The Sun.
London, England, 1857-06-11 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCB.—June 10.

COURT OF C3ANCERY.
(Before Vice-Chenceller Kinchrsley.)
INNES V. MITCHELL.
This was a demurrer to a bill filed by John and
Richard lines against Alex. Mitchell, Wm. Mit-
chell, otherwise William Mitchell Innes, John
Thompson, and Jane Coningham.. The bill (the
statements of which for the purees-s of a demurrer
are, according to the well understood rule, to be
taken as true) stated the following facts :—Mils
Jane Junes, daughter of George Inues, the cashier
of the Royal Bank of Scotland, by a testamentary •
trust disposition dated March 7, 1832, gave all her .
re ay and personalty to Lieut.-Colonel George
Scott, John Thompson, and a third trustee who
predeceased her, and their heirs and successoreo
upon trust for her nearest heirs, the testatrix re- •
serving to herself a power of revocation. She died
on the 2d December, 1839, without having re-
voked or altered the above writing, which was dull
recorded in Scotland and proved in the Prerogative
Court of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The effect
of the tes•amentary writing above set out was to
vest the testatrix's property, which was of the value
of above a million sterling, in the persons who were
her heirs and next of kin (according as that property
was real or personal estate) at the time of her de-
cease.
The bill set out a statement of a pedigree,
showing that tee above characters were sustaiued
by the plaintiffs in this suit. Nevertheless (as the
bill alleged) Alexander Mitchell was second heir of
the deceased, and he and the defendant, W. M.
Innes, entered as heir and next of kin into the re-
ceipt of the realty and personalty of deceased. The,
bill then alleged that &ion after this the sum eI
10,0001 e was paid to tiie defendant Thompson, the
sum of 5,0001. to Col. Scott, and the further sum Of
5,0001. to members of Col. Scott's family. These pay"
ments were said to have been as a recompense for
the trouble and expense to which the trustees had,
been put in connexion with their trust, but the bill
charged that the consideration for the payment!
was the facility with which the trustees had allowed'
the defendants, Mitchell and Innes, to enter •int°.
the receipt of the testatrix's property. It was fur-
ther stated that Colonel Scott died in 1846, leav-
ing the defendant, J. Coningham, his executrix,
The blil then:charged the defendants, Innes eind
Mitchell, with fraud in connexion with the evl;.
deuce upon which the first defendant was served
heir, and alleged that they had tampered with re- •
gisters, and taken measures for putting document°•
out of the way which would be prejudicial to their
title. The bill prayed in effect that the plaintiff!'
might be declared entitled to the estate of Mies
Innes, and that the different defendants might a&
count for what they or those whom they represented
had received'

The Attorney-General and Mr. Hobhouge were
in support of the demurrer ; Mr. Anderson and.
Mr. Miller were on the other side.
The Vice-Chancellor, in giving judgment, re'
marked that this was a demurrer for want of equity,
to support which it must be shown that if the case,
came to a hearing, and that the facts stated in the,
bill were without denial, even then no relief could.
ba had. There was also a demurrer ore tenus for
multifariousness. But louking to the charges 01
gross fraud which were made by the bill, and the
allegatiois which it made, mixing up both the heir
at law and the next of kiu in that fraud, he was led
to the conclusion that the demurrers ought to be
allowed.