The Sun.
London, England, 1858-04-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(nis Day.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
HEATHER V. O'NEILL.---JUDGMENT.

This was an appeal from a decision of the Master of
the Rolls, finding that the deed roll of 1818 was a con-
tinuation of the trust deed of 1817, entered into between
the hu-band and wife, Ann Armstrong and W. E.
Heather, with power of appointment by the husband,
and an obligation to pay 340/. On 25th May, 1818,
the husband, under his power of appointment, executed
a deed in favour of himself and his heirs.
The Lord Chancellor, in delivering juelgment, said
that the only questism that now remained to be coast.-
dered was whether the heirs of the husband or the heirs
of the wife were entitled to take the property in question
solely or et:pally. His lordship was of opinion that the
deed of 1818 gave the property solely and absolutely to
the husband, and that the heirs of the husband alone
were entitled to take the whole cf the property, subject
to the obligation mentioned in that deed.
Lord Justice Turner concurred.

Lord Justice Knight Bruce was of a different opinion.
His lordship said that it was a settled and fixed rule that
in interpreting the language of the subsequent deed, it
was usual to construe it in conformity with the rights of
parties in the previous deed, and his lordship considered
that it was not intended that the deed of 1818 was to
operate as a complete and total destruction of the wife's
interest in the property in dispute.
Their lordsdips so far altered the decision of the
Master of the Rills as to find that the heirs of the hus-
band were alone entitled to succeed to the property in
question—ordered certain inqui7ies to be made, and dis-
mik,sed the appeal without costs.

It is understood there is a probability that this case
will be compromised by the partie,.

COURT FOR TEIE CONSIDERA.TTON OF
CROWN CASES RESERVED.

(Before the Lord Chief Baron, Mr. Justice 'Vightman,
Mr. Justice Willes, Mr. Baron Bramwell, and Mr.
Justice Byles.)
THE QUEEN V. ALFRED FEIST.

The defendant was master of the workhouse at New-
ington, and was indicted for disposing of the dead bodies
of some of the paupers who had died in the workhouse,
for the purpose of dissection, and for gain and profit to
himself. The di fendant was tried at the March Session
of the Central Criminal Court, b•fere Mr. Justice
Wightmen. It appeared by the evidence tbat the de-
fendant was the master of the above workhouse, and
that he had, in collusion with a person named Hogg,
the parish undertaker, upon the death of several of the
paupers, caused their bodies to be shown to their rela-
tives in coffins, and the appearance of funerals to be
gone through, when in reality, just before the fune-
rals left the workhouse, other coffins were
substituted for those which the relatives had seen, and
the bodies were in the evening taken to Guy'A Hospital
for dissection. All the necessary formalities required
by the 2 and 3 Vic., c. 75, for regulating schools of
anatomy, had been complied with. In no case bad the
relatives of the deceased persons required that their
bodies should be interred without anatomical examina-
tion, and they appeared to have believed that the bodies
were buried without any such Examination. It did not
appear that the defendant made any regular charge to
the hospital in respect of the bodies supplied to them
from this workhouse ; but in the year 1856 the defendant
received 191. 10e, and in 1857 261. from Guy's Hospital,
as gratuities for his trouble in going through the forma-
lities, aid giving the notices and obtaining the certifi-
cates in respect of each of the bodies required by the
anatomical act, and the amount paid to him was in
proportion to the number of the bodies supplied.
These payments were in contravention of the
7 and 8 Vic., cap. 101, sec. 31. Upon this state
of facts the jury kund teat the defendant caused the
dead bodies of four paupers to be delivered to Hogg,
and delayed their burial for an unreasonable length of
time in order that they might be dissected in the mean
time, and that he did so for gain and profit to himself.
They also find that he caused the appearance of the
funeral of such deceased paupers to be gone through with
the view of preventing their relatives requiring their
bodies to be interred without being subject to anatomi-
cal examination, and that but for such supposed funeral
the relatives of the deceased would have required their
bodies to be interred without anatomical examination.
It was o'ejected by counsel on the trial that the defend-
ant having lawful poesessiou of the bodies as master of
the workhouse, might lawfully do that which he had
done, as no relatives of the deceased persons
had required the bodies to be interred without
undergoing anatomical examination. Upon that findin
of the jury, Mr. Justice W gightman directed a verdict of
guilty to be entered upon sbe sth, 6th, 7th, and Bth
counts of the indictment, subject to the opinion of the
Court, whether the verdict so entered upon all or any
of the c 'unto was warranted by the evidence and the
finding of the jury.

Mr. 11. MiittLies appeared for the defendant, and
Mr. Robinson in support of the prosecution.
The Court were unanimously of opinion that, under
the circumstance., the conviction must be quashed.
Convic.ion quashed accordingly,

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

MA.RLBOROUGH-STREET.

STEALING A CHEQUE FROM LORD DILLON.---William
Yielding, 14 was charged before Mr. Bingham with
stealing a cheque for 36/., the property of Lurd Dillon,
at Limner's Hotel, New Bold-street.
Lord Dillon said—On Thursday evening, about six,
he laid some letters on the table at Limner's Hotel, with
instructions that they should be posted. In one of them
was a cheque for 36/. I beard nothing more about it
till I received a letter from Mr. Wood saying he had
got it.
Mr. Robe. Wood, 132, New B )nd-street, oilman,
said the prisoner came into his shop in a hur-
ried manner and asked fur change, saying he
was sent from Limnei's Hotel. I told him to take
it back and get the proprietor's name, and fol-
lowed him with the money to give him, as Limners were
his customers. On inquiry at Limners' they said they
bad not sent the boy. Later in the day the boy came
again, and 1 told him the proprietor had not put his
name on it. Toe boy then said it was not for him, but
for a person of the name of " Johnson " or "Thomson "
at the hotel, and on looking at the cheque I find there
has been an attempt to write that name on it. I then
told him to follow ins, but he made his escape. I then
wrote to his lordship about it.
Wra. Dunitan, a waiter at the hotel, said the prisoner
was the• son of one of the porters, and was occasionally
at the hotel. His lordship gave him some letters to
post, and as the porter who should have posted them
was out be gave them to the prisoner to post and he went
out with that intention.
Chas. Cole, 317 A, proved taking the prisoner into
custody. On his charging him with it he at first deined
it, but afterwards said be had opened the letter and he
hail written the name on it at a grocer's shop.
The prisoner said he was sorry for it, but he admitted
he had done it and written the name.
Mr. Bingham said he should consider what could be
done, and the prisoner was remanded.