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

LAW INTELLIGBNCE.—Jung 10.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Kindersley.)
INNES V. MITCHELL..
This was a demurrer to a bill filed by John and
Richard Inn es against Alex. Mitchell, Win. Mit"
ad!, otherwise William Mitchell Innes, Joen
Thompson, and Jane Coningham. The bill (the
statements of which fur the purposes of a demurrer
are, according to the well understood rule, to he
taken as true) stated the following facts :—Min/
Jane Innes, daughter of George Innes, the cashier
of the Royal Bank of Scotland, by a testamentarr
bust disposition dated March 7, 1832, gave .all her
rellty and personalty to Lieut.-Colonel George
Scott, John Thompson, and a third trustee who
predeceased her, and their heirs and successors,
upon trust for her nearest heirs, the testatrix re-
serving to herself a power of revocation. She died
ou 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 tie Archbishop of Canterbury. The effect
of Ow tes amentary writing above set out was t°
vest the testatrix's property, which was of the value
of above a Million s'erling, 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 the above characters were sustained
by the plaintiffs in this suit. Nevertheless (as ill
bill alleged) Alexander Mitchell was second heir °
the deceased, and he and the defendant, W. 3"
Lines, entered as heir and next of kin into the" ,ve.
ceipt of the realty and personalty of deceased.
of
bill then alleged that soon after this the sum °
10,000/. wag paid to the defendant Thompson, the,
sum of 5,0001. to Col. Scott, and the further suns 0'
5,0001. to members of Col. Scott's family. These par_
ments were said to have been as a recompense f°l
the trouble and expense to which the trustees /111. u„
been put in connexion with their trust, but the bis
charged that the consideration for the paymen,4
was the facility with which the trustees had allowc`a
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 executriita
The blil then charged the defendants, Innes a
Mitchell, with fraud in connexion with the evici
deuce upon which the first defendant was serve
heir, and alleged that they had tampered with reL
gist ars, and taken measures for putting domineer;
out of the way which would be prejudicial to thlo
title. The bill prayed in effect that the
might be declared entitled to the estate of Xl*
Innes, and that the different defendants might acs
count for what they or those whom they represent°
had received!
The Attorney-General and Mr. Hobhouse vie d
in support of the demurrer ; Mr. Anderson an
Mr. Miller were on the other aide. 4- re'
The Vice-Chancellor, in giving judgment,
marked that this was a demurrer for want of eclui'
to support which it must be shown that if th(",nshe
came to a hearing, and that the facts stated in the
bill were without denial, even then no relief lot
be had. There was also a demurrer ore tenths of
multifariousness. But looking to the ohargenthe
gross fraud which were loade by the bill, anclueir
allegations which it made, mixing up both the:
at law and the next of kin is that fraud, he wit"' be
to the conclusion that the demurrers ought to
allowed.