The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-07 00:00:00

PREROGATIVE COURT.-(THIS DAY

The first session of this Court for the present term was
held this morning before Sir JOHN NICITOLL.
Probate was granted for a great many bills under ordi-
nary circumstances.

IN RE War. BROWN, DECEASED.
Dr. HAGGARD applied in this case for probate of a will
and two codicils. The deceased was a coach builder, re-
siding at Bury St. Edmund's, and left property to the
amount of 5,000/., which he disposed of in eighteen months
among various branches of his family. Subsequently to
executing his will he made various alterations therein,
some in ink, and some in pencil. By the hotter marks he
had wholly or partially revoked several of the legacies, and
bad also written against the names of persons who had
died, the words, " since dead." The Learned Counsel
prayed for probate to be granted of the will and two codi-
cils, but omitting in the will, the parts erased, whether by
ink or with pencil.

The Learned Judge said he could not grant the pro.
hate as prayed. As far as the erasures in ink went he
should consider it to be the intention of the testator so to
revoke or alter the legacy, but as respected the pencil
marks, the Court, acting upon the principle it had esta-
, bislted long since, must consider that to be merely delibe-
rative. Besides, the deceased bad subsequently executed
two codicils, the latter during his last illness, and if it had
been his intention that the pencilled erasures should take
effect, some notice ofauch intention might be expected to
he found in the codicils. With respect to the words in
pencil 4‘ since dead," they could have no effect one way or
other, the legacies having necessarily lapsed with the death
of the party. He should, therefore, allow proha•e for the
will and codicil, omitting only those parts the erasures of
which were in ink.

VICE-CHANCERY CO URT.--(THIS DAY,

ATTORNEY• GENERAL V. ROOS.

HiS HONOUR gave judgment this morning in this case,
which was argued yesterday upon two petitions, the object
of one of which was to charge Lori Stradbroke and Sir
Thomas Gooch, the trustees of A charity in Suffolk,
founded in 1737, by a lady named Warner, with interest
for the surplus balance, allowed by them to remain in the
hands of the receiver, a gentleman named Crabtree; and
the other was presented by the trustees themselves,
i❑ order to take the opinion of the Court on the subject,
by which they submitted to pay interest on the balances,
if the Court should order them to do so. His Honour
thought that in no view of the case was there any ground
made for charging the trustees with interest. It was clear
that they had only acted as their predecessors had
done. In compliance with the orders of the Court of Chan-
cery, it was clear from the report that the balances were al.
ways forthcoming when required, and that it was necessary
that balances should be returned, in order to meet the
expenses of admission to copyhold and other charges con-
nected with the property. In addition to that, from the
Master's report it appeared that in no less than eleven years
of the trust the sums received were less than those paid.
Such being the case, the Court did not consider itself
called upon to charge the trustees with interest, and the
question then was, what was to be done with the petitions.
In the opinion of his Honour, the trustees had acted
with great propriety in themselves bringing the case be-
fore the Court, and the relatives in the second information
had acted with equal propriety in the course they had
pursued, for the purpose of h wing the case fully inves-
tigated ; all parties, therefore, should have their costs out
of the charity estates.

This being S,al Day, the Court proceeded with
notions.

INJUNCTION.-THE EARL OF BA LCARRAS v. SIR RO.

BERT CLAYTON.

Mr. KNIGHT applied upon notice for a special injunc-
tion to restrain a person named Johnson from working a
coal mine,called Black Rod, in Wigan, or Lancashire, called
King Coal, and also to restrain the defendant, Sir Robert
Clayton, from letting to Johnson, or any other person, any
lands or mines within a certain distance of the mine called
Black Rod. Front the statements of the Learned Counsel
it appeared that the Noble Plaintiff was the assignee of a
lease granted in January, 1607, by the late Sir Richard
and Sir William Clayton ; that lease contained various
covenants, on the construction of which the principal
questions in the case depended. One of the principal
questions was whether Sir Robert Clayton had a right
to grant a lease of the mines to him, as against the
Earl of Balcarras. The lease provided that Sir Richard,
Sir William, and Sir Robert Clayton, their heirs and
assigns, should not at any time embark in, or work any
mine which should be situated within certain places spe-
cified is the lease, without two months' notice to that
effect. No such notice had been given in the present case,
although the defendant Johnson was working the King
Coal vein in the Black Rod mine, contrary to the provision
of the lease. The Learned Counsel understood that the
defence would be irregularity of conduct. This, he should
be prepared to show, had not trken place. Johnson, who
had formerly been in the employ of the Noble Plaintiff,
as managing agent, had, in the course of his labours,
discovered a ❑ew vein of coal remaining under the original
vein, which lie communicated to Sir Robert Clayton,
instead of the plaintiff, and persuaded him to grant a lease
of the vein, to prevent the working of which the present
injunction was applied for.

Mr. KEE and Mr. SPENCE followed on the same side,
and hii HoNoun, without calling upon the counsel for the
defendant, refused the application, but gave the plaintiff P.
case tft the Court of King's Bench to determine whether
the King's coal vein came within the meaning of the
covenant i❑ the case to give a preference.

11-T)