The Sun.
London, England, 1835-12-14 00:00:00

liiCiIII3ND V. IT:VING.

. .
This was an appeal from a decree of the Vice-Chiaice;lor
In favour of the plaintiff.
Mr. RINDEcSI.EY in support of the decree, stated that
the d•_.fendant, Mr. Irvin.-4.. on eminent merchant in !-Jon-
don, farmed, fbr his amusement, about 580 acres of 1:11d,
at. At:hford, near Staines, in the county of Lin!
that the bill was filed by a Mr. Richmond, the lesse,• of
the small tithes of the parish limier the Rev. Mr. Gevatt,
who was Vicar of Staines and Laleham. The farm in
question was managed by a Mr. Dickens, who had for
years pail, on the defendant's a.,•count, a sum of 25/.165. 6d.
• as a composition for the small tithes duo to the Vicar.
In 1829, Mr. Gevatt leased the tithes to Richmond, and
he then sent a circular notice to the defendant, and the
other Occupiers of land in the parish, that from and after
Mich:tell-kw, 1829, lie was willing, as the lessee, to enter
into new compwitiorm In the I,illowing November, no
notice being taken of this circular, the plaintiff called on
Dickens, and in a conversation on the subject of the tithes,
Dickens offered to continue the payment
.of the old com-
position, but, if the plaintiff disliked that, he might take
his tithe in kind. The plaintiff, on hearing this, gave no-
tice that he would take his tithe in that manner ; and on
two days in December sent his servants to the farm of the
defendant, and took away the tithe in milk, and two of a
litter of pigs. Mr. Irvin; received notice of these pro-
ceedings, and on the 22d of December lie sent a letter,
through his solicitor, declaring that he considered the
composition entered into between him and Mr, Gevatt to
be still subsisting-. • The plaintiff was consequently obliged
to file-the present bill, and on the cause being heard be-
fore the Vice Chancellor, 1113 Honour was of opinion that
the composition had been- determiued by the acts of
Dickens. The Learned Gentleman contended that this
decree was perfectly right.
Mr. BARKER, for the appellant, argued, on the contrary,
that the decree was directly contrary to law as well as to
the evidence in the cause.

Their LORDSHIPS took time to consider their judgment>

VICE-CHiANCERY.--SATURDAY.

CHAPMAN V. RANDLE,

Mr. Lvticif supported this demurrer.
-Mr. DixoN, in support of the bill, regretted the Learned
Gentleman whose name appeared to it had not been called
❑pon to argue in its support. He was instructed to submit
to the Court that, by a certain statute, 'known as the sta-
tute De Donis, it was not lawful to bar an entail.—
(Laughter.) His client was a poor man with a large family
by diVers venters, who found himself disinherited by a re-
covery, but whose notions of tlm law of real property did
not extend beyond what could be collected from some lines
in a " Book of Gallants," which he would take the liberty
of quoting :
" Fee conditional and a simple fee,
And all the fees in tail,
Are nothing when compared to thee,
Thou best of fees—female !"—(Laughter.)
The demurrer was allowed.
WOOD V. WOOD.

The question in this demurrer turned principally upon
the construction of a will of a very illiterate person, who
devised his real and personal estate to his wife to sell to
discharge his " creditors," He then appointed his wife and
his brother executors, whom he also appointed to sell his
estate as they should agree upon, or not to sell, SO Ant his
creditors might have their money ; " and if sould all over-
flush to my wife, towards bar suport and bar famely."
Mr. KNIGHT supported the bill,
Mr. WIGRAM maintained the demurrer.
His HONOUR thought it was unnecessary to decide upon
the meaning of the word " family," or the nature of the
wife's interest in the gift, as he was of opinion if any part
of the property did not require to be sold there was an in-
testacy in respect to so much, and the plaintiffs had a suf-
ficient interest to support the bill.

KING'S BENCH-SAT IJRDAY.