslowe, under the testator's will and codicil.
His HONOUR ordered a decree to issue, directing the
Master to inquire into and report what provision was made
by the testator in favour of Mrs. Henslowe, and what
unmarried daughters the testator had at the date of the
codicil, and what provision he had made in their favour.
CONNOP v. HAYWARD.
This was a suit for the recovery of a small legacy of
501., left some years ago to the plaintiff by the will of
his uncle John Hayward, which bore date 4th May 1813,
and by which the testator directed the payment of the
legacy within twelve months after his death. The de-
fendant Sarah Hayward, the testator's wife, was appointed
executrix. bThe testator died in 1818, and the will was
filed in June 1837. The defendant in her answer, admitted
that she had possessed herself of the personal estate and
effects of the testator, that they were of considerable
amount, and more than sufficient to discharge all just
testamentary and funeral expenses, and the several lega-
cies bequeathed by the testator, including this legacy of
501. which the defendant denied having reused to pay.
The testator at the time of making his will was seised of
certain messuages in the county of Hertford, which at
the period of his death were charged with certain sums
and arrears, to the part payment of which the defend-
ant proposed to the plaintiff, who was her nephew, that
the legacy in question should be applied. He agreed,
and it was accordingly so applied.
Mr. COOPER appeared for the plaintiff, and submitted
that under this state of circumstances the plaintiff was
entitled to an immediate decree for the legacy.
The defence rested on the statements set forth in the
defendant's answer, to the effect that the plaintiff had
lived with her long after her husband's death, and that
she had never received compensation ; that the plaintiff
subsequently took a farm, fur the stocking of which the
defendant advanced certain sums of money ; that after-
wards the plaintiff becoming embarrassed in his
circumstances, she again assisted him ; and that upon
his affairs again declining, she took an inventory of the
plaintiff's chattels and goods, and after selling the
same there still remained due to her a sum of 28/. above
he amount of the legacy.
His HoNoun thought the best course was to have a
decree issued directing the Master to calculate the
amount of the interest upon the legacy, and then to in-
quire whether the legacy and interest, or any portion
thereof, had been paid, and in what manner, with liberty
to the Master to state special circumstances.
VISIT OF THE LORD JIAYOR.
At twenty-five minutes past two o'clock the Lord
Mayor, accompanied by the civic authorities, en-
tered the Court, when the Recorder, addressing
his Honour, said--" I. am desired by the Lord
Mayor and Sheriffs of the City of London
to request the favour of your Honour's company to an
entertainment to be given this day in the Guildhall.
His HONOUR intimated his acceptance of the invite-
tion, and the Lord Mayor, the Recorder, and their atten-
dants having retired, the business of the Court was re-
sumed ; but no feature of public interest was presented
in the causes which followed.
His Honour rose shortly before four o'clock.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
HART V. HART.
His HONOUR gave judgment in this cause. The plain-
tiff and defendant carried on business as partners up to
the month of March, 1830. About that time they agreed
to dissolve partnership, and a deed was executed for
that purpose. By the terms of this agreement the debts
owing to the concern were divided into two parts ; one
comprised good debts, and, the other bad, or doubtful
debts. With respect to the good debts, they were to
be received by the defendant for his own use, on his pay-
ing the plaintiff 2,0001. The bad debts were to be col-
lected by the defendant after the dissolution of partner-
ship. The bill was filed .in August, 1838, for
an account of the receipts by the defendant since
the dissolution of the partnership. The defendant
admitted the deed, but stated that after the deed was
prepared, and before its execution, it was discovered that
four of the debts which had been treated as good were,
in fact, bad, or doubtful. It was then agreed that the
2,000/. should be paid in a different manner, and a second
instrument was executed. The defendant averred the
performance on his part of the agreement, and insisted
that the account sought against him should be taken on
the footing of both instruments. Objection had been
taken to the admissibility of the evidence with respect
to the second deed ; and it was argued that it could not
be admitted, because the original was lost, and there
was no proof that it had been stamped. He had
already expressed his opinion, that if the evidence were
received, the agreement set up in the answer had been
fully proved. He now thought it rested with the party
objecting to the evidence to prove that the deed was not
stamped. After referring to several cases on this point,
his Hoeour referred it to the Master to " inquire what
has become of the agreement mentioned in the answer,
to have been signed by the plaintiff on the 6th of
July, 1830."
•