The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-10 00:00:00

LAW INTE.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lords Justices.)
APPEAL MOTION-BIRD V. POWELL.

This was an appeal from a decision of Vice-Chancellor
Sir William Page Wood on the construction of the testa-
tor's will.

At the conclusion of the arguments of counsel on both
sides their lordships consulted together, and Lord Justice
Knight Bruce announced that it was desirable to take the
opinion of the Lord Chancellor in this case. His lordship
observed that three different judgments had already been
given on this will, and, if the testator was alive, he would
give a fourth.

Mr. Daniel, Q.C., said—lf the case was allowed to stand
over, it might be amicably settled.
Lord Justice Turner said—lf the income was divided,
the shares of the children could be easily ascertained. It
was supposed to be about £3,000.
Mr. Daniel—That is disputed. There is a reversionary
interest.

Lord Justice Knight Bruce—We will put it before the
Lord Chancellor this day week.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir John Stuart.)

MOTION FOR DECREE.-JUDGMENT.-GREENWAY V.
GREENWAY.-GREENWAY V. GRECTWAY AND OTHERS.
His Honour the Vice-Chancellor said—This case was
argued under the 29th section of the late Wills Act. The
testator by his will disposed of his estates both real and
personal; but the only question raised here is as to the
personal. The testator directs that if any of his brotliers
should die without lawful issue, the survivor
would succeed the brother predeceasing ; and if both
brothers should die without leaving lawful issue, he directs
that the whole of his property shall be divided equally
among his nearest of kin and Isabella Woodcoats. It was
contended that this bequest to the next of kin and Isabella
Woodcoats is too indefinite and too remote, and cannot
take effect.

His Honour, after reading and commenting on the dif-
ferent clauses in the will in reference to this be-
quest, and considering the decided cases of
Redford against Redford, first volume of " King's Re-
ports," Lord Hardwicke's opinion in the case of Shepherd,
" Ainslie's Reports," and the 29th section of the late Wills
Act, came to the conclusion that the gift over (in the event
which happened) to the testator's next of kin, and Isabella
Woodcoat's must be held to be a valid and good bequest.
There was nothing said about the real estate, because it
was agreed to argue the case on this bequest only.
His Honour made a decree in favour of the next of kin
and Isabella Woodcoats as to the personal estate of the tes-
tator.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Prendergast, Q.C.)

MASTER AND SERVANT-WAGES IN LONDONNOLAN V.

THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

This was an action brought by plaintiff, a stalwart young
fellow, aged 21, formerly a van-goer in the service of de-
fendants, to recover 12s. for one week's wages, and 2s.
stopped as a fine.

Plaintiff stated that he was, upon a certain occasion, de-
sired to go to a place to fetch some goods, but as he was
subordinate to the driver of the cart it was not his (plain-
tiff's) duty to say whether he would go or not. He did not
go and was reported to the Superintendent, and a fine of 2s.
was recorded against him. Upon the following Thursday,
(pay day), 10s. were tendered, but plaintiff contended that,
as he had been guilty of no dereliction of duty, he should
not be mulcted in the sum of 2s. This was construed into
an act of insubordination, and plaintiff being discharged,
now took the present course to recover his money.
His Honour--Do you mean to say that you only received
12s. per week?
Plaintiff—l do.

His Honour—Then, I say, it is a scandalous thing that a
young man of 21, servant to a public company in London,
should receive such a wretched pittance.
On the part of the company it was insisted that plaintiff,
having refused to obey orders, was properly fined 2s.
and that he was grossly insolent, and discharged himself.
The latter portion of this statement plaintiff denied, and
it was elicited by his Honour that the insolence consisted in
his refusal to submit to the fine.

His Honour said he was astonished to find such wages
paid to fine young men in London. He read a short time
back in the newspaper that in some parts of the country
young men (agricultural labourers) were receiving 14s. per
week. Here, in London, a great company paid 12s. It
was a scandalous thing.
Verdict for plaintiff, with costs.

SERVANTS AND MASTERS.-OVERTIME.-JONES V.HAWTRY.

This was a contest and a trial cause to determine
whether plaintiff, a. house painter and whitewasher, should
receive 6d. an hour overtime or 9d. an hour. A great many
of plaintiff's fellow-workmen in court took great interest
in the proceedings, and, in spite of the endeavours of his
Honour and the bailiff, applauded or hissed as they were
pleased or annoyed.

It appeared that plaintiff had been employed by a Mr.
Thornton for 13 years. Defendant, who carried on an ex-
tensive business, applied to Mr. Thornton to send him some
men, as he had a job to finish off quickly. Plaintiff and
some others went to work for defendant, and the time agreed
upon in the trade for a day's work was six to half-past five, the
pay 6d. per hour. Plaintiff, however, and his mates agreed
to work till half-past 10 at night, for which they were paid
6d. an hour overtime. Plaintiff now sought to recover
another 3d. an hour.

Defendant stated that he had been in the trade a great
number of years, and that it was not usual to pay extra
money for overtime before 11 o'clock at night. He wished
the case adjourned to produce Mr. Thornton, who could
prove that he never paid the extra 3d.

To rebut this three or four witnesses came forward, and
swore that Thornton paid the extra money, and that defen-
dant had promised to pay as Thornton paid.
Upon the question of evidence, it was very conflicting on
either side, but his Honour considered that the evidence
adduced for the plaintiff was so overpowering, that he felt
bound to give him a verdict with costs.
Plaintiff—Will that settle the others ?
His Honour—They are not before me.
SLOP WORK.-lIILLYER V. GREEN.

Mr. Buchanan appeared for the plaintiff, who sought to
recover the sum of 10s. for making 12 mantles.
For the defence it was contended that ss. paid into Court
was sufficient, as the work was badly done.
Mr. Buchanan called a witness, who said the wages were
very bad, and the work well enough done for the money.
In answer to this defendant said there were thousands of
mantles made for less than 2d. each.

After examining the work, his Honour found for do-
rendant.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

A JUVENILE THIEF.--Henry Coreham, 13, was charged
with stealing some cigars from the shop of Mrs. Emma
Johnson, tobacconist, of Shepherd's-market.
The prosecutrix said she only charged the boy with
stealing 11 cigars now, but having missed a great many at
different times in a similar way, suspected the prisoner had
visited her before. She heard the corner of the case in which
they were kept fall, and saw the prisoner run out of the
shop, and pursued and overtook him. He at first denied
having taken any, but afterwards handed them over to the
officer.

Mr. Inspector Bowles said he had admitted having been
in custody before for entering some premises, when he was
given up to his friends for protection.
nunur mutt 1L utal uone an ne

He went to school, and not twenty minutes before this
occurrence he was reading a chapter out of the Bible.

Mr. Bingham said it was not the 20th chapter of Exodus
surely.

The father said ho hoped something might be done for
him, as he had four others. He would have got him to sea,
but he had something the matter with his leg, which un-
fitted him for that life.

Mr. Bingham said he would remand him that something
might if possible be done for him.

Remanded.