The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-09 00:00:00

CAR3IICHAEL V. CARMICHAEL.

This case came before the Court upon an appeal from
the decision of the Vice-Chancellor Bruce, allowing
certain exceptions to the Master's report, and also on a
re-hearing of the original decree pronounced in the
cause so long ago as the year 1834. The principal ques-
tion in the case was, whether a person who had consti-
tuted himself an executor de son tart, could discharge
himself from his liabilities by accounting to the admi-
nistratrix of the testator. The facts out of which the
questio❑ arose appeared to be these :—The late General
Carmichael, the Governor of Demerara, made his will,
by which he made certain bequests to his lady, and con-
stituted his son and daughter residuary legatees.
He died in the year 1813, and his son having
been appointed his father's aide-de-camp, set out
on the 13th of June in that year for Demerara,
He arrived there a few days after his father's death.
The usual course adopted in that island was then pur-
sued, the authorities there took possession of the whole
of the property of the deceased, sold it, paid his debts,
and handed over the surplus to his son, the defendant in
the suit, together with some articles in specie, among
which was a specimen of gold dust. This property,
together with the original testamentary papers, were
brought to this country by the defendant; in the interim,
however, copies of those papers having been sent to this
country, the testator's widow, the mother of the plaintiff
and defendant, took out letters of administration to
his effects, her son, the defendant, finding this to
be the case, gave up to his mother all the
property he had brought to this country, and ac-
counted to her for every thing. After that ac-
count between the mother and son, it was settled
that the residue of the testator's property was 20611.,
half of which the defendent kept for himself, and the
other half, amounting to 10301., was given to the mother
for her daughter. In the year 1815, the daughter at-
tained her age of 21, and in 1832 the present bill was
sled by her against her brother, stating that he had pos-
sessed himself of a large quantity of property belonging
to her father, and among the rest a considerable quantity
of gold dust of great value, and praying for an account.
The cause came on for hearing, and a decree referring it
to the Master to take an account was made
in the year 1834. The case remained in the Masters'-
office till 1843, when the Master made his report that
the account had been taken between the mother and son,
and settled by them. Exceptions were taken to that
report, which were allowed by the Vice-Chancellor
Knight Bruce, on the ground that there was nothing in
the decree with respect to a settled account, and that,
therefore, the Master had miscarried in his report.
From this judgment the present appeal was brought, and
it was also asked by the petition of rehearing, that
the Court would insert in the decree a reference to
to the Master to inquire whether any account was set-
tled between the defendant and his mt•ther, and if there
was, that It might be established.
Mr WoDd appeared in support of the petition of ap-
peal and reheating, and Mr. Bacon supported the judg-
ment below.

The LORD CHANCELLOR, in the course of the arget-
ments, observed that the proceedings in this case bore
out the statements that had been so frequently made, of
the delay that took place in the Court of Chancery.
Here was a case that had been no less than nine
years in the Master's office. Ile wished to know how
that delay had taken place. Added to this, the decree
had been pronounced 13 years ago, and no information
could be given to the Court of what took place when that
decree was made.

Mr. BACON admitted that great delay had taken place,
but he could not say how that bad occurred. The
solicitors were dead, as well as some of the counsel.
One circumstance that might have caused delay was,
that evidence bad to be got from the West Indies.
The LORD CHANCELLOR at the conclusion of the
arguments, said he though it was a strange thing, after
an acquiescence in a decree from 1834 to 1846, to ask
bim to alter that decree. He thought he should be
doing great injustice, both to the suitors and the prac-
tice of the Court, if he adopted such a course ; but as
he was anxious to know what had taken place when the
decree was procounced, and as probably the Registrar's
book would afford some information on that subject, he
would let the case stand over till Monday, to see if the
Registrar could procure him that information.