The Sun.
London, England, 1834-11-13 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 12.

ARNOLD V. ARNOLD.
Mr. BICKERSTETH appeared in this case on behalf of i
several legatees under the will of the late Lieutenant-Colo-
nel Arnold. He proceeded to state the facts of the case.
The testator, who was a Lieutenant-Colonel in the East
India Company's service, made his will, by which, after
providing for the payment of all his just debts, &c., he be-
queathed to his dear wife, Ann Martin, 1,000/., his wines,
and property in England. He also bequeathed to his dear
daughter, Sophia Arnold, 15,000/., to be paid on marriage,
or on her attaining the age of twenty-one ; and if the child
of which the testator's wife at the date of the will was preg-
nant should be born, that such child should likewise have
15,000/. After the testator's death a son was born, who
took the legacy. He further gave to his dear child, Louiga
Harriet Adams, the interest of Calcutta sicca rupees
100,000, and to her mother the interest of 10,000 sicca
rupees. The testator also bequeathed to all his nephews
and nieces living at the time of his death, 4001. each, with
5 per cent. compound interest, to commence from the day
of their birth, and to be settled at their attaining the age of
twenty-one or marriage. He then made several other be-
quests, and appointed his brothers James and William
Arnold and Sophia Phipps his residuary legatees. In ad-
dition to which the will provided that in case any differences
should arise between his executors he desired that they should
be settled amicably, everything doubtful being construed for
the benefit of his natural daughter Louisa Harriet Adams.
The estate was found insufficient, and the present hill was
filed for an account, abatement of the legacies having become
necessary. The cause came on for a hearing, and it was re-
ferred to the Master to inquire what was the amount of the
property the testator was possessed of in England at the time
of his death, and what was the amount of the property the
testator was possessed of in India. The Master made his
report, and the case came before his Honour on an excep-
tion to that report and on further directions. The Master
had proceeded to make a special inquiry concerning the
amount of the testator's property in England at the time, of
his death, and he had found it to consist of 734/. in debts,
bills, and cash at his bankers ; 810/. New Four per Cent.
Annuities, a certain box and trunk of wearing apparel,
37/. 18s. 6d„ the arrears of a pension paid out of his Majes-
ty's Exchequer, and an interest accruing in the life of Wil-
liam Anstruther, 1,700/., Three per Cents. The Master
had also approved of a guardian for the children, and a sum
to be applied to their maintenance and education. 'The
present exception was taken to that part of the Master's
report respecting the payment of the compound interest to
the nephews and nieces.
Mr. BETHELL appeared for the legatees, who were in-
fants, in support of the Master's finding. He proceeded to
contend from the words of the will, and under all the cir-
cumstances of the case, that the Master could not have
come to any other conclusion than that which his Learned
Friends now sought to set aside.
His Honour the Ms.sTER of the ROLLS thought that
the Master had come to a very proper conclusion, for he
did not apprehend that there was anything in the case to
cause him (the Master of the Rolls) to come to any other
conclusion than that which sprung from the ordinary mean-
ing of the words. Consequently he was of opinion that the
Master had come to a right conclusion.
Mr. PEMBERTON appeared on behalf of the testator's
widow, who had presented a petition to the Master, claim-
ing the benefit of a bequest made to her by her late hus-
band. The testator, shortly before his death, made his will,
the provisions of which had already been stated to his
Honour. The cause now came here on further directions,
and the subject of the present application was the bequest
made by the testator to his wife. The words of this bequest
were, " To my dear wife Ann Martin, 1,0001. ; al so my
wines, and my property in England." At a previous stage
of the proceedings it had been referred to the Master to
ascertain the amount of this property, and he found it to
consist of 734/. 17s. 6d. in cash and bills at his banker's,
810/. New Four per Cents. Annuities, standing in the
names of twe trustees, a certain box and trunk of wearing
apparel, handed over to the petitioner, 37/. 18s. 6d., the
vrears of a pension out of his Majesty's Exchequer, and an
interest accruing in the life of William Anstruther of
1,700/. 3 per Cents.
Mr. BICKERSTETH appeared for the plaintiffs. The ar-
gument of the point the subject of the present dispute was
one of very great importance, and the question was whether
all the property a testator possessed in England could pass
under a bequest of " 1,000/., my wines, and my property in
England." He proceeded to contend, from the words of
tho bequest, that the testator had intended only to give the
present petitioner 1,0001., his wines, and all his property in
England of that nature which might be handed from one
party to another.
His HONOUR reserved his judgment on this point.
Mr. BICKERSTETH was proceeding to the next point re-
' speeting the bequest of the interest of the 100,000 Calcutta
sicca rupees to the testator's natural daughter, Louisa Har-
riet Adams ; but the Learned Gentleman representing that
latter person not being in Court,
His IloNotra consented to the case standing over till to-
morrow (this day).

BAIL COURT, Nov. 19..

V. KELLY AND OTHERS.
Mr. MOODY appealed to the Court for a rule to show
cause why leaving the declaration in this case (an action of
ejectment) at the house of the tenant in possession should
not be deemed good service. The circumstances of the case
were somewhat peculiar. Part of the house was let to a
person named Warren, who underlet to other persons, who
had since turned it into a common gaming house. The
plaintiff had made every inquiry as to the names of the per-
sons in possession, and all he could learn was that five per-
sons, of the names of Kelly, Snead), Freeman, Welch, and
Fall, occupied the premises, but was unable to learn their
Christian names, nor could he get to serve the declaration
on any of them. Two porters were stationed at the door,
and the moment they saw any body approach, having the
appearance of a lawyer, they shut the door in his face.—(A
laugh.) The attorney's clerk, who went for the purpose of
serving the declaration, told them his business, but the/ re-
fused to open the door, or to take in the declaration,
use*
and he
left it outside the door, but in the passage of the house.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE—YOu have no affidavits who
are the tenants in possession..

Mr. Moody—lt is impossible for us to ascertain who
they are. We can only swear as to our belief.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE,--YOll must swear who are the
tenants in possession before I can grant a rule.
Mr. Moody—Then, my Lord, this will be a case where
there is a right without a remedy.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE—I never beard of a case of
this kind, so lam unwilling to establish a precedent. You
may apply to the full Court.—Rule refused.
Mr. HuTclliNsoN, in the absence of the ATTORNEY-
GENERAL, moved to enlarge the rule for leave to file a cri-
minal information against the Morning Chronicle for a libel
until Saturday next.
Mr. RICHARDS said that the rule required that the affi-
davits should be filed on Friday.
Sir JOSEPH LITTLEDALE thought there could be no ob-
jection to enlarge the time. If Monday was given, the
affidavits might be filed on Saturday.
Mr. HuTcniNsoN said all he required was to enlarge
the rule till Saturday.—Leave given.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL came into Court shortly after
and said he was instructed to move for a mandamus which
was of the highest importance to the nation. While the
Government had been decreasing the public burthens, he
was sorry to say the local ones had increased. Indeed
much oppression had taken place in consequence. In the
county of Stafford the county rates had increased from the
sum of 9,0001. annually, until they now arrived at the enor-
mous sum of 30,000/., which was a grievous burthen to the
inhabitants generally. The inhabitants of a township which
he named, conceiving the rates were not justified by law,
applied etkrough the aleclitou of i solicitor fvr an inspection