The Sun.
London, England, 1834-12-24 00:00:00

PARRY V. DAWSON.

His LORDSHIP said that he had formerly considered his
judgment in this case, and was about to deliver it, but lie
understood that the parties were about to come to an ami-
cable arrangement. This he found was a mistake. He
had again looked to his notes, which were extremely full ;
had reviewed the authorities , and he entertained the same
opinion that he had originally formed. The question turned
principally upon the will of William Parry. By a clause
in his will William Parry devised certain estates to his wi-
dow in fee, in order that she might dispose of them to his
second and third sons in such manner, shares, and propor-
tion as she should think fit. She had disposed of one-
eighth, and held in fee the other seven-eighths, and the
question was whether the will constituted a mere
power or a trust. If it were a mere power the part
of the property undisposed of would go to the heir-
at law, but if it were a trust the Court was bound
to see it carried into effect. A great variety of cases had
been cited, but none of them were very applicable. The
fact was that cases of this nature depended upon ordinary
circumstances, and the particular phrases used. Tho ques-
tion then was what construction would the Court put upon
the terms of this will. He was of opinion, after giving the
best consideration to the subject, that it was not a mere
power, but a trust, and that the property was given to the
widow in fee, in order that she might dispose of it for the
benefit of the two younger sons ; and lie was of opinion
that this was the intention of the testator when lie made
this disposition of his property. The Court must therefore
see that the trust was properly executed. But there was
another question, which was this, namely, whether the two
sons took as joint tenants or as tenants in common, and
upon this question he was of opinion, from the word
" shares" made use of in the will, that it was intended that
they should take as tenants in common. His Lordship,
after disposiag of some minor points of the case, concluded
by directing an account, according to the prayer of the bill.
His LORDSHIP, after giving several more judgments, and
disposing of several petitions by consent, said he wished to
inform the gentlemen of the Bar that he should not sit in
this Court again ; and expressed his acknowledgments for
the great attention be had received from them since he pre-
sided as Lord Chief Baron. All the Counsel present at
this moment simultaneously rose and bowed.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, DEC. 23.

IN THE MATTER OF JOHN JOHNSON CROSSFIELD.

This was a re-hearing under the 67th section of the Act
on the part of a Mr. Thomas Smith, a creditor. The case,
which had been before the Court on several former occa-
sions, was to-day finally decided. The insolvent, an elderly
man, who appeared to be on the verge of the grave, has
been a plumber, &c., in Drury-lane. He was dischargen
as an insolvent debtor in March last. He was unopposed,
and in his schedule he had made statements relating to his
property which were proved to be false. He was after his
release proceeded against by Mr. Smith, who was an ad-
mitted creditor in his schedule, and in July was arrested
for costs he had incurred, and from that period he had been
an inmate in Whitecross-street prison. An application was
some time ago made for a re-hearing on affidavits, which
disclosed the concealment of considerable property, and im-
puted perjury to the insolvent in respect to the statements
made in the schedule. A rule was granted, and the in-
solvent in answer denied the allegations made against him.
The rule was made absolute, and on two subsequent occa-
sions evidence was adduced which went to show a conceal-
ment of considerable property. A point was raised that
Mr. Smith was no creditor, inasmuch as he was an uncer-
t:ficated bankrupt. He was declared a bankrupt fourteen
years ago, and for the last ten years it had been abandoned.
The Court took time to consider, and now decided that Le
was a creditor.

Counsel were heard in aggravation and mitigation.
Mr. Commissioner BOWEN gave judgment. The Court
held that a serious case of fraudulent concealment of pro-
perty had been established against the insolvent, which
called for a severe reprimand as a warning to others. The
Court took into consideration the imprisonment he had
suffered and his state of health. The former adjudication
was ordered to be revoked, he was re-committed to prison,
and ordered to be imprisoned for nineteen calendar months.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

BOW-STREET.

Yesterday the following four persons, venders of un-
stamped publications, were summoned to this office for
selling papers containing news, printed upon unstamped
paper, namely, William Nicholas Fagnoit, of High Holborn ;
Thomas Haines, of Cable-street, St. Georges-in-the-East ;
Janes Miller Ucklebridge, of 26, Crown-street, St. Giles's ;
and George Jeftry, of 12, Brill-row, and 14, Union-street,
Somers-town.

The two first defendants pleaded guilty, and the infliction
of the
pe:7ltics was postponed for a fortnight, upon their
promise not to repeal Lll,e offence.
eso
In the other two cases the deiendants were not pr nt,
and were proceeded against exparte. The defendant
Jeffery told the summoning officer he would keep his shop
open, and sell in spite of the law.
They were convicted in the penalty of 201. and costs
each, and in default of immediate payment they will be
committed to the House of Correction for six months.