The Sun.
London, England, 1859-12-08 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DA Y.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lorde Justices of Appeal.)

APPEAL.-LODGE V. PRICHARD-HINDLE V. PRICHARD-
PRICHARD V. lIINDLE.
The farther hearing of these part-heard appeals was re.
slimed this morning.

This is an appeal from a decree of Vice-Chancellor Sir
John Stuart en taking executory accounts under a family
settlement.

Mr. Greene, Q.C., was heard for the respondent, Mrs.
Hindle, in support of the Vice-Chancellor's decree dismiss-
ing the bill, as against her, with costs, and finding her
entitled to the leasehold property in question.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir William Page Wood.)
CAMAY V. ARNOLD.-JUDGMENT.

His Hononr the Vico-Chancellor said—This case has
been adjourned from chambers, for the purpose of obtaining
a declaration as to which of the properties of the two bro-
thers is to pay the mortgage debt of 53,600. George Ar-
nold and George Henry Arnold mortgaged their family
estates, the former as principal, and the lattor as study, for
this sum, and the question raised was, which of the two
estates was primarily liable to pay this debt.
_ _

Mr. G. Henry Arnold contended that his brother's estate
was primarily liable in respect of the assets of his late
father in his hands.

His Honour the Vice-Chancellor considered the estate of
George Henry Arnold primarily liable without prejudice to
his taking any steps necessary to release his property, and
quo ad ultra as to the leasehold property, remit the case
back to chambers for the chief-clerk to complete his cer-
tificate. Costs of all parties to come out of the funds.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Crest:well and a Special Juay.)
SKIPPER AND SKIPPBR V. BODKIN AND OTHERS.
DISPUTED WILL.

In this case the plaintiffs, who are solicitors at 'Warwick,
propounded the will of the Rev. William John Smith, a
de:tan-lan of the Established Church, who died on the 23d
April, 1859, at Cungleford Villa, Norfolk. The defendants
are the heirs at law of Mr. Smith, and they opposed pro-
bate of the will on the ground that at the time of its execu-
tion he was not of sound disposing mind, and was under
the influence of the plaintiffs, who were appointed his exe-
cutors, and others interested. It appeared that Mr. Smith,
who was 81 years of age, became entitled to property to the
amount of 550,000 by the will of his father, Colonel Smith,
who died in 1808, leaving only two children, Mr. Smith
and a daughter. In 1812 Mr. Smith retired to the family
seat, where he resided until the period of his death. An
estrangement had grown up between him and his sister,
who had married a Major Bodkin and removed to Ireland,
and he specially excluded her and her family from any
benefit in his estate in the different wills which he made
from 1842 to 1857, when the disputed instrument was exe-
cuted. lie left the residue of his estate to a young man
named Massey, in whom he had taken an interest, and he
shade several bequests to persons with whom he had become
acquainted, but who were not related to him.
The case, which is likely to last for some time, was pro-
ceeding when we went to press.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Evans.)
IM RP WOODROW-JUDGMENT.

This bankrupt was described as of Ityde, Isle of Wight,
innkeeper, and applied a few days since for his certificate,
when ho was opposed on the ground of having made a
fraudulent preference; that ho had traded when ho knew
that he was insolvent ; that he had made false statements
to his creditors as to the state of his affairs, and that he had
vexatiously defended an action.

His Honour considered all the charges had bees fully
proved, and ho at first considered he ought to have refused
the certificate altogether, but on looking at the cases of
Johnson (D. G. and M. 25), Dornford (D. G. and S. 29),
&c., he was of opinion that it would be of more ad vantage
to all parties to adjourn the certificate for 18 months than
to be of the third class, and without protection.