The Sun.
London, England, 1851-11-13 00:00:00

LONDON,

estly to be hoped that they may not be, for a third
time, doomed to be disappointed in their sanguine
expectations of success :
An extraerdinary meeting of the Town and
Harbour Commissioners was held to-day, at two
o'clock, for the purpose of meeting an American gen-
tleman, named Mr. Wagstaff, who came over to Gal-
way with the object of establishing a line of steamers
between this port and New York He was accompa-
nied by Mr. Ennis, chairman of the Midland Great
Western Railway, and Messrs. Boyce Cowper and
Sterling, directors. A large number of commis-
sioners were in attendance. The Rev. Peter Daly,
who occupied the chair, introduced Mr. Wagstaff to
the meeting, and stated that he brought letters of in-
troduction to him from the American Ambassador, the
Hun. Abbott Lawrence.

" Mr. Wagstaff, in a clear and able speech, entered
into a statement of the reasons which induced him to
come to the conclusion of placing a line of steamers
between Galway and New York, and said he did so
because he was impressed with the conviction that
such a project would pay. He might not succeed in
the first or second or third trip; but he still would
not be disheartened—his experiment should last for
six months. The vessel which he had now prepared
ready to start, and which would leave New York—
(Loud cheers)—for Galway, was, he had no hesita-
tion in saying, one of the fastest and strongest
steamers which ever sailed on the ocean. In proof of
this Mr. Wagstaff read a certificate from the 'Mercan-
tile Mutual Assurance Company. This vessel would
be followed by others of the very strongest and
swiftest build which it could be possible for wood
and iron to make. It was the intention of himself
and of his father to bring, by means of
other communication, the goods and passen-
ger traffic of the Continent through Ire-
land. He sought no pecuniary assistance, he
merely wanted co-operation and kindly feeling on the
part of the people of Galway. With regard to the
emigrant accommodation, he was determined to make
such an improvement in this particular as had been
never before attempted. The steerage passengers
should be provided with berths which would contain
only two each; the sexes, except in cases of families,
should be kept separate; saloons should be provided for
them, where they might sit; with proper cooking ac-
commodation, the best description of food, and a voyage
of only eight days, at a charge of 61. each. He
would come himself with the first vessel, when he ex-
pected to he able to enter more fully into details. Mr.
Wagstaff, in the course of his observations, passed a
high eulogium on the capabilities of the bay of Gal-
way, and said, though he had travelled a great deal,
he had never seen a harbour which possessed more
natural advantages for such a project as the present
one. The first vessel should sail on the 15th of
December from New York, and arrive i❑ Galway on
the 23d. _ _

"The CHAIRMAN next introduced Mr. James Stir-
ling, son of the Mayor of Belfast, to the meeting, and
in doing so highly lauded the men of the north, and
particularly the venerable Mayor of Belfast.
"Mr. STIRLING returned thanks.

" The meeting was also addressed by Mr. ENNIS,
who promised on the part of the railway company,
every assistance and corporation towards carrying out
this great project.
" On the motion of Mr. STEPHENS, seconded by Mr.
J. IRELAND, it was resolved that Mr. Wagstaff's
vessel should enter the port free of all dues for the
space of six months.
" The CHAIRMAN, on behalf of the people of Galway
and the Commissioners, claimed Mr. Wagstaff, his
captain and officers, as their guests upon their arrival
next month. •

"The greatest unanimity and enthusiasm pervaded
the whole meeting, and Mr. Wagstaff, as well as the
other gentlemen who accompanied him, received a
warm and hearty welcome."—Times.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 12.
(Before the LORD CHANCELLOR.)
SCOTT V. SPASHETT.

This appeal from the late Vice-Chancellor of
England was argued in February last. The matter
came before the Court on petition, and the principal
question was, whether the petitioner ought not to
have proceeded by bill. The petitioner, Mary Ann
Spashett, a married woman, was entitled under the
will of John Upton to one-tenth of the residuary es-
tate in conjunction with her husband, and she was
also entitled to a sum of 3461. for her separate use,
on the death of a person for whom it was invested, to
secure an annuity. The husband received the tenth
of the residuary estate, and before the death of the
annuitant they joined in a sale of the reversionary
interest in the 3461. to one Hardinge, who subse-
quently assigned it to the Reversionary Society. The
husband after wards became insolvent, and his property
vested in the usual manner in the assignee of the
Court. After the death of the annuitant the wife pe-
titioned for a settlement of the fund to her separate
use. The Vice-Chancellor, in February 1850, dis-
missed that petition, on the ground that in such a
case the proceeding must be by bill, and the matter
was re-argued on appeal.
The LORD CHANCELLOR now gave judgment; and
having stated the circumstances of the assignments to
Hardinge and to the Reversionary Society, he ob-
served that Mrs. Spashett and her four children now
claimed by a petition to have the fund secured for
their separate use. The Vice-Chancellor of England,
before whom the petition came, held that the pro-
ceedings must be by bill, and dismissed the petition
of Mrs. Spashett, with costs. His Lordship was of
, opinion that the petition ought not to have been dis-
missed ; and that, both on principle and authority,
the matter at issue could be decided without the
formality of proceeding by bill. His Lordship could
see no reason for the petitioner being put to the de-
, lay and expense of a suit in equity to obtain a de-
Icision on her claim. There was no question raised
by the petition which could not be discussed and de-
cided with as much ease and as satisfactorily as if
the matter was involved in the delay and great ex-
penditure of a suit. There were no questions raised
between the petitioner and the other claimants to
participate in the residue, and they could not be
affected by the decision on the petition, nor was there
any reason to believe that justice would not be done
by taking the opinion of the court in their absence.
His Lordship had been unable to find any case
in which it was held that the Court
could not so decide on petition, or any
authority for a proceeding by bill. Ia a case of
Greedy v. Lavender, reported in the 19th number of
the Law Journal, 496, the late Master of the Rolls
made an order of a somewhat similar nature on peti-
tion. If it was argued that the respondents in the
proceedings by petition were not before the Court, it
might be observed that the parties so complaining
had themselves brought the matter before the Court
for its decision. By obtaining the stop order they
had availed themselves of the machinery of the Court
for the protection of the fund, and having done so,
what was there to restrain the Court from coming to
a decision on the conflicting rights of the parties
claiming the fund, unless there were matters in dis-
pute which could not be determined without a suit ?
Being of that opinion with respect to the form of the
proceeding, his Lordship felt himself called on to make
one or two observations on the general equity involved
in the claim of the petitioner, and on that point also
he entertained no doubt. In Salisbury v. Newton, 1
Eden, 370, a wife was held to be entitled to a provi-
sion against the particular assignee of the husband
for valuable consideration of the whole of her equi-
table interest. So, also, in Macauley v. Phillips, 4th
Vesey, 19, the assignment for valuable consideration
of the wife's equitable interest by the husband did
not bar her equity. In the case of Wright
v. Morley, 11th Vesey, 16, Sir William Grant,
said—" If the husband has but the right of
reducing the wife's interest into possession,
how can he for valuable consideration or otherwise
convey more than he has ? If he does not reduce it
into possession, it clearly survives." Again, in the
case of Elliott v. Cordell, sth Maddock, Sir John
Leach (at p. 156) says—" Where an absolute equit-
able interest is given to the wife, the Court will not
permit the husband to possess it without making
is provision for the wife, or her express consent ; and
all who claim under the husband must take his inte-
,
rest subject to the same equity. In Brett v. Green-
vell, Younge and Collyer, 230, Baron Alderson,
sitting in the Exchequer in Equity, held that the
Money in Court was to be applied for the benefit of a
married woman, her husband being insolvent. So
also Gardner v. Marshall, 14 Simon, 587, the Vice-
Chancellor, in directing the application of the fund as
a settlement on a wife, remarked on the fact of a hus-
band, prior to the question arising, having received or
had the benefit of a large portion of his wife's fortune,
as making a difference when the Court came to dis-
pose of the remainder. Being of opinion in the pre-
sent case on authority, that the wife was entitled to
have the fund settled on herself and her children, ac-
cording to the prayer of her petition, and looking at
the fact that the husband had already received a large
sum out of the estate of John Upton in right of his
wife, his Lordship had no hesitation in allowing the
appeal and in directing a reference to the Master to
approve of a proper settlement of the fund in Court
accruing by the death of the annuitant.
Order accordingly.

COURT OF EXCLIEC2tiEII, Nv. 12.
(Sitingl in B nco,)
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL V. THE LONDON DOCK COM-
PANY.--ALLEGED ritAUDS ON THE REVENUE.
At the sittings of the Curt to day Mr. Wild
movad for a writ of delivery directed to the Commis-
iiioners of her Majesty's Customs, authoring thew to
give up to the defendants all the goods mentioned in
the indentures of appr,aiseruent, and which had been
seised on the company a premises in order that they
might be entered in the books of the company, and
the. duty paid upon them.
The LORD CHIEF BARox—Does your motion apply
to all the cases?

Mr. iVILDE said that application retvrred to all
the eases against the London Dock Company, but not
to those of the St. Katharine Dock Company.
Mr. GROVE, on the part of the Dock Company con-
sented, and the applica,ioa was granted.
The Court rose at half -past one o'clock for the no-
mination of Sheriffs by the Privy Council.
(Sittings in Llnion at NiA Prins in Michaelmas
Term, before Mr. Baron MARTIN, end Common
Juries.)
This was the "first sittings" for Michaelmas Term
at Nisi Prius.