The Sun.
London, England, 1861-11-12 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(This Day.)

COURI OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)
APPEAL,-TALBOT V. STAIMPORTH.
The further hearing of this appeal wan adjourned till to
morrow, in the hope of an amicable settlement.

ROLLS COURT.
(Before the Master of the Rolls.)
JUDGMENT-LORD HASTINGS V. ASHLEY.

His Honour the Master of the Rolls, in delivering judg-
ment, said the question on which I reserved my opinion
or rather that I desired to read the deeds more carefully,
because I expressed my opinion formerly—was whether un-
der the will of Lord Hastings, which I will read, it effected
an incumbrance on certain property included in a mortgage
deed of August, 1853. By the will of Lord Hastings, on
17th June, 1841, he gave certain terms of 1,000 years in
certain property in the county of Northumberland, whereby
he devised that estate for 1,000 years for certain uses, the
rents and profits of which, in the first place, was to pay
any interest that might be due in respect of any mortgage
for the time being affecting any part of his real estates,
settled and unsettled, in the counties of Northumberland
and Nottingham, and ultimately to pay off the said mort-
gage. Subsequently to that period he mortgaged property
which was in reality leasehold, on the sth of August, 1853,
for the sum of £lO,OOO, with a reserved power of sale. And
that the ultimate surplus or proceeds of such sale should
be paid either to the plaintiff or to himself, er their heirs,
administrators, executors, or assigns, or the representatives
of their interest therein. And he directed that on the sale
of the property Lord Hastings should take the surplus.
Now the contention is that this does not come within the
words "settled" or "unsettled property," because when
the will was executed he said that any interest that was
due after his death should go to his successor. Now
the proceeds of the property sold would go to the
present plaintiff, and therefore it would not form
one of the unsettled estates. It is unnecessary for
me to reply to every part'cular that he has mentioned. He
claims a life estate, and that the interest should be given to
him down to tho time of his father's death. I concur in the
observations made by Mr. Selwyn, Q.C., in reference to
the wills ; and I also concur in the decision in the case cf
Jackson v. Ayres, in the House of Lords,—that where
property is mortgaged, the mortgage does not affect the
limitations of the property, except there is a full rental of it
in the pi operty deeds. My impression is, that I must take
this property as part of the settled property, and that my
Lord Hastings takes it first, and that the acts of the mort-
gagor does not affect this property nor the other demised
property. Costs must be considered as coming out of the
estate. Costs are given as between party and party.

COURT OF PROBATE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
THE WILL OP MART DALLAS.

Dr. Spinks applied for probate of this will. The testatrix
had her will drawn up in the regular form, and 12 months
after it was executed she asked for it to be given to her. The
document was accordingly handed over to her, and it re-
mained in her possession up to the time of her death.
After that event the will was discovered torn, in
a drawer amongst some other papers, the names of the
attesting witnesses all being torn from the document. The
petitioner could assign no reason for any alteration of the
will ; he (Dr. Spinks) accordingly applied for probate on
the ground that it could not be shown that she did not ad-
here, at the time of her death, to the provisions in btr last
will and testament.

The Judge-Ordinary asked if all parties had been cited ?
Dr. Spinks said they had not, as they were distributed
about in very remote places.

The Judge-Ordinary said the safest course to pursue was
to apprize all parties of the proceedings.

THE WILL OF NATL. BROOKS.

Dr. Wamby applied for probate of this will.

The Judge• Ordinary said he had looked over the affi-
davits, but he did not think they were full enough. The
drawer of the will, for instance, said he, by direction
of the testator, wrote the name of one of the
executors, " John," when he knew it was not so. He
should like the affidavit to explain• how he became aware of
that circumstance ; his affidavit merely stated that he was
conscious of the mistake when the will was made.
Dr. Wamby said he wanted to have the affidavits made
more explicit.

The Judge Ordinary said on that being done ho would
give his decision in the case.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Sergeant Wheeler.)

TRADE PROTECTION SOCIETIES AND THE PTJBLIC-IMPOR-

TANT DECISION-INGRAM V. STUBBS.

This was an action upon a bill of exchange—Mr.
Buchanan appearing for the plaintiff, and Mr. Pearce for
the defendant, who is the proprietor of Stubbs' Trade Pro-
tection Society. The point involved is of considerable im •
portytnce, as may best be gleaned from his Honour's judg-
ment delivered this day.