The Sun.
London, England, 1858-11-18 00:00:00

LAW INTEL.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)
MENSERGD V. CAMPBELL-JUDGMENT.
This was an appeal from a decision of the Master of the
Rolls finding the annuities perpetual. The bequest upon
which the question arises is contained in the will of the
late Mr. Wright, and is in the following terms :—" I give
to my wife, Ann Wright, £3OO annuity as a rent charge on.
my estate, to be paid to her for life in quarterly payments
for her separate use ; and 1 bequeath a similar rent charge
of £3OO per annum to my children for life for their educa-
tion and maintenance, and on their death I direct a sale of
the same ; and I hereby give £2O yearly annuity to my
friend James Harvie, my executor, his heirs and assigns."
The Lord Chancellor, on the authority of the case of
Stokes, 4 Exchequer Reports, and other reported cases,
was of opinion that the annuities bequeathed were good
perpetual annuities. His lordship affirmed the decree of
the Master of the Rolls, and dismissed the appeal with
costs.

:Before Vice-Chancellor Sir William Page Wood.)
JUDGMENT-NEALE V. DAY.

The contention in this case arose out of transactions
which took place between the defendant, Mr. Edward Day,
and Mr. William Wright, the purchaser, in 1852, of an
annuity to his wife. Mr. Wright conveyed to his trustee
£3,952 in trust for certain uses, and in particular to pay an
annuity of £lOO to his wife. Several of his creditors had
obtained registered judgments against him, and the ques-
tion raised was whether the annuitant or the judgment
creditors were preferable on his estate.
His Honour, the Vice-Chancellor, on the authority of
the case of French v. French, was clearly of opinion that
the registered judgment creditors were preferable to the
annuitant. He considered that Mr. Wright was not entitled
to give such an annuity to his wife when his debts remained
unpaid. He declared in favour of the judgment creditors,
appointed a receiver, and ordered the funds to be brought
into court, with liberty to Mr. Wright, if he shall be so
advised, to redeem the annuity, and dismissed the bill with
costs as between party and party.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)
A QUESTIONABLE LEGACY.-IN RE YOI.7NGMAN.
An application of a very singular nature was made in
this case to enable a Miss SarahYoung,mna to receive a divi-
dend under the estate. The facts of the case were—A
sister of the claimant had died, leaving behind her a docu-
ment purporting to be a will, and which 'V'5 admitted to
probate, but onexamination it was discovered that although
the purport of it was to bequeath the whole of her estate
and effects to one person, yet, by a very singular omission,
the name of the legatee did not appear, although the testa-
tor, on many occasions, and even on her deathbed, said she
intended to leave everything to her sister Sarah, as all her
other brothers and sisters were well off. Thedocument not
being legally a will, the property would legally become
divisable between all the brothers and sisters, eight in
number ; but they had given up all their claims, and the
question was whether the dividend could be paid to the
claimant individually. The assignees were willing to do this
if the Court would sanction it.
His Honour said the family arrangement was highly
creditable, and if all parties consented there could be no
difficulty, as each party could hand over their shares.
Mr. Burbey said the assignees would pay the amount to
save the expense of a dividend meeting if they could be
indemnified, and they would act on his Honour's opinion.
His Honour said that, according to morality and justice,
the claimant was entitled, but legally a dividend must be
made, and all parties prove. He would make no order,
but the assignees might exercise their discretion. The gene-
ral body of creditors would not be affected, as the debt was
proveablo by some one.

D
SHERIFFS' COURT.
3I r .
nR. PEEL ren dpeErgEitSt s A
, QE.CTI--A
DAMSON
THE CAUSE OF(13Tellfo ErLATE