The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-06 00:00:00

THE SUN; LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING. JULY 6,, 1861.,

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(2hIs Day).

IBusinees done

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)
JUDGMENT-DICK&SON V. ROSTER.

This was an appeal from the Master of the Rolls on the
construction of the will of the late Joseph Dickason, of

Islington.
The Lord Chancellor was of opinion that the natural and
reasonable construction of the words used in the testator's
will, by which he gave £1,500 to his eldest son, or the chil-
dren of his eldest son or daughters, as well as the residue
of his personal estate, was such as the Master of the Rolls
had put upon it in favour of the four children therein first
named, and that it was limited, and did not extend to the
other three children subsequently named. That the gift
over and the residue of the personal estate accrued to the
benefit of the first-named four children and no other. This
provision was therefore in favour of the eldest son and his
children. His lordship affirmed the decision of the Master
of the Rolls, and dismissed the appeal with costs.
(Before Sir R. Kindersley.)
JUDG:sfENT.—RADCLIFF V. READETTS.

19 }
60

34 5
42i

His Honour the Vice-Chancellor said—l have looked
through this will, and it occurs to me that the clause
which directs the accumulation of the income into capital
during the minority of the persons entitled to take the
benefit of this will—that clause is confined to the grand-
children, and that the accumulations during the lives of
the two daughters of the testator should belong to them.
His Honour remitted the case to chambers, to ascertain
what sum ought to be paid out of the estate.
The future payments to be paid out of court in moities, and
not as separate rents. Costs of the petition to be general
costs in the cause.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell and a Common Jury.)
RICHARDS V. RICHARDS AND JONES.

The hearing of this case was resumed this morning, and
some additional evidence was adduced in confirmation of
the preceding testimony as to the adultery of the peti-
tioner.

The case was proceeding when we went to press.

6
-P
2i 4 ,
I

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Kerr.)
EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY COMPANY V. KERSHAW.
This was an action to recover a sum of money for car-
riage of certain me chinery. _ _

11 12

3i 2}'
2f
22 23

Mr. Ashley, of Charles-square, Hoxton, for the company,
asked for an adjournment of 10 minutes, as a very impor-
tant witness was absent.

His Honour (to defendant's clerk)—Do you consent to
an adjournment for 10 minutes ?

n 8}

8i Si
194 ?Oa
gBi 394

8 9
37 S 8
53 64

5i 4id

ls.B.
all
all
all
all
all

13 14

3.2.101

5* 51
8* ,4 !
2 11
Ids;
22 23

7.4.0

61 61
9t 91
20 21

Defendant's clerk—No. This is the second time I have
been here, and I wish to have the case decided.
His Honour—Then I have no power. I can, however,
grant an adjournment to a future day.
Mr. Ashley, however, elected to go on, and stated his
case, from which it appeared that six tons of heavy ma-
chinery had been carried to the London Docks upon
defendant's order, and Mr. Ashley contended that this was
done in reasonable time.

No witness being present his Honour said he should non-
suit the plaintiffs.

Defendant's clerk—And can they sue me again.
His Honour—Yes, fif(y times, if they like.
Defendant's clerk thought this was persecution, and asked
Mr. Ashley if he meant to sue defendant again?
Mr. Ashley (smiling)—Of course.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Holroyd).
THE GREAT LEATHER FAIEURES.-IN RE LAWRANCE

➢IORTIMORE AND CO.

To-day was appointed for hearing a petition in this case
respecting some mortgagees' accounts, but an adjournment
took place till Wednesday next.

IN RE LAWRANCE AND MORTIMER.

An audit meeting was held under the joint and separate
estates of these bankrupts, but the proceedings were pro
fakma, and it could not be ascertained what dividends will
be paid.

. _
The wife said if 10s. per week was allowed she would take ,
EDITION.
her husband's children and leave his house. Burton offered THIRD
6s. per week for his wife alone. This was not accepted.
Finally Bs. per week was offered by Burton for the main-
tenance of his wife and three daughters. This was refused,
and

Mr. Selfe said the defendant, Samuel Burton, was a great
simpleton notto obtain peace for 10s. per week. He dismissed
the summons, and held Mrs. Burton to bail to keep the
peace towards her husband.

SUN OFFICE, Six o'clock.

PRUSSIA.

A letter from Berlin of the 2d says:—" The for-
mation of a flotilla of steam gunboats for the North
Sea forms at the present moment the subject of
very active negotiations between Prussia on the
one hand and Oldenburg and Bremen on the other.
Hanover has declined taking any part in the affair,
because the idea is to place the flotilla under the or-
ders of Prussia, and make it consequently apart of
the Prussian fleet. According to the project in ques-
tion the expense of the first establishment would be
borne, one half by Prussia, and the other half between
the three States above mentioned. The expenses of
all repairs would fall on the latter, while Prussia
would furnish and keep the crews. The difficulty
which impedes the negotiations is the demand made
by the petty States that they should have a dimi-
nution made in their military contingent, a favour
which can only be granted by the Diet. In conse-
quence of the feelings which are well known to pre-
vail at Frankfort, with regard to Prussia, and the
delay in arranging any affairs there, the Fowers
interested in the question of the flotilla are desirous
of arranging it without the intervention of the
Diet."