The Sun.
London, England, 1835-01-22 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.

LEIGH V. LEIGH.
Sir WILLIAM HORNE in support of a demurrer in this
cause, stated that this bill was filed by Mr. Leigh, whose
claims to the barony of Leigh were well known, for an in-
junction to restrain the defendant, Mr. Chandos Leigh,
from setting up any outstanding terms in defence to an
action of ejectment brought by the plaintiff to recover the
large family estates. The last Lord Leigh devised all his
estates to his sister, the Hon. Mary Leigh, for life, with
remainder to her issue in strict settlement, and in default of
sue "to the first and nearest of his kindred being male and of
his name and blond"who should be Jiving at the determination
Of the preceding estates, and the heirs of his body lawfully
begotten. His Lordship died about May, 1786, when
Mary Leigh entered into possession of the estates, and the
bill stated " that she departed this life unmarried and with-
out issue on or about the 2d of July, 1806," having pre-
viously devised the estates in settlement to James Henry
Leigh, the father of the defendant, Chandos Leigh.
George Leigh, the father of the plaintiff, who was his eldest
son, claimed to be the party entitled under the description
in the testator's will, and he having died in January, 1834,
the plaintiff was now endeavouring to establish his title to

the estates. To this bill the defendant, Mr. Chandos
Leigh, demurred, because it appeared on the face of the
bill that there were twenty years adverse possession since
the death of Mary Leigh, when the title which the plaintiff
asserts accrued, and tliat period was a bar and extinguish-
ment of the plaintiff's claim under one of the late Real
Property Acts.
His HoNona. observed that the time of Mary Leigh's
death was stated in the bill to be on or about the 2d of
July, 180 G, which might be very true though she had not
died till 1830.

There was a good deal of verbal criticism between Ms
Honour and the Counsel for the defendant on the meaning
of the phrase "at or about ;" but his Honour still held
that it did not appear on the face of the bill that twenty
years had elapsed, and overruled the demurrer.

Sir CHARLES WETHERELL, for the plaintiff, was pre-
pared to support the bill by a reference to three languages
—Greek, Latin, and English.—(A laugh.)
His HONOUR very much regretted that he was so clear
upon the point, as he would otherwise have had much plea-
sure in being illuminated by the Learned Counsel's disqui-
tion.—( Laughter.)

KING'S BENCH-WEDNESDAY.

THE KING V. WITNESHAH.

This was a question whether a pauper could make a valid
contract while he was a member of a Volunteer corps. The
pauper had made a contract of service with a master, but
had made it when he was a member of a Volunteer corps.
If he could make a valid contract for service at such a time,
then he was entitled to a settlement under that service ; if
h 9 could not, he must be removed to the parish which was
the place of his settlement anterior to the service.
Mr. GURDON contended that the pauper was enabled to
make a valid contract.
Mr. AUSTIN, on the other side, requested the Court to
allow him time further to consider the point.
The Colinr consented to the request of the Learned
Counsel, and postponed the cast accordingly.