The Sun.
London, England, 1851-11-06 00:00:00

BIRTHS IN THE WEEK.

Males
Females

... 759
... 721

Total ... ... 1,480
*ln this number are included 50 by Scarlatina, 60
by Typhus Fever, 34 by Diarrhoea, and 1 by Cholera.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 5.
FOWLER V. RA.YNALL-JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment in this case
this morning. The appeal was from the judgment of the
late Vice-Chancellor of England. The bill was filed by
Mrs. Fowler and her daughter, who was of age, and was
for the purpose of making the trustees under her mar-
riage settlement reinvest upwards of 8,0001. stock, which
they had sold out and lent on mortgage on Vauxhall-
gardens, there being at the time two previous mortgages.
The Vice-Chancellor of England having made a decree
in accordance with the prayer of the bill, the present
appeal was brought. His Lordship, after reviewing the
facts of the case, and the argument of counsel, con-
cluded by affirming the judgment of the Court below,
and dismissing the appeal.
Appeal dismissed accordingly.
MILLER V. HUDDLESTON-JUDGMENT.
His LORDSHIP gave judgment in this case also,
which, as was the preceding one, was an appeal from
the decision of the late Vice-Chancellor of England.
The point raised in the case was, whether certain an-
nuities given by the will of Thomas Creswick had a
priority over legacies which were bequeathed by the
.ame will. Tne will in question was dated 10th
July, 1833, and by it the testator gave all his pro-
perty in trust to certain trustees, for the purpose of
oeieg invested in Government securities, and directing
that there should be paid out of the interest and divi-
dends an annuity of 5001. to his daughter, An❑ Miller,
one of 5001. to his brother, William Creswick, and ano•
'her of 50/. to his nephew, Thomas Creswick. The will
then directed that after the payment of such annuities
'he remaining interest and dividends should go to his
wife for life, and after her decease, that a second annuity
of 5001. should be paid to Ann Miller, and that 5,0001.
should be paid to such person or persons as his wife
should appoint in her will, and the testator then directed
the payment of certain other legacies. It appears that
Thomas Creswick died in 1840, and his widow in 1843,
and the latter by her will disposed of the 5,000/. alluded
to, and also of the arrears of the two annuities of 500/.
rile two questions raised by the bill were—first, whether
the annuities had a priority of payment over the legacies,
or were to be abated by them pro rata, as it
might turn out the property of the testator was in-
competent to pay in full; and the second point was
whether, in the event of the first point being decided
in favour of the annuitants, they could ask for their
arrears being paid out of the testator's property. The
Vice• Chancellor of Eogland having given both points
in favour of the annuitants the present appeal was there-
tbee brought. The Lord Chancellor, in giving judg-
ment, was of opinion that the annaities and legacies
must all abate in an equal proportion, as they depended
upon the same equity, and also on the ground that the
testator did not contemplate that any deficiency would
arise when he made his will. His Lordship therefore
thought that no priority could exist unless the intention
was made manifest by the will. In looking into the will
no such intention was, however, manifested by the tes-
tator. The bequests were placed in the will in the order
in which they occurred to the mind of the testator, but
no directions were given that they should be paid in such
order. On the question as to the two 500/. annuities
being payable out of the corpus he (the Lord Chancellor)
differed with the Court below, as both were ordered to
be paid out of the interest and the dividends. His
Lordship, in conclusion, reversed the decision of the
Court below. The costs to be paid out of the estate.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURTS, Nov. 5.
(Before Sir G. TURNER.)
EAST v, TWYFORD,—JUDGMENT.
His HONOUR gave judgment in this case this morning,
which was argued at great length in last Trinity Term.
The bill was tiled for the purpose of obtaining the opi-
nion of the Court on the construction of one or the most
singular wills, his Honour observed, which the courts of
justice in this country ever had to deal with. Sir Gil-
bert East, the testator, had a large property, consisting
in part of money in the funds; an estate in Berkshire,
called the Fifield Estate; an estate in Suffolk; and pic-
tures, books, and furniture, &c. The will was made in
a book, and the persons alluded to were designated by
different letters, the whole construction of the will being
of a very novel character, and of immense length. Among
other things, the testator made special provision for the
care of his dogs, allowing seven shillings each for their
keep, and directing that none of them should be
killed through mistaken notions of charity. He
also made a like provision for the maintenance
of his horses; directed that a woman named
Martha Hicks should be paid 601. per annum for the
care of his parrot, but that at the death of the parrot
the allowance should be reduced to 201. per annum.
He also directed that his remains should be put into
a coffin of cedar, that it should be lined with Rus-
sian leather, and painted three times with black, and
that as much camphor and spices should be put into his
coffin as possible, and he desired that his funeral should
be conducted in as solemn a manner as practicable with
banners, &c. The question in this case for the conside-
ration of the Court was whether according to the true
construction of the will the plaintiff (Gilbert East) be.
came entitled to the estates alluded to as tenant in tail
male, and whether he had become entitled absolutely to
some heirlooms, which were directed by the will to fol-
low the disposition of these estates.
.His Honour, after
going at great length into an examination of the various
Points raised in the course of the argument, referred to
the proceedings which had taken place with reference to
the present will in the Court of Exchequer, and said
that he was reluctantly compelled to dissent from the
decision of that Court, and
.to de.clare. that the plaintiff
took for life only. That. being his
said
on the con-
struction of the will, his Honour salcl.he thought it was
unnecessary he should give any opinion on the question
of executory trust. His Honour concluded by declaring
that the plaintiff was tenant for life only, and dismissed
the bill.—Bill dismissed accordingly.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir JAMES PARBER.)
POTTS V. THE THAMES HAVEN DOM( AND RAILWAY
COMPANY.
This was a claim for specific performance. The com-
pany bad
.agreed to purchase a piece of land belonging
to the plaintiffs, but they had hitherto refused to com-
plete. It was ultimately agreed that the company should
appoint a surveyor to value the land, and that the claim
should be ordered to stand over until next Trinity
Term.

Mr. Cooper, Mr. Hallett, Mr. Wigram, and Mr. Shap-
er, appeared for the different parties.

ROLLS' COUR►7; Nov. 5.
IN RE MON3IOUTH AND GLAMORGANSHIRE DANE-

WINDING-UP ACT.
The further hearing of this petition was resumed
this morning, when Mr. R. Palmer having concluded
his reply,
The MASTER of the ROLLS proceeded to give judg-
ment. He said this was a petition presented under the
Winding-up Act, and as there was pretence that this
bank had not stopped payment, it clearly came under the
operation of that Act, and under the sth section the pe-

titioner was entitled to an order of Court for having the
affairs of the company wound up. He had, however, to
consider whether ho possessed the exercise of a discretion
to wahald ir, Bud whethex this was ti fit case for the