The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-11 00:00:00

PRIVY COUNCIL—(THIS DAY.)
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sat
again to-day for the purpose of proceeding with the
further hearing of the arguments in the part-heard
appeal, " The Queen's Proctor v. The Solicitor of the
)achy of Lancaster," from the Chancery of York. The
case, though it presents few facts of any interest to the
public, involves points of ecclesiastical law highly im-
portant to the Crown and the Duchy of Lancaster:
namely, whether the Crown or the Duchy of Lancaster
is entitled to take out letters of administration to an
intestate domiciled within the county palatine of Lan-
caster; and hence the present appeal, which is, in
fact, an appeal by her Majesty, as Sovereign
against a decision in favour of her Majesty as Duchess
of Lancaster. The facts of the case appear to be as
follow :—Anne Rothwell Wignall, commonly called
Anne Rothwell, died at Preston, in the County Palatine
of Lancaster, in December 1840, under the age of 21, a
spinster, and intestate. Being of illegitimate birth, she
left no heir or next of kin, but died entitled to personal
estate within the county of the value of 3,5001. and
upwards. Notice of the deceased's death having been
communicated to the Chancellor and Council of the
Duel-ay of Lancaster, her Majesty's warrant of the 28th
of May, 1842, which was countersigned by the Chan-
cellor of the duchy, was issued as usual for obtaining a
grant of letters of administration of the intestate estate
to the then solicitor for the Duchy. In the meantime,
however, under the assumption that the property of the
intestate had fallen to her Majesty in right of her Crown,
a warrant was issued on the 7th of April, 1842, counter-
signed by three of the Lords Commissioners of the
Treasury, for grar.t of letters of administration to George
lsilisule, as solicitor of the Treasury. In this state of
things proceedino were taken first in the Consistory
Court of Chester, where the Chancellor of the Diocese,
the Rev. H. Raikes, delivered an elaborate judgment in
favour of the Crown, which, on an appeal to the Chan-
cery of York, was reversed, and a decision pronounced in
favour of the Duchy of Lancaster, and from that judgment
the present appeal was brought. In thecourse of the argu-
ments several curious documents were referred to, and
among others the charter of Edward 111., of the 28th of
February 1377, from which the rights of her Majesty
juy e ducutus within the county Palatine of Lancaster
arose, and by which the father of the Black Prince
created Lancaster a county Palatine, and granted to his
son John, Duke of that county. " That he for the
whole of his life may have within the county of Lan-
caster his chancery and his writs to be sealed under
his seal, to be deputed for the office of the chancery, his
justices to hold as well pleas of the crown as all
other pleas whatsoever touching the common law
and the cognisance thereof, and all manner of execution
to be made by his writs and his Ministers there, and all
other liberties and jura regalia pertaining to a Count
Palatine, as freely and entirely as the Earl of Chester is
well known to obtain within the same county of Chester,
saving always the tenths, fifteenths, and other contribu-
tions and subsidies granted and hereafter to be granted
to us and our heirs by the commonalty of our realm, and
the tenths and other contributions granted and here-
after to be granted to us by the clergy of the
same our realm, or imposed and to be imposed upon the
same clergy by the apostolic see, and the pardon of
life and limbs in case that any person of the same county,
or other person in the same county, ought for any
delict to lose his life or limb, and also the superiority and
power of correcting those things which shall have been
erroneously done there in the Courts of our same son,
or if our same son or his Ministers shall have failed in
doing justice there, also in the Courts of the same our
son." These powers and exceptions were confirmed by
the son of the Black Prince when be ascended the
English Throne as Richard the Second, and both these
charters were referred to by the Queen's Advocate in
his arguments on behalf of the royal appellant, -for the
purpose of showing that the right of the Crown, whether
by escheat or otherwise, to real or personal estate, was
not mentioned or included in the reservations ma-de in

favour of the Crown.
The Queen's Advocate, the Solicitor-General, Mr. G.
Chilton, and Mr. Townshend were Counsel for the
Crown, and Mr. J. Parker, Mr. Ellis (Attorney. General
of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Dr. Jenner were in
support of the judgment of the Chancery of York.
The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE occupied their Lordships
the whole of Tuesday with his arguments on behalt of
the Crown.
The SOLICITOR- GENERAL, following on the same side,
was heard on Wednesday.
Mr. J. PARKER, on behalf of the Duchy of Lancaster,
was heard yesterday, and
Mr. ELLIS, on the same side, was partly heard.
Mr. ELLIS resumed, and concluded his arguments
to-day, and
The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE replied.
Counsel were then ordered to withdraw, and after the
lapse of upwards of an hour, were called in, and in-
formed by
Lord BnouartAm that their Lordships would consider
the case before they gave judgment. The question,
which was a most important one, had been most ably
argued, but should their Lordships require any further
assistance from counsel, due information should be given
them.

