The Sun.
London, England, 1848-01-31 00:00:00

CROCKETT V. CROCKETT.-JUDGMENT.

The LORD CHANCELLOR also gave judgment in this
case, which came before the Court upon appeal from
the decision of the Vice-Chancellor Wigram. The
question in the case arose upon the construction of
the will of a gentleman named Crockett, executed
at Macao, in March, 1831. By that will he di-
rected that all and every part of his proporty
should be' at the disposal of his most true and
lawful wife, Caroline Crockett, for herself and her
children, in the event of any:unforeseen accident hap-
pening to himself. The testator died at Macao in
June, 1837, leaving Caroline Crockett, his widow,
and five children surviving ; and soon afterwards
administration of the testator's estate, with the will
annexed, was granted to the widow by the proper
authorities at Macao. In September, 1837, the
widow, who had been advised that, under the will,
she was absolutely entitled to the whole of the testa-
tor's property to her own use, executed a voluntary
deed, whereby, after directing the sum of 15,000/.
to be remitted to this country, she settled that
sum upon trust for herself for life, if she should
so long remain unmarried, and after her death or
marriage upon trust for five children of the testator.
One of the children afterwards died, and the bill
was filed by the four surviving children against the
widow for an account of the testator's estate, and
praying a declaration that the children were entitled
under the will to the testator's property jointly with
the widow, and that the deed of September, 1837,
was nut binding upon them. At the hearing of the
cause in 1841, the Court made a declaration that the
children took an interest in, possession in the
testator's property at his decease, under the
testator's will, and that the deed of Sep-
tember, 1837, was not binding upon them ; and
directed that the whole income of the testator's
residuary estate should be paid to the mother during
the infancy of the children, or until further order, she
maintaining and educating them in a proper manner.
Upon the eldest of the children attaining his majority
he presented the present petition to the Court, for a
transfer of his portion of the fund, and upon the
hearing of the petition the question was, whether the
word "disposal" in the will conferred upon the widow
the power of distributing the capital of the fund
amongst the children, or whether she was en
titled thereby only to the care and custody
of the income belonging to the children during
their minorities. The Vice-Chancellor Wigram
held that the widow and her children took a joint in-
terest in the residuary estate of the testator, and,
after directing the portion of the petitioner to be paid
to him, ordered that the direction which he had pre-
viously made should be continued as to the mother
and the infant children, and from that judgment the
party appealed. his Lordship, after going at con-
siderable length into the case, ordered the decision of
the Court below to be reversed, and the costs to come
out of the fund in Court, the question being one
between a parent and her children ; and the object of
the suit being the proper distribution of their pro-
perty.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 29,
(Sittings in Banco.)
_ _ GRIMLEY V. ACKROYD.

The defendant in this case was a railway contractor,
in the habit of employing a large number of hands,
whom it was his custom to pay in part by order for
goods upon various tradesmen, signed by the sub-
contractors in his service. The plaintiff sued out
228 summonses for the defendants to appear in the
County Court, each of which stated that the action was
upon a contract for goods sold. The amounts of the
several summonses ranged from ss. to 51., the agzre-
gate amount being 3031. 19s. At the time of the
hearing before the Judge, the defendant made an ap-
plication for the adjournment of the hearing, in order
to afford time for obtaining a prohibition, which was
granted upon payment of the costs of the day, amount-
ing to 111. 10s. N. The clerk of the court de-
manded 171. as his fees for making the judge's order
of adjournment, which, however, he refused to pay, on
the ground that it was only one order and one act of
the Judge. The tickets given to the men were simi-
lar in character to the following :
" Middleton Hill, July 14, 1847.
" Mr. Grimley, let the bearer have goods to the
amount of three shillings.
"CLIADWICIC AND EDWARDS."
The various summonses were issued in the County
Court at Worcester, in the Chepstow district.
Mr. MARTIN obtained a rule nisi for a prohibition
in this case.
Mr. WRITEHURST (with whom was Mr. Pigott)
now appeared to show cause against the rule. Ile
contended that a separate cause of action arose upon
each of the orders sent to the plaintiff, and in support
of his case, proceeded to cite several cases reported
iu the time of Charles 11.
The Loan CHIEF BARON said, that without wish-
ing in the least to disparage the ability of the re-
porters of that time, it had been said with respect to
the cases reported by them, that any proposition could
be proved by them. His Lordship said, that looking
over the affidavits it appeared to him that this was a
gross abuse of an Act of Parliament, passed, as it was
supposed, for the purpose of affording relief and re-
moving causes of oppression.
Mr. MARTIN—The question was not only with
respect to the 228 summonses immediately concerned,
but there were 2,000 yet behind.
Mr. Baron PARKE—It was evident that the whole
of the goods supplied were supplied upon one order,
and was therefore only one contract.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—Suppose the amount of
the summonses in each of these cases had not ex-
ceeded Is., could not the one plaint have been en-
tered for the whole of the 23,5 Cans ?