The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-26 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY.)

ROLLS COURT.
(Before Sir John Romilly, the Master of the Rolls.)
JUDGMENT.-BECTON V. BARTON.

His Honour the Master of the Rolls said—The first ques-
tion raised in this suit, on the construction of the will in
question, is as to what time the shares of the children of
the testator became vested, and also at what period after
they had become vested and taken effect they passed to the
issue of the children of the testator, in the event of their
dying leaving issue. Now, the scope of the will appears
to be this—that he gives an annuity of £5OO to his wife,
and on her marrying again the annuity of £5OO a year is
to be reduced to £lOO. And he also gave a power to his
trustees to give that reduction to his children, and also to
make advances to his children. He also directed that
on his children attaining the age of 21, his property
should be divided amongst them, subject to the annuity
of £lOO to his wife, in the event foresaid. And
the real question is, whether this clause, by which
they are directed to divide the property, which is the go-
verning clause, was not to take effect till the death or mar-
riage of the widow, or whether it was to take effect on each
of the children attaining 21 years of age, or the youngest•
attaining the age of 21. His Honour, on reading the gift-
ing clauses in the will, considered that the children of the
testator took a vested interest in his property on attaining
21, and that their interest transmitted on their death to their
issue. The testator directed his trustees to make advances
to his children for their education and maintenance in the
event of the death or marriage of his widow; and upon the
division of his property amongst his children, the advances
So made were to be taken • as part of the hotch-
potch division of his property. It appeared that one
of his daughters had received £5OO before the period of the
distribution of his property, and before the youngest of the
children had attained the age of 21. His Honour, on the
authority of the cases of " Edgar v. Edgar," and " Lord
Elgin and Lord Glengall," in the House of Lords, considered
that this lady must be put to her election—to say whether
she chooses to take it in satisfaction of her share of the
property divisable amongst the children, or take it as
hotch-potch along with the other children, the residue, if
any, to go to the nest of kin. His Honour directed Mr.
Little and Mr. Follett, jun., to make a declaration accord-
ingly, and that he would afterwards look at it. Costs of
all parties to come out of the estate.
Counsel in the cause, Mr. R. Palmer, Q.C., and Mr.
Follett, Q.C.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Prendergast, Q.C.)
PARKER V. WOVZ..--MASTER AND SERVANT.-.SINGULAR

AGREEMENT.

Mr. Buchanan appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. James
for the defendant.

The action was brought to recover a month's wages in
lieu of notice, and an average of commission that plaintiff
would have earned had he continued in defendant's service.

In opening the case, Mr. Buchanan produced a singular
agreement, regularly stamped and sigaied, by which plain-
tiff subjected himself to dismissal for non-fulfilment of any
of the terms, and a month's notice was required to terminate
it. One of the terms was that plaintiff should be punctual
in his attendance at the office at nine o'clock in the morn-
ing. One morning plaintiff arrived at a quarter past nine,
and defendant said that ho would riot be required that day,
that he was late and should not have his sample case that
day, and that if he was late the next morning he should
never have his sample case any more. Upon this plaintiff
left and sent defendant a written notice to leave his service
in one month, and almost simultaneously received from
defendant's solicitor notice of his summary dismissal.

These facts having been deposed to by plaintiff, Mr.
James addressed his honour upon the terms of the agree-
ment, and contended that defendant was justified in dis-
charging plaintiff.
His Honour considered that be had not done so, but
merely suspended him for one day, and that, therefore,
plaintiff was entitled to a verdict with costs.

BIDDLE V. SARLE--MASTER AND SERVANT-WHAT IS A

NOTICE TO LEAVE?

Plaintiff is a working jeweller, and defendant the cele.
brated silversmith of Cornhill.

Mr. Buchanan appeared for the plaintiff, mid stated that
he claimed one week's wages in lieu of notice. The cir-
cumstances of the case are somewhat peculiar, and arose
out of an ambiguous notice of dismissal. One Saturday,
upon paying plaintiff his wages, defendant's foreman said,
"I think you will not be wanted after next Saturday."
Mr. Buchanan contended that this was not a notice at all,
and accordingly on the following Saturday plaintiff gave in
a written notice that he should leave in a week. He was
told, " Oh, you were discharged last Saturday." Hence
the present action.
Defendant's foreman said plaintiff was very uncivil, and
on one occasion, when told to close the shop, said he should
finish what he was about. Upon this defendant's foreman
told him, " I think you will not be wanted next Saturday."
Plaintiff said he was about an order that was required.
His Honour said that was the foreman's business, and
not plaintiff's ; and upon his refusal to close the shop
when told the foreman would have been justified in dis-
charging him on the spot. As the notice stood, however,
plaintiff was entitled to a verdict, as the words used by
defendant's foreman were certainly not a notice.