CHANCERY—(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chancellor sat to day in his Court in the
Old Hall, Lincoln's Inn.
FINDEN V. STEVENS.—JUDGMENT.
His LORDSHIP gave judgment to-day in this case,
which came before his Lordship on Wednesday last,
upon an appeal from the decision of the Vice-Chancellor
of England, overruling a demurrer put in by the de-
fendant to the plaintiff's bill. The principal ques-
tion raised in this case was, whether a person
appointed by will to be the manager and receiver
of real estates had a right to the office, in opposition to
the wishes of the party beneficially interested in the
estate? The facts out of which the suit arose may be
thus detailed :—A gentleman residing near Reading, of
the name of Boshnell, by a will, made in the year 1840,
gave all his real and copyhold estates in and near Read-
ing, together with estates in the county of Middlesex,
and a large amount of personalty, to John Stephen and
William Blendy, in trust to receive the rents and profits,
to pay to his widow an annuity of 1,000/., and to apply
the residue to the use of his four nieces for their lives,
with remainder to their children. The testator gave a
legacy of 2001. to the plaintiff, Thomas Finden, and after
making some other dispositions of property, the
will thus proceeded :—" And inasmuch as my estate
will reqeire more management than I can expect oL
my trustees personally to bestow upon it; my wish and
desire that the hereinbefore named Thomas Finden, of
Upper John-street, Fitzroy-square, architect and sur-
veyor, on whose judgment and integrity
es for w I have ghich
reat
confidence, be appointed for all purpos
they or he, my trustees or trustee, may have occasion
for an agent, receiver or manager of all, or any of my
estates and property. And in case the said Thomas
Finden should so desire not to act further in the said
office, then it shall be lawful for my said wife's niece
and the survivor, to appoint some other person to act
in the place of the said Thomas Finden.'
The will also contained a clause that the trustees
and Finden should be answerable for the management;
and part of the property of the testator consisted of
thirty houses in Beading, and it appeared
and that the trus-
tees had declined to employ Finden,
actuallyr
peernrps(l}ozediaorthinistismtaatteedefaneirineatemnsttiaoaneteos employ,hh
was filed for a declaration of the Court to establish the
personion t o rte.: t rma iana
at hg
ee
plaintiff's
trustees
eainado.
nf7aittan ientjhuenrc t
wantq before the pthuet
in property
a
for t e stato rY.
fT
equity,
thisait y bill
and the
upon trustees
that
demurrer coming on for argument
Vice-
Chancelloreverruled,hoeifhgE
ofn g land,
opinion
ais
tlhiaotnotuhrereobrdersedan
itextporebses
it was his desire that the plaintiff sh
direction, in the plainest terms, of teaweldatehsetaetmorp,letyheadt
if the trustees had occasion for an agent, manager,
wasor
receiver, and from this judgment the present appeal h
brought. His Lordship to-day, after going through
some of the authorities that had been referred to by
unsel in the course of the arguments, stated his opi-
nicn clearly to be that the demurrer was sustainable, and
The effect of his
ought to have been allowed.
ff 's
Lordshipbill,
reverse the decision of the Vice-Chancellor of England,
and to put the plaintiff's enrtesfhoracp,e:soutot
Ice. of Court. s
ui
nd gimt se npt;etshe
6POTTisWooDE V. CLARK.—THE PICTORIAL ALMANAC.
Mr. STUART (with whom was Mr. Moore) moved this
morning, pursuant to notice, to discharge an order made
by the Vice-Chancellor of England, by which he conti-
nued an injrinciion he had
a a x party,
the defendant from publishing a almanac,wrapper,
Old
itloore's Pictorial Almanac, with
whichoneu heaaepd called e himself,d
7' h e in
which the
pal,aeinptaiffhilae;alteigeta.dewf ofaasaaaplmiraacayac,
Pic-
torial Almanac. The plaintiff, as was stated upon the
application for the injunction to the Vice-Chancellor for
England, is the printer of the Parliamentary Record,
and the proprietor of the Pictorial Times and Pictorial
Almanac.
Mr. Anderson and Mr. Hubback supported the deci-
sion of the Vice-Chancellor.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, without hearing Mr. Stuart
in reply, gave judgment, discharging the order of the
Vice-Chancellor, thereby dissolving the injunction, upon
the undertaking of the defendant to keep an account.
The plaintiff to be at liberty, it he should be so advised,
to bring an action to establish his right.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.
(Before the VICE. CHANCELLOR Of ENGLAND.)
His Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England heard
unopposed petitions, short causes, and cause petitions
to-day, none of which possessed any interest except to
the parties concerned.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. WIGRAM.)
SHUTTLEWORTU V. BENGOUGH.
The arguments in this cause were resumed and con-
cluded to-day.
His HoNoun considered that the plaintiff was entitled
to one-seventh of the property in question, but he wot
leave the other points at issue open to future proceedings.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. K. BRUCE.)
ARMSTRONG V. STOCKHOLM.
The object of this bill was two-fold, viz., to rectify an
error of the Master, and to enable Mr. Ellier, a solicitor
of the Court, to receive certain moneys standing to the
credit of the plaintiff in the cause.
It appeared that the plaintiff was one of four children
of a Mrs. Martha Armstrong, and as such was entitled
to a moiety of her property upon his attaining his ma-
jority. He was resident in Honduras, and it was con-
tended that he was not of age in 1843, in conformity with
which the Master made his report. In opposition to the
confirmation of that report, several certificates were ad-
duced, to show that the plaintiff was born in 1822.
His HoNoun considered the evidence sufficient, and
granted the order required.
EX PARTE HUMANITY FRIENDLY SOCIETY.
This was a petition in the above cause on the part of
the present trustees against the late trustees, to compel
them to act in conformity with certain resolutions that