The Sun.
London, England, 1835-11-17 00:00:00

BARRETT V. HOWARD.

Mr. THESSIGER moved for a, new trial of the issue
directed by Lord Lyndhurst, when Lord Chancellor, in
this cause. The bill was filed to compel the specific per-
formance of an agreement by the defendant for the lease of
a house at Tunbridge Wells. The agreement had been
signed by the defendant's brother, and the defendant in-
sisted that be had no authority from her to enter into such

a contract on her behalf. The case haying gone to a cer-
tain length in the Court of Chancery, and witnesses having
been examined, the Lord Chancellor, on the matter being
brought before him by way of appeal, commented on the
evidence ; and having observed that without the evidence
of a witness of the name of Rourke the plaintiff's case
could not .be made out, and that he thought the Court
ought not to decree a specific performance without giving 4
the defendant an opportunity of cross-examining the witness,
directed the issue; which_ had been tried at the last Assizes.
Mr. PLATT opposed the motion.
Sir L. SHADWELL said that it was clear that there must
be a new trial:
Sir J. BO'SANQULT concurred, and the trial vas directed
to come on in the. sittings after Term.

WARREN 7.4* COLLEY.
Mr. SPENCE, in support of an appeal from. a decree of
the Master of the Rolls, said the question arose upon the
will of Colonel Young, by which he gave the residue of his
personal estate, consisting of money in the funds, to his wife
for life, and after her death the principal of the fund was to
'be divided into six parts, of which he gave to each of his
nieces by nurne share, and in reversion to their lawful heirs in
perpetuity in the female line ; and, considering that they may
die unmarried, and consequently without lawful issue, then,
in that event, he directed the share of her.so dying to be for
the use of the Bible Society ; the second vacant share to go
to the Church Missionary Society ; and the third to another
Society. The nieces were sisters of the name of Wolfe, and
one of them was at the time a widow. The others were un-
married, and one of them had since died unmarried and with.
out issue, on which event the Society entitled to the first share
claimed it ; but on the hearino. the Master of the Rolls said
the gift was too remote, and, therefore, void ; and that the de-
-ceased, niece's personal representatives were entitled to her
share. From this part of the decree the Society appealed.
Sir W. HORNE supported the decree of the Court below.
Sir L. SHADWELL said that it was the opinion of the Court
that this decree could not stand.
Mr. Justice BOSANQUET being of the same opinion, the
decree of the Master of the Rolls was reversed.
The Court rose at four o'clock.

ROLLS' COURT.-MONDAY•

LORD DIIRIIANI V. MILBANKE.

This was a bill filed by the plaintiff to have a declaration
that the legal estate of certain property was vested in him.
Tire case turned upon the construction of a settlement and
several deeds. The late Sir Ralph Milbanke Noel con-
tracted to sell to Lord Durham an estate, over which he
bad a power of appointment, which be had never executed.
The present Sir J. P. Milbanke refused to complete the
contract without taking the opinion of the Court as to the
construction of the deeds. Lady Byron was also a party
to the suit ; her father, Sir Ralph, baring settled the sur-
plus of the money upon her.
His Honour, the MASTER or THE ROLLS, after hearing
the arguments, ordered the declaration sought to be made ;
the costs to be paid out of the estate of the vendor.