The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-23 00:00:00

LAW INTE.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir William Page Wood.)
JUDGMENT -INGRA3I V. SUCKLING.

His Honour-the Vice-Chancellor said—ln this case the
contention arises on the construction of the will of the late
Ralph Baker, and the question raised is whether the interest
in the children was invested, or became vested before they
attained the age of twenty-one. The testator by his will
gave all his leasehold property in trust for payment
of certain annuities to his wife and daughters, and in
the event of their dyingl without children, with resi-
due over to the widow and next of kin. The testator be-
queathed equal shares•of the profits of his leasehold houses
to his two daughters Ann and Amelia Baker for life. And
then comes this clause—" In case any of my daughters
shall die before attaining twenty-one, then the share of the
predecessor shall ' accrue and belong to the survivor."
And then comes the important clause in dis-
pute—" And, in the event of any of my daugh-
ters leaving children who shall attain the age of
twenty-one, the surviving children shall take the
share of their parents predeceasing as tenants in
common and not as joint tenants. The daughters died,
leaving children who died before attaining the age of
twenty-one, and the question raised was, whether
the bequest vested in the children, or lapsed and
fell back into the residue of the testator's property.
His Honour said that in construing the will he must look
to all the contingent and surrounding circumstances and
endeavour to collect from them the meaning of the words
used and the intention of the testator. His Honour re
ferred to the following cases as authorities on the subject,
viz.,. Walker and Mere, before the Master of the Rolls ;
Lee and Parkins, before Lord Justice Knight Bruce and
Court of Exchequer ; Nicholson v. Ricket, 5, De Gex and
Smail ; Park and Walker, p. 472, same volume ; In-re
Stutham before Lord Cottenham ; Clark and Williams ;
12, Brown, Hare, and Greenwood, p. 192 ; Hamet and
Aitken, before the Master of the Rolls. His Honour, on
considering these cases, and notwithstanding the children
died before attaining the age of 21' came to the conclusion
that the property vested in the children and declared
accordingly.

RAMSGATE COUNTY COURT.
NECESSARIES TO A WIFE-BRADFORD V. REDMAN.

This was an action to recover £3 15s. for necessaries and
lodging supplied to the wife of defendant. The amount
having been admitted, Mr. Buchanan of Basinghall-street,
London, for defendant, addressed the court on behalf of
his client. -The defendant was a poor man whose wife had
absconded front a good home and a husband's protection,
taking with her some' of ,his furniture. Although she had
left without any cause defendant allowed her ss. per week.
Now plaintiff very well knew where to find defendant, and
it was his duty to communicate with that person before
trusting his wife to the extent of £3 15s. Mr. Buchanan
trusted the court would not sanction such a proceeding.
The evidence adduced having proved the facts as stated
by Mr. Buchanan, the court at once found for defendant.

CURIOUS INTERPLEADER.-QUICK WORE.

WOODRUFF V. FILCHER,

This was an interpleader summons, and Mr. Buchanan
appeared for the plaintiff (execution creditor.) Mr. Kin-
nard was the claimant.

The facts of this case are peculiar, and are as follows ;
Plaintiff having obtained a verdict in this court, the judge
•rdered immediate execution. Upon this defendant executed
a deed of assignment of his goods for the benefit of creditors
generally, appointing Mr. Kinnard as trustee. This deed
was just finished when plaintiff put in his execution, but
Mr. Kinnard claimed the goods on behalf of the creditors.
Mr. Buchanan said this was evidently an assignment to
defeat the just judgment of a creditor who had been put to
considerable expense to obtain it.
The Court was of opinion that the deed of assignment
was legitimate, and found for the claimant.