The Sun.
London, England, 1833-12-13 00:00:00

qCE-CHANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

/VARD V. FITZHUGH.—ISLE OF WIGHT AND SOUTHAMe-
TON STEAM VESSELS.
The bill in this sate waS filed by the representatives of
tht plaintiff for the purpose of having the profits ascer-
tplhM 'of certain steam boats in the year 1830. From
the bill it appeared that the plaintiff in 1830 was the
Proprietor of nine tenths of three steam vessels, called the
4ulmesbury, the Medina, and the Cobourg, which plied
for passengers between the Isle of Wight and Southampton
led Portsmnuth Ttie defendant expressing a wish to
Purchase the interest of the plaintiff in a
th
valuation should
be made of Mr. Ward's interest, by the award of a corn-
Petent person. That award was made, which v clued the
Property at 2,1841., on the 12th of August following, in-
ttead of June, as had been agreed upon, but that instrument
mete no mention of the profits hat might be made by
the vessels. Mr. Ward had died in the interim, and the
Present bill was filed by his representative., to have those
profits ascertained.
Sir E. SUCHEN, Mr. KNIGHT, and Mr. CAMPBELL,
IPpeared in support of the Bill.
. Mr. PETTS, with whom was Mr. WAKEFIELD, ap-
Peered for the defendant, contending that if the plaintiffs
Were entitled to any profits they could only have those
orbith had been made between the time when the award
VD have been made, and that when it was actually
executed.
His Horroun made the decree according to the prayer
of the bill, directing the accounts of the property to be
taken, and declaring the plaintiffs entitled to the share
of these profits, according to the interest of Mr. Ward in
the vessels in question.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

WHYTALL V. KAY.
In this case the bill was filed by the co-heirs of the
testator in the cause, against the trustees, legatees, annui-
tants, and residuary legatee under his will, for the purpose
of having it declared that the disposition made by him, by
codicil, of his real estate, being executed in the pre-
sence of and attested by only two witnesses was inrffec-
tuat and inoperative, and that after his widow's death it
descended to the plaintiff. By his will the tes-
tator bequeathed all his real and personal estates to
trustees in trust to permit his wife, if she survived him,
to enjoy his real estate and the income of his personalty
during the term of her natural life, and after her death
in trust to sell his real and call in his personal estate, and
apply the moneys arising therefrom in the payment of
legacies or annuities, as he should by codicil appoint. The
Will was duly executed so as to pass real estate, but
the codicil for which he reserved the disposition of his
realty, was executed in the presence of only two witnesses.
His widow survived him, and enjoyed, during her life
time, the interest which the testator had intended her to
take. The legatees were entitled. on her death, to have
.the personalty applied in satisfaction of their legacies, and
the present claim was made to the undirposed of real estate
by the ineffectual codicil, as descending to the plaintiffs
in the character of the testator's heir. It was suggested
in the defence, that the testator was illegitimate, and that
the present plaintiffs could not sustain their claim ; but
Mr. Wray, who appeared for the Attorney-General, stated
that a prima facie case of legitimacy having bee❑ esta-
blished to his satisfaction, he should not press the point on
behalf of the Crown.
Mr. Jacoes, on the put of the residuary legatees, con-
tended that by will there was a conversion out and out of
the real estate, and that instrument being fully attested, it
should be held sufficient by the codicil, though not duly
executed, to dispose of the produce.
His HONOUR said there was here no such conversion of
the real estate out and out; there could be no such con-
'eersion unless there was a clearly expressed intention, in
4 will duly executed, that the produce of the realty should
he considered as personalty at the time of the testator's
death. In this case, however, there was not even a
power to sell till after the death of the widow,
who was to enjoy, during her life, the income of it.
The testator in this case Lad reserved to himself the
power of appointing the produce of his real estate, and
the surplus of his personal estate, by a codicil ; but a
codicil, unattested by three witnesses, could not operate
at all on real estate, and therefore the plaintiffs, as the
testator's co-heirs, were clearly entitled to its produce,
according to the prayer of their bell.

SITTINGS OF THP: COURT.
His Horrourt has intimated his intention to take peti-
tions in the general paper on Friday and Saturday, after
which he will adjourn his sittings till the first day of next

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before the LOAD CHIEF JusTicE and a Common Jury at
Guildhall.)
SOUTER V. LEWIS.
This cause was undefended. It was an action brought
by a bookseller in St. Paul's Church-yard, to recover
from the defendant, a stationer in Fleet-street, 61. 17s. 2d.,
for books, &c., furnished to him.—Verdict for the plaintiff.