The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-09 00:00:00

ZIZZE.

Mr. COATEs opened the case for the petitioner Mr. Joseph
Keys, against the subscription contract. Ile bad to explain
to the Ccuunittee the nature of the allegation which he was
of opinion would not fail tc upset the case for the promoters.
The contract deed was net an invalid deed, inasmuch as the
trustee, Mr. Garrett, was a subscriber to the capital, and
therefore he could not sue upon the covenant of the deed. In
that very room on Thursday last, a decision was come to
in the case of the Ayrshire and Galloway, upon the very
same ground. The allegation was just of the same character,
and he could net see how the Committee could come to any
other decision in the present instance. It was held in lass
that no partner could sue his co partners for any expenditure
in the outlay of their business. In the very exact position
was the present deed. Take away Mr. Garratt altogether,
and then the case was s:ill the same, for the other trustee,
though not a shareholder, could not sue either himself or his
partner, Mr. Garratt. The Act binds two trustees to carry
out a certain contract; one of the trustees was a shareholder
in the scheme, and the co-trustee,who was not a shareholder,
was answerable for the liabilities of his partner to the deed, and
therefore, if he were to sue Mr. Garratt, he would in reality
be cueing himself and his partner. This deed was, he would
not deny, per se, a valid deed, so far as the capital of the Com-
pany was concerned, but as far as the protection of the public
was concerned, there was no power under the present deed
to enforce the principles of that contract, and, canseque;tly,
the public might suffer. Having thee the decision of a Corn-
mittee on his side in an analogous case, having common
sense on his side, and having the law on his side, he trusted
that the Committee would see that the standing orders had
not been complied with on the part of the promoters.

Sub• Committee No. 2.

This Committee sat today a few minutes before ore
o'clock. There were present—Sir J. Y. Buller (Chairman),
Mr. Walker, Mr. Craig, Mr. .Kemble, Mr. Bell, and the
O'Conor Don;

THE CAMBIUM= .0...1%78 43.11.W0HD ZIAILWAY
was heard.

Mr. Puarr (in support of the motion) said—The first alle-
gation in the petition was, that the plans and sections of the
line, as deposited with the clerk of the peace at Oxford,
were not in compliance with the standing orders. In No.
12 the parish of Barington was not marked in the line of
deviation.

Mr. M. J. Davenport (engineer) proved the omission
alleged. The distance of deviation was about 15 perches.
The CHAIRMAN said that in this case the orders had been
complied with.

The next allegation was that the distances, miles and
furlongs, were not correctly marked on the plan.
Mr. ELLICOMDE objected to the term the plan, as being
too vgue._

This
led to some discussion, but the Committee were of
opinion that the term was sufficiently specific.
Mr. M. J. Davenport was examined in support of this
allegation. In one section (50) for 10 there were marked
11 furlongs.
The CHAIRMAN said the standing orders had been complied
with in the present instance. -
The next allegation was, that the alternate miles, as laid
down on the datum line, were incorrect.
Mr. Davenport was examined in support of the allegation,
and the Committee considered that on the 3d mile and 46th
furlong there was incorrettr.ess, and therefore that the stand-
, ing orders in that instance had not been complied.
The next allegation was that the gradients were impro-
perly marked.
Mr. Davenport said that in one section instead of 84 it
should have been marked 90. He did not survey the line.
Mr. Denton (the engineer of the Company) was examined.
He said in the section alluded to the marking was perfectly
correct, in which the Committee concurred.

Sub-Committee No. 3.
The members of this Committee resumed their sitting at
the usual hour this morning, Mr. Agliouby in the chair.
NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BRANCHES.
This was a petition from the North British Railway Com-
pany, praying for leave to bring in Bills to enable them to
construct a number of branches, and other works, on their
main line.

Th North British Railway commences at Berwick-on-
Tweed, and terminates in a junction with the Edinburgh and
Glasgow Railway, at Edinburgh. It is 6 milts in length,
and has a branch to Huddilig,tun, lu the LoutiLy of that name,
and a branch toYisherrow ; and the line, it is expected, will
bo opened for trigUe in about three months.

The same Company are the proprietors, by purchase, of
the Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway.
The present Bill was for making four branches, and alter-
ing and deviating the Eisherrow Branch, the cost of which
works was estimated by Mr. John Miller, the engineer of the
Company, at 170,0001.
The Committee took an objection to the subscription con-
tract, because it included a number of other works to which
the present Bill was in no way related; but in all other re-
spects the Committee decided that the standing orders had
been complied with.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY.)
The House rat to-day, at eleven o'clock, to hear English
appeals. The Peers in attendance were the Lord Chancellor,
Lord Brougham, Lord Cottenbam, Lord Campbell, and Lord
Hood.

TILE LATE JAMES WOOD, OF GLOUCESTER. -THE lIIATOR,:AL-
DERMEN, AND BURGESSES OF THE BOROUGH OF GLOUCESTER

V. OSBORN AND SURMAN

This case, which comes before their Lordships upon an ap-
peal from the decision of the Vice- Chancellor Wigram, stood
specially appointed for to-day. The question for the decision
of their Lordship is,whether, under one of the codicils to the
will of the late Mr. James Wood, of Gloucester, the Corpora-
tion of that boreugh are legatees of two sums of money
amounting to !300,00a. The lato James Wood, the banker,
of Gloucester, died in 1836, pos:essed of immense wealth, both
freehold and personal, ar d upon his death considerable liti-
gation took place upon the subjsct of his testamentary dispo-
time in the Ecclesiastical Court, the Privy Council, and the
Court of Chancery. In the Eccleastical Court two papers
were propounded by the executors, and another paper
which had been arouvinously sent by the post to
the late Mr. Thotnos helps, one of the legatees. was
propounded by bin:. By the judgment of the Ecclesiastical
Court probate was refused to all these papers but upon ap-
peal to the Privy Council, the two papers propounded by the
executors and also that propounded by Mr. Helps, were ad-
mitted to probate, the two first as WIT 0-.0 will of the tes-
tator, and the last as a codicil to that will, and upon the latter
paper the question now at issue arose. That paper was to
the following effect :—" In a codicil to my will 1 gave to the
Corporation of Gloucester 140,C061. In this I with my
executors wd give 60,0a1. more—to them for the same per-
pus as I have before named I wd also give to tov friends Mr.
Phillpotts 50,0004, & Mr. Geo. Council 10,000.—& to Ni'.
Thos. Helps, Cheeps*, London, 30,0001., & Mrs. Elith.
Goodlake, mother or Mr, Surman, & to Thos. Wood, Smith
str. Chelsea (each) 2,6,00/.—& Sand. Wood, Clevland st..,
Mile End 14,000.'.—& the latter gentn. family 6,00C1.—& 1
confirm all other bequests & give the rest of my property to
the Execs. for their own interest.

"JAMES WOOD."

"Gloucester City Old Bank, July, 1835."
Upon probate of these papers being granted, the executors
refused to pay any of the legacies contained in the codicil,
and the result was, the legatees hied their bills in Chancery
for the purpose of obtaining payment. The Corporation of
Gloucester also filed their bill for the payment of the two
sums of 140,000'. and GO,OOO/., given them by.the codicil.
.The cantos came on fur hearing before the Vice-Chancellor
Wigrams It was argued for several days, and ultimately his
Honour gave judgment, dismissing the bill of the Corpora-
tion, but without costs, and directing that the suni of
255,5071. 10s. 2d., New Three-and-a-Half per Cents., stand-
ing in the name of the Accountant-General, in trust in the
cause, 'should, tcgetber with the interest and dividend, be
transferred to the surviving executors, the respondents in the
present appeal, his Honour, at the same time, refusing
to direct any inquiry, or to direct that that the dismissal or
the appellants' bill should be without prejudice to the ap-
pellants tiling mother bill in relation to the legacies, not-
withstanding that it appeared by the printed procecdsgs in
the suit in the Court of Probate, that the testamentary pa-
pers and the repositories of the testator had been improperly
dealt with during his last illness, rithout his knowledge, and
also after his death ; and that at least one paper of the tes-
tator's, of a testamentary character, had immediately after
his death been burned; and that thesocicil of July, lt.-35, it-
self, when propounded, was in a mutilated state, and partly
burned; and that in the envelope in which the same was for-
warded to Thomas Helps was enclosed a paper on which
were written in pencil the followingwords :—" The enclosed
is a paper saved out of many burnt by parties I could
hang—The pretend it is not J. Wood's hand, many will
swear to it--They want to swindle me—Let the rest know."
From this judgment the Corporation of Gloucester brought
the present appeal, contending that the codicil of July, 1835,
amounted to a substantive gift of 140,000!.; that the re-
ference in the codicil of July, 1835, to a former codicil, did
not prove that that former codicil ever existed ; and that,
although such former codicil should be considered as having
once existed, yet the gift of the 140,0001. referred to as made
by such former codicil was not revoked, and that the non-
appearance of such codicil did not affect the validity of the_
gift either of the 14'.?,0001. or the 60,000/.
Sir Thomas Wilde, Mr. -Hodgson, Mr. Swanston, and Mr.
James Wilde were counsel for the appellants; and Mr.
George Turner, Mr. Itomilly, Mr. Walker, Mr. James Parker,
and Mr. Rolt were in support of the decree of the court
below. The case will probably occupy six or seven days in
argument.