The Sun.
London, England, 1826-11-30 00:00:00

ROLLS COURT.—(This PAY.)

His Howoit nut having got through the immense number of
petitions intended for hearing yesterday, resumed the hearing of
petitions this morning. ,

SAMUILLS V. SAMUF.I.S.

Mr. llouttr (with whom was Mr. "Pemberton) stated, that
this wus a petition presented by Caroline Samuels, an infant, and
Philip Samueli, the infant's father, praying the Court to order
that a, sum of .‘)0/. per annum should be paid out of the produce
of a fund in Court to the said Philip Samuels,. for the education
and maintenance of the said Caroline Samuels. It appeared that
the petitioner (P. Samuels) married Miss Julia Goldschmidt in
Ism and that the infant, Caroline Samuels, was the imme of
that marriage. Mr. Miler Goldsehmidt, the father of Alm P.
Samuels, died subsequent to her marriage, and by his will left a
auto of 25,000/.• to his daughter during her life, and iu case of
her death 7,0/00/. should go to her husband, Mr. P. :Samuels, for
his sole benefit, and that the remaining sum of 18,000/. should go
to any child or children left by his daughter. Mrs. Samuels died
some yowl after the death of her father, and left only one child
(the petitioner Caroline Samuels.) Mr. P. Samuel, had now en-
tered into a second marriage, and applied to the Court to alloW
hint some portion of the produce of his daughter's, large fiwtune
for bar support and maintenance. Mr. Samuels applied to the
executors under Mr. Asher Goldschrnidt'a will, to allow him the
Antall sum of 1501. towards his daughter's education, but the axe-
cutOrs refused to make any allowance, and Mr. Samuele, who hail
other elaiMs upon him, was bUrthened with the support of this
child, who was so amply provided for by her grandfather!" will.
Mr. Suoutri appeared to oppose the prayer of the peti-
tion. lie said that it was true Mr. P. Samuels was mar-
ried wig; but he had married a wormai of large fortune,

and was necessarily obliged to keep an 'establishment.
der the testator's will Mr. Samuels already enjoyed the pro-
duce of 7,0004 When the child was only ten' years old, Mr.
Samuels applied to the executors, and stated that the education
and maintenance of the girl would coat MO/. per annum. In
this account 2001. was charged for a governess, and her main-
tenance ; 80/. per annum was charged for Miss Samuels' clothes;
and 601. per annum for her washing. The Court must see that
the father intended the girl should wear a great many white
frocks, lbr he charged nearly as much for her washing as for her
clothe..—(A laugh.)—The fact was, Mr. Samuels only wanted
to mike out an account, and he certainly was hard driven when
lie inserted such an item. The discretion was unquestionably
given to the executors, to advance any thing or nothing,
for the girl's maintenance, and they refused to make any allow-
ance, because Mr. Samuels bad pertinaciously refused to allow
the executors to have any intercourse with the infant. His (Mr.
Sugilen's) advice to his clients was, not to allow a penny whilst
they were debarred from that kind of limited intercourse with the
child which would enable them to judge whether her education
was properly conducted. The executors of the will were the
uncles of the infant; and it was directly against the intention of
the testator that the horid was brought into Court, for he. had
such a horror of Equity Courts, that he ordered in his will that
any legatee who filed a bill should forfeit his legacy. In conclu-
sion, the Learned Counsel submitted, that the petition should be
dismissed with costs.

Mr. Holism having replied,
His Noun said, he did not think there was sufficient
grounds for the interposition of the Court. A per-
sonal discