The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-11 00:00:00

LA TV INTEL.

.(THIS DAY.)

ROLLS COURT.
(Be 'e the Master of the Rolls, Sir Sohn naming%)

GREATIIED V. GREATIJED.
The further hearing of this part-heard motion for degree
was resumed this morning.
Mr. Churchill resumed and concluded his argument for
the plaintiff.

This was an administration suit under the will of the late
Mr. Timothy Greathed. The contention was between the
executor's legatees and next of kin. And the question
raised was whether there should be a partition of the real
and personal estate of the testator.

1-1& Honour ordered a report of the debts due before
making any order of partition.

The next question was, whether the gift ever took effect
if the devisee died before attaining the age of twenty-one.
If the gift ever took effect, the plaintiff's claim under the
will was:six-eighths of an eighth of the residue of the tes-
tator's estate, subject to payment of a mortgage of £750.
Mr. Bird appeared for the defendants, the widow and
next of kb/ of the testator. The learned counsel contended
that if the prior gift failed it lapsed and went over to the
next of kin. It was admitted that the widow was entitled
to one-third of the real estate as dower, but she also claimed
one-third of the personal estate.

Ur, 0, L. Russell appeared for the heir-at-la' , and
contended that there was no gift over, and that lapsed
shares fell into the residue which he was entitled to take.
His Honour observed it was a new mode of construing
" or" into "and" to defeat the purposes of the will, the
ordinary rule was to change " or" into "and" to give
effect to the will.

Mr. Churchill was heard in reply on the effect of the
gift over to the children and their heirs as tenants in tail.
His Honour said ho would look at the will before dis-
posing of it.
Judgment reserved.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)

MASSIE V. 3IASSIE.

This was a suit promoted by Rebecca Emily Massie, to
obtain a judicial separation from John Massie, her husband,
on the ground of adultery.

Dr. Spinks was counsel for the petititioner, and the cause
was undefended.

From the statement of the learned counsel it appeared
the parties were married in 1842, and lived together for
some years, when they separated, and respondent formed
an improper acquaintance with a female named Bell.

Charles William Armstrong, a schoolmaster, residing at
Birkenhead, proved the marriage, and that the parties lived
together for some time subsequently.
Mrs. Elizabeth Bell said, in January, 1850, the de-
fendant came to her house, in Aston-Park, Victoria-road,
near Birmingham, and took lodgings. He stated that he
was then a widower, and had been so for three years, and
by promising marriage succeeded in seducing her. She
had a child by the respondent, which was about two years
old, and was still living. When she understood that he
was married she refused to cohabit with him, and they did
not live together afterwards.

Mrs. Massie, the petitioner, deposed that she was mar-
ried to the respondent on the 16th of April, 1842. They
lived together until 1851, when they separated, but in two
months after they became reconciled, but they separated
again in consequence of his ill-temper and her inability to
maintain him. She left him and went to her uncle's to
reside.

The judge said he would take time to consider what he
should do in the case.

FLANAGAN V. FLANAGAN.

This was a petition presented by the plaintiff, who is a
mariner, to obtain a decree of judicial separation from his
wife on the ground of her alleged adultery with a party
named Aplett. It appeared that the parties were
married in 1844 and lived very happily until
1857. The plaintiff was engaged in the China
trade, and his wife was in the habit of accompanying
him:on his voyages, but in the year 1857 he left her behind.
While in India he had heard some reports relative to his
wife, which induced him to make inquiries on his return,
and he obtained information that satisfied him she had com-
mitted the offence imputed to her, both at Sunderland and
at Angel-cottage, Pentonville-road

Mr. Jacobs, who appeared for the petitioner, stated, in
his opening, that the reason why his client did not apply
for a divorce was, that he was a Roman Catholic, and had
conscientious scruples on the subject.

Some witnesses were called, who deposed most positively
to the respondent having committed the alleged offence on
different occasions.

The judge granted the decree.

The court then adjourned until Wednesday the 23d
instant,

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Evans.)

IN RE WILLCOCK.

This bankrupt was described as of Lucan-place, Hoxton,
builder, and to-day came up to pass his last examination on
accounts prepared by Messrs. Hart Brothers, showing—
Dr.: To creditors unsecured £383 ; to ditto holding security,
£9,090 175.; profits, £634; surplus in. January, 1857,
£1,696 10s. Assets : Good debts, £52 17s. ; property held
by creditors, £8,500 ; expenses, £7ll 4s. ; house expenses,
£212 ; losses, £322.

Mr. Lucas appeared for the assignees, and Mr. C. C.
Lewis for the bankrupt, and an adjournment took place for
the bankrupt to furnish a detailed account of expenses.