The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-13 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
ROLLS' COURT, Dec. 12.
LORD NELSON r. LORD BXIDPORT.
Mr. PALMER resumed his arguments, which were com-
menced yesterday, and which were directed chiefly to-
wards substantiating the case of the appellant from the
wording of the will of Iforatia Lord Nelson.

V 1 CE- CHAIV CELLOR' S COURT, Dec. 12.
His Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England took un-
opposed petitions and short causes to-day, none of which
possessed any points of public interest.
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUM)
IN RE FERRER'S GRAMMAR SCHOOL.

This case came before his Honour on petition praying
a reference to the Master to consider the propriety of
extending the system of education pursued there to in-
struction in the Latin and Greek languages and all the
branches usually taught in commercial academies. The
foundation of the charity, situated in Tewkesbury, dates
so far hack as James the First ; it received a charter
from William the Third in 1698, but up to the present
time the system of education pursued leas not advanced
with the necessities of the age. His Honour referred it
to the Master to inquire whether extension would be
beneficial, and what system should be adopted, and
whether any alteration should be made in the right and
mode of admission to the charity, and in the continuance
in the school.
__

(Before Vice• Chancellor WIGIUM.)
DYKES V. FARR.

This case has been twice argued, and came on the
second time this morning for judgment.
The facts of it are shortly these:—Mr. Dykes, in
1775, being married to Susan Fsrr, made a settlement
that, in case of the wife's death, her dower, 1,5001., and
5001. more, in all, 2,0001., should revert to Mr. Farr,
her father, or Lis representatives. About twenty years
after Mr. and Mrs. Dykes being both alive, they executed a
tew deed of settlement, by which it seems to have been
their intention to render the deed of the previous date
void; but the means they took to bar the sum of 2,0004
in the first deed, by raising a new sum of 2,0001. dif-
ferently apportioned, failed in point of legal form. This
second deed, in consideration of certain rights held by
Mrs. Dykes being surrendered to Mr. Dykes during his
lifetime, after that gave the reversion in favourof the next
of kin of the wife. It so happened, that the representa-
tive of Farr entitled to claim under the first deed, is
also the next of kin to Mrs. Dykes, and entitled to come
in under the second. This his Honour remarked, in
giving judgment, had no power to alter the effect of the
deeds, whatever that might be.
His I loNourt, on the former hearing, ordered the 2,000/.
levied by the first deed to be raised with )ut prejudice to
the sun] levied in the second. The cause to stand over.

It was argued again at the instance of Mrs. Dyke's
representatives claiming under the second deed. In
giving judgment on the effect of that deed, after going
through the points of his judgment on the first hearing,
his Ilonour said the only observation he had to offer was,
that the intention of the parties appeared to be, that the
(itates of Dykes should be cleared from the sum of
2.0001., which would have gone to the representatives of
Farr, and to raise a second sum of 2,0001. in favour of
the reprt sentatives of Mrs. Dykes. The steps taken to
clear the estates of the husband were not matter for the
consideration of the wife, who had left nothing undone
on her part to effect the object; it was for the husband
to consider what steps should be taken for the purpose,
The question, then, had now come OR to be considered,
after the death of both, which occurred so long a time
afts.r the deed had been executed, and after so great a
lapse of years since their death, whether the wife's re-
presentatives were tJ be barred of all advantage because
the husband not taken the proper steps. His Honour
sail the suit had failed.
Costs were reserved on account of an intimation of in-
tention on the part of the plaintiffs to move for a new trial