The Sun.
London, England, 1859-11-10 00:00:00

HEAD GOODLEE.

The question involved arises out of the will of a gentle-
man, of the name of Thomas Woodroffe Smith, dated the
2d of lergust, 1807 (there being several codicils and another
will executed relating to personal estate only), under which
very large real property was disposed of ; and the personal
estate, also very considerable, after payment of legacies,
was directed to be invested in the purchase of land, to be
settled to the same uses as the estates that were devised by
the first will. Those estates were devised so as to give the
legal estate to trustees in fee with a direction to settle
them in moieties on the testator's daughters Ann and
Maria for their lives, with remainders to their respective
children in tail with cress remainders. Tho will was very
complicated, and involved so many difficulties, that the
trustees, a year after the testator's death, which took place
May 3, 1811, filed a bill praying that the estate of the tes-
tator might be administered turner the direction of the
Court of Chancery. Although several branches of this suit
are described under different heads, the case is well known
under the original one of " Home v. Barton." The Court
upon the hearing directed a reference to the Master to con-
sider what would be a proper deed of settlement under the
will, and the most eminent conveyancers of the day were
consulted as to the limitations which should be contained
in it. Ultimately a deed of settlement of the 18th of
August, 1815, was sanctioned by the Court. This deed
was impeached during a long course of litigation by
the present plaintiff and a Mr. Reynolds, and ulti-
mately petitions of appeal and for rehearing of the
cause of "Horne v. Barton," were presented, and came
on for hearing before the Lords Justices. The substantial
question was whether or not Mr. Head in his appeal, which
related to all the property, and Mr. Reynolds in his appeal,
which relates only to a portion of it—but which it was ad-
mitted must stand or fall on the same question—had made
out a case to have the orders annulled, the case reheard,
and the matter set right from the beginning. The Lords
Justices decided not to disturb the orders previously made,
or the settlements made under them, but gave the parties
liberty to file an independent suit for the purpose of esta-
blishing their rights, and, if they should succed, intimated
that the right of appeal and rehearing might be entertained.
This state of things led to the institution of the present suit ;
and the plaintiff now prayed that the orders and proceed-
ing in tho cause of " Home v. Barton" and the indenture
of settlement of the 18th of July, 1815, might be declared
inoperative to bind the beneficial interest in the ultimate
reversion of the testator's estates, to which the testator's
daughters, Ann and Maria, expetant on the decease of the
survivor and the failure of their issue, were entitled, or (if
necessary) that it might be declared that the circumstances
that had occurred since the date of the said orders, on the
death of the said Maria Head without issue, having sur-
vived her sister Ann, who also died without issue, the
plaintiff became entitled to the entirety of the freehold and
copyhold estates devised by the will of Thomas Woodroffe
Smith, and of the estates which, in pursuance of of the di-
rections contained in his will, had been purchased with
any part of his personal estate, and to the entirety of the
personal estate of the testator which bad been invested in
the purchase of land, the indenture referred to not having
precluded the plaintiff from insisting on such right to the
real estate of the testator, as he would have been entitled
to if the orders had not been made and the indenture exe-
cuted, and also (if necessary) that the plaintiff might be
allowed to present a petition to rehear the said orders.
The arguments were proceeding when the Court arose.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

:Before the Lord Chief Justice, and Justices Whiteman,

Hill, and Blackburn.)
LORD BROUGHAM V. ATKINSON.

Sir F. Kelly, this morning, made an application to the
court for a rule calling upon Mr. Atkinson, the proprietor of
the " Westmorland Gazette and Fend al Advertiser," to show
cause why a:criminal information should not be filed against
him for printing and publishing a libel in his paper reflecting
upon the noble and learned lord's character, imputing to
him the exercise of undue influence in relation to certain
charitable property. From the speech of the learned gen-
tleman, it appeared that in 1654 certain lands were set apart
by some parties for the relief of the poor widows in
Appleby, and as time proceeded a relation of the noble
lord's became possessed of certain landed property in
its immediate vicinity. The relatives of the noble lord,
and the trustees of the charitable property, wishing to make
an exchange of a certain part of each other's land, entered
into a negotiation for that purpose. The exchange
having been effected, a letter appeared in the West.
moreland Gazette, which almost attributed corrupt
practices to the noble and learned lord during the
time the exchange was being effected. A second attack
was made on the noble lord in the same paper a short time
after he delivered his late speech at Bradford, in which it
was asserted that the noble lord had broken the Tenth
Commandment.

Tho Court granted a rule upon both points.
THE QUEEN V. MARSHALL AND OTHERS. - ILLEGAL

SELLING OP ARMY COMMISSIONS.

Mr. Edwin James, this morning, moved for the judgment
of the court upon the persons Marshall, Mortimer, and
Eicke, who had been found guilty of illegally disposing of
a commission in her Majesty's army.
It will be recollected from the lengthy reports of the
tran'action which appeared in The Sun, that a gentleman
of the name of Brydson, being anxious to obtain a com-
mission for a young gentleman named Conyngham, was
induced to write to one of the defendants at his offices in
Piccadilly, where the business of an army agency was car-
ried on under the name of "Armstrong and Co." The
price agreed upon for the commission by Mr. Brydson was
£4OO. After some time the commission was obtained, and Mr.
Conyngham entered the army, but very shortly after it was
discovered the commission had been obtained from the War
Department without purchase, and illegally sold by the
defendants to Mr. Brydson.

Mr. M. Chambers appeared for Marshall in arrest of
judgment, and contended that his conduct in the transac-
tion had been devoid of anything that could be considered
fraudulent.

The learned gentleman was proceeding with arguments
when wo went to press.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)

IN RE INOHAM.-ALLEGED FALSIFICATION OF ACCOUNTS.

this bankrupt was described as of Oxford-street, grocer,
and to-day was appointed for consideration of his certificate,
which had been adjourned in consequence of criminal pro-
ceedings having beon instituted against the bankrupt on a
charge of falsifying his accounts, but the question stands
owe for the decision of the Court above, on appeal, as to
whether the offence proved comes within the operation of
the bankrupt law.
A further adjournment was, therefore, taken by consent.