The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-12 00:00:00

LAW -INTELLIGENC.E.-( THIS DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)
IN RE SPENCE.-PETITION FOR PATENT.
This was-a petition for a patent for the manufacture o:
tin plates into steel, &c. , •

The Lord Chancellor granted the prayer of the petition,
allowing the patent to pass, the Great Seal, and allowed a
month to prepare the specification.
(Before the Lords Justices.)
GREENWOOD V. JEMMET.-APPEAL.

This was an appeal from a decision of the Master of the
Rolls, finding that, according to,the ordinary, interpretation
of the language used in the testator's will, directing £2,000,
in four parts, to be paid out of the residue of his property,
meant the residue of his own personal property, exclusive
of the personal property derived by him from his sister.
Lord Justice Knight Bruce, in delivering judgment,
observed that the arguments in this case for the plaintiff
and defendant were so equally and nicely balanced that if
the Master of the Rolls had not settled the interpretation
of this clause in the will, his lordship would have had some
difficulty in determining it, but the Master of the Rolls has
rightly settled it, and his decision ought not to be disturbed.
His lordship could not say he would not have follwed the
Master of the Rolls if he had come to an opposite conclu-
sion, the construction was so difficult and intricate.

Lord Justice Turner entirely concurred in the decision of
the Master of the Rolls.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

ROLLS coulri..

(Before the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Romilly.:

SIVINFEN V. SWINFEN. -IMPORTANT WILL CAUSE,

His Honour the Master of the Rolls delivered judgment
in this much-contested will cause this morning.
It will be remembered that this cause was tried some
time since at the assizes, and, after 'a long and much con-
tested trial, which extended over several days, the jury
returned a ♦erdict for the defendant. The cause now came
before his honour on the plaintiff's motion for a new trial,
on the ground that the verdict was contrary to evidence.
His Honour the Master of the Rolls on taking a re-
trospective view of the factS of this case, and particularly
attending to the evidence of the attesting witnesses to the
will and the testimony of Dr.-EyanS, and considering the
high character and credibility of the defendant's witnesses,
who spoke to the capacity and ability of the testator to
make a will at the time the will was made and signed by
him, his Honour was of opinion that there was sufficient
evidence to support the verdict' of the jury, and that the
verdict returned by the jury at the trial was a proper and
right verdict, and ought not to be set aside.
The plaintiff, who asked to set aside the will, is the heir-
at•law of the testator; and the defendant, in whose favour
the will is made, is the widow of his son.
The Master of the Rolls refused the 'motion, with costs.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

Before Lord Campbell and Justices Hill and Wightman.

MORTIMEIt V. SOUTH WALES RAILWAY.

Mr. Grove, Q.C., moved fora rule for a new trial in this
case, in which it was alleged that, in consequence of certain
excavations Made by the said railway company, the plain-
tiff's property had been greatly injurnd. The plaintiff was
the proprietor of a tan-yard, into which two streams of
water originally ran ; but, in consequence of certain cut-
tings, the water of one or both of the streams had been
diverted and in part dried up, and the consequence was the
property of Mr. Mortimer had been greatly injured.
Mr. Lush followed on the same side, and had not con-
cluded his arguments when our report left.

BAIL COURT.
PEARSE V. MASTERS.

The Court was occupied the whole of the morning in
hearing this cause, which was an action on the warranty
of a horse. The case was of the usual description, and
totally uninteresting except to the parties concerned.