The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-04 00:00:00

COAL BURKE

Buddle'sWest Hartley 15s 0,,
Carr's Hartley
Chester Main l3s 9d
Davison'sWer;tllartley 15s od,
Dean's Primrose
Dipt on 'fatifield l2s Oul
liolywell Main
Nelson's West Hartley 13s 0,4
North Pontop ..... 12s 0(4
New 'lan field l4s 0(4
Ord's Redheugh 13s 6,1'
Original Tantield
Pontop ‘Vindsor
South Peareth
South Pontop
LiFitield Moor
Wall's End, &c
Bewicke and Co.
Gosforth l4s 3d
Keaton
Riddeil's l4s 0,4
W rneldre
Eden Main l6s Od

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chancellor sat to day at el,-ven o'clock in
his Court in the New hall, Lincoln's lon, to hear ap-
peals.
SINGULAR BEQUEST.-NIGHTINGALE v. G,ULBOURN.
Tne arguments in this case were resumed and con-
cluded to-day. The case came before hi% Lordship upon
appeal from the decision of the Vice Chancellor Wi-
gram under the following singular state of eircemstaeo.s:
—The testator in this cause, a gentleman of the name of
Colonel Petrie, had, by his will, dated in July, 1843,
bequeathed several legacies to various persons, anti af-
terwards gave the residue of his personal estate to trus-
tees upon trust to pay 2001, per annum to his widow,
and also to pay 1,000/. to the present managers of the
Scottish Episcopal Society, and to make other pay-
ments. He then added the following clause :—" I
desire my trustees shall convert my investments
into money, and that they :hall pay such money,
after the payment of' legacies and the expenses of
the trusts of my will, to the Queen's Chancellor
of the Exchequer for the time being, to be appro-
priated by him for the benefit and advantage of
my beloved country, Great Britain." The testator died
in April, 1844. A bill having been filed by the plaintiffs,
as executors, against the Right Honourable Henry
Goulburn, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mrs.
Perie, the widow, several parties next of kin, and the
Attorney-General, a reference was made to the Master,
who found the amount of the residuary personal estate
to be about 16,0001. The widow having died in February
last, the case was heard before the Vice-Chancellor
Wigram, the question before his Honour being whether
the residuary bequest was a valid one, or whether the
property contained in it was undisposed of and distri-
butable as such among the next of kin of the testator.
The case was argued at. considerable length in the Court
below. His Honour, at the conclusion of the argument,
took time to consider the question, and ultimately gave
judgment, declaring the bequest to be a valid one,
though at the same time stating that the case was one
judgment
the which he had great doubts. From this
the parties appealed to the Lord Chancellor, and the
case has been argued before him at great length.
Mr. Horace Twiss and Mr. Wray were counsel for
Mr. Goulburn.
The Attorney-General, Mr. Wood, and Mr. Faber,
appeared for the executors, and
Mr. Romilly, Mr. Hallett, and Mr. Bell, were counsel
nsel
for the representatives of the widow, who appealed
against the judgment below, contendin.4 that the Court
below had come to a wrong conclusion, and that the
bequest was wholly void, not being a charitable use
within the statute of the 43d of Elisabeth.
Mr. ROMILLY replied to day upon the whole case, and
The Loma CHANCELLOR pteitponed his judgment:
No eases of any public interest occurred either in the
Rolls or the Vice-Chancellor's Court.