The Sun.
London, England, 1858-06-03 00:00:00

IRELAND.

DUBLIN, JUNE 1.
O'CONNELL'S ASSETS.

A curious motion which came before the Court
of Chancery yesterday brought to light for the first
time the pecuniary position of the late Daniel
O'Connell at the time of his death, 11 years ago.
It would seem strange that the recipient of almost
countless tributes—commencing at 50,0001., and
scarcely ever falling below 10,0001. annually—
should have died in straitened circumstances. The
grows amount of the assets is not equal to two years
of Mr. O'Connell's income while a practitioner at
the bar. These facts transpired in the following
brief arguments in the case of " O'Connor v.
O'Connell :"

" Mr. Hickson, Q.C., for the petitioner, whose
demand was that of an owner of a life annuity of
601., payable out of the property of the deceased,
stated the facts of the case, and the result of the
accounts as taken before the Master. The annuity
payable to Mr. O'Connor, the petitioner, a nephew
of the late Mr. O'Connell, had been given for value,
and, having been allowed to fall into arrear, 5451.
was now the amount due ; and the report also found
that portions of the estate had devolved upon the
late Mr. Maurice O'Connell, who, although he had
paid oft some of the liabilities, had in otLbr re-
spects misapplied the property. Other funds had
been also transferred to Mr. John O'Connell,
whose death occurred within the last few days ;
and now the position of the assets was that a
sum of 5,3001. stock represented the value of a
leasehold property formerly the estate of the de-
ceased, as since sold in the Encumbered Estates
Court; while 1,5001. Government Stock, with 30
shares in the National Bank, and sums of GOO/.
and 1,1001., had been previously disposed of.
Upon the frame of the decree which now was to be
pronounced by the Court, a question arose as to
whether it ought to provide that a sum should be
set apart sufficient to produce upon investment an
annual income equivalent to the petitioner's
annuity, as, when the prior incumbrancers were
paid in the Enctimberel Estates Court, an applica-
tion would be made to have the fund then trans-
ferred to this court to be administered in accordance
with its decree in the present suit, which ought,
therefore, to follow the usual precedent, as the
petitioner had no wish to part with the life
annuity, and bad refused to accept a sum of
money by way of purchase.
"Mr. D. Sherlock, Q.C., appeared upon the
other side, and mentioned that although different
questions had arisen upon the settlement of the
notes of the decree, now, however, in consequence
of the death of the late Mr. John O'Connell, the
position of whose circumstances parties were aware
of, the only matter to be decided was as to the
petitioner's annuity. The Encumbered Estates
Court, if the case were disposed of there, would
follow their ordinary practice, and make the party
ascertain the value of the annuity, and take a sum
in gross, or else they would purchase a Government
annuity, and thus the balance of the fund might
be set at liberty to be allocated among puisne
judges.
" Mr. Leahy, for a legatee, also argued that if
the decree were as now sought by the petitioner,
much inconvenience would arise, his client having
been paid a legacy of 1,5001., which, in the event
of the fund now realised not being distributed,
might be required to be brought in if unpaid cre-
ditors so insisted.

" The Lord Chancellor, observing that the
question was one of practice, which it was de-
sirable he should consider further, reserved his
decision."