The Sun.
London, England, 1859-06-25 00:00:00

EVENING, JUNE 25, 1859,

THIS DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.

APPEAL-JTJDGMENT-SCHOLEFIELD V. TEMPLAR,

Appeal dismissed with costs.

HOLDEN V. LONGMORE.

This was an administration suit, and the contention was
whether, according to the true construction of the testa-
tor's will, his trustees had power to advance £3,500 in loan
to his son in trust, to be paid out of the income of the
estates of his father and mother.
The Lord Chancellor and Lords Justices were of opinion
that under the two wills the trustees had the power, and
declared accordingly with costs to the trustees as between
solicitor and client, and ordinary costs to the other parties.

KING V. CLEAVLAND.
At the conclusion of the arguments of counsel in this
case yesterday, the Lord Chancellor and Lords Justices
reserved judgment.

ROLLS COURT.
(Before the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Romilly.)
JtitoGMENT--SMITH V. PEPPER.
His Honour the Master of the Rolls said—ln this case I
have farther examined and considered the terms of the be-
quests, and I think that the opinion I intimated yesterday
is correct. The meaning of the expressions used by the
testator, Steven Francis, in his will apply only to those
surviving him—" my sister and brother living at the time
of my death"—that only applies to any of those persons
living at the time of his death, and cannot apply to those
predeceasing him. According to the ordinary rules of
grammar, law, and logic, it is impossible to assume that
these terms apply to a person who was not then actually in
existence, or that it would go to the heir of that person pre-
deceasing. It is no substitution of the children for the
parents, when the parents were not then living at
the time it applied. It applies only to persons living at
the time he made his will. It cannot apply to persons
who had died before. It is extremely improbable
that he intended to give it to any sister predeceasing. I
have very great doubts that he intended to give anything
to any one but those who were living at the time ; and if
any probable intention of the testator cannot be gathered
from his will, it might be gathered from the circumstance
of his dying without doing anything for the family of his
predeceasing sister. lam of opinion that those persons
dying' before'or at the time he made his will do not take
anything. I declare the sisters' descendants aro excluded
Costs to be paid out of the residue of the estate.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Sittings after Term—Before Mr. Baron Martin and a
• Common Jury.)
TTITTOI,/ V. DARKE-ILLEGAL DISTRESS.
This was an action by the plaintiff, Sarah Tutton, a
lodging-house-keeper, to recover damages for the seizure of
her goods by the defendant for arrears of rent.

From the evidence of the plaintiff it appeared that she
took the house No. 5, Alfred-road, Harrow-road, from the
defendant in September last, but in the spring she disco-
vered that the apartments were swarming with bugs, and
consequently that she could not retain her lodgers. Under
these circumstances the defendant consented to her giving
up tuse without' requiring any money in addition to
£4 Ws., which she had paid him; but as she was leaving
on the 23d if April, a broker entered and put two men in
possession. Ultimately he furniture, to the value of £l5
iot £2o,' and some goods'of a lodger, were seized. It was
'further deposed that the distress was made after sunset,
that no inventory of the goods was, taken, and that they
were seen, at`the broker's subsequent to the time prescribed
by'la'w for their sale. -

(The case was proceeding when we wont to press.)

ILFORD PETIT SESSIONS.

(Before a full Bench.)

THE lATE EXTRAORDINARY. ROBBERY OF £4oo—com.

MITTAL OF TRE PRISONER.

George Hickenbotham, described as a cabman, was
brought up on remand, charged on suspicion of stealing a
bash-bog containing above 4490 in gold and notes and some,
other 'property.
" Mr. Beard said he had no fresh evidence, but it had been
• Intimated to him that a witness of importance would be
Produced at the trial. Mr. Beard said he would give
notice to the prisoner's attorney before the trial of the
nature of this evidence, and also a copy of the same.
The presiding magistrate said, upon the evidence as it
stood he felt bound to commit the prisoner to Newgate,
there to await his trial. Bail refused.
Up to the present time the notes have not been traced,
excepting so far as the one previously noticed is concerned.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.--(THIS DAY.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

- -
EMBEZZLEMENT BY A COLLECTOR OF THE SOUTH
YORESIIIRE AND RIVER DuN COAL COMPANY.—Frederick
Shouler, 10, Lower Queen's-road, Notting-hill, a collector
for the South Yorkshire Coal CompanY, was charged with
embezzling the sum of £B, the money of the company.
Mr. Jordan, solicitor, appeared for the prosecution, and
Mr. Beene for the prisoner.
Mrs. Sarah Harvey, 51, 'York-street, Portman-square,
proved that the prisoner called on her and solicited an order
for the company, and she gave him an order for eight tone,
at 20s. per ton, on the 26th of October, 1857. The coals
were delivered, and she paid the prisoner the amount in two
separate sums of £4, and he gave her receipts for the same.
She had not been abroad since 1813.

Capt. John Charles Handfield, 4, Albemarle-street, said
he was, manager of the coal company in 1857 and 1858. In
the former year the prisoner was agent, and afterwards
collector-1300 or £4OO of debts having been put into his
hands to collect. He asked for an account at the end of
May, and. the prisoner handed him in June the account
produced, in which was this item : "Mrs. Harvey, £3—
gone abroad ; pay en return." He (Captain Handfield) had
never received the amount from the prisoner. There was
a considerable amount still outstanding, and the company
could get no accounts from him.
Mr. Keene having addressed a few remarks to the magis-
trate, asked if bail would be taken ; and Mr. Jordan stating
that he would not oppose the application,
Mr. Beadon said he should remand the prisoner, but
would take his own bail in £lOO and two of £5O.

(Before Lord Chancellor Campbell, Lord Justice Knight
Bruce, and Lord Justice Turner.)

This was an appeal from a decision of Vice-Chancellor
Sir Richard Torin Kindersley, holding that the defendant
was liable as surety for the plaintiff.
The Lord Chancellor said—We are of opinion that the de-
cree of the Vice-Chancellor holding the defendant still
liable as surety for the plaintiff ought to be affirmed.
It appears to me that a person referring to and
availing himself of the fraud of another, unless some-

1 thing to the contrary appears, must lead me to the
same conclusion. His Lordship considered that there was a
fraudulent representation of the mortgage security here, and
although it was partly known to Templar it did not relieve
him. He was not entitled to avail himself of the fraud of
another. His Lordship cited the case of ex parte Wilson,
and affirmed the decree of the Vice-Chancellor as varied,
with costs.

Lord Justice Knight Bruce and Lord Justice Turner
entirely concurred.