The Sun.
London, England, 1835-11-28 00:00:00

CHANCERY COURT.-FRIDAY.

DWARRIS V. DWARRIS.

This was an appeal from, an order of the late Master of
the Rolls, made on further directions. The main question
turned on the construction to be placed on the will of the
late Mr. Dwarris, of Jamaica, in which he gave to his son
Fortunatus Dwarris and his widow an annuity of 5001.
each out of his estate, and constituted Ahem trustees to re-
ceive the surplus income, and invest it in the Three per
Cents., until it formed a find of sufficient magnitude to pay
his other six children 2,000/. each, they receiving in the
meantime a sum of 100/. each for their maintenance. For-
tunatus Dwarris, the eldest son, was also made residuary
legatee, and invested with the power to sell the plantation
of Golden Grove, if he thought fit, and preferred that me-
thod of paying the legacies and securing his mother's an-
nuity, to the more tedious and responsible process of laying
up every year the surplus of the rents and profits. Mr.
Dwarris died in 1813, and for some time the estate proved
so profitable that Mr. Fortunatus Dwarris was enabled to
invest a considerable sum in the names of his bro-
thers and sisters, and to pay two of them their por-
tions. Subsequently, however, Golden Grove shared the
fate of all West India property ; the income fell short of
the expenditure, and Mr. F. Dwarris was compelled to
draw on the reserved fund to meet the current
expenses. No money in the shape of principal or interest
could be paid to the legatees, and they therefore filed a
bill to compel Mr. Dwarris to account. The matter finally
came before the late Master of the Rolls on the last day of
his sitting in that Court, this being the last cause he ever
heard. His Honour, upon a consideration of the injunc-
tions of the testator, was then of opinion that Mr. Dwarris
had the power to make use of the reserved fund in the
event of the proceeds of any year of the estate proving ina-
dequate to the payment of annuities and expenses, and in-
serted a declaration to that effect in the decree. Against
the decision the plaintiffs appealed.
Mr. TINNEY was heard in support of the appeal, and
Mr. SPENCE against it.
Sir L. SHADWELL was of opinion that the declaration
inserted by the Master of the Rolls must be struck out,
and the matter be referred back to the Master to take an
account of the sums which ought to have been invested
by Mr. Dwarris, as the real surplus income of the estate.
Sir J. BOSANQUET, after going over the facts of the case
at some length, expressed his concurrence in this decision.

MOUSELEY V. CARR.

This was a re-hearing of a case already heard by Sir
John Leach ; and Lord Brougham, as Chancellor.
Mr. JACOB was proceeding to state the facts, when
Mr. WIGRAM objected to the matter being reheard at
all, unless the other side presented some special case which
would justify the Court in departing from that rule which
was laid down some time since, that no case having been
once heard before the Great Seal should be reheard, but
must be at once carried to the House of Lords. In sup-
port of this objection the Learned Counsel cited two cases
in which the Court had refused a rehearing.

Mr. JACOB contended that both these cases differed from
the present one. With respect to the 'rule regarding re-
hearings, the Lords Commissioners (Pepys and Bosanquet)
had themselves, in the case of " Townsend v. Reed," re-
heard a case already heard and decided by Lord Brougham.
Sir L. SHADWELL should take an opportunity of speak-
ing to the Master of the Rolls upon the subject, and the
matter might then be fully argued before the whole of the
Commissioners.
The case stands over accordingly. _

Mr. KNIGHT, at the rising of the Court, moved for an
injunction to restrain a lady of fortune, the wife of a Field
Officer, from taking their son out of the care of the person
with whom he had been placed for education, and removing
him to the Continent. The parties, living unhappily, agreed
to separate, but it was arranged that their child should be
placed with a Gentleman in a town in Devonshire', and that
both parents were to have access to him. The lady had,
however, removed the boy by force from his tutor, and as
she keeps herself concealed it is feared she intends to take
him to the Continent. Under these circumstances the
Learned Counsel prayed an injunction.
Their Lordships granted the injunction.
The name of the parties was not mentioned.

- -
KING'S BENCH-FRIDAY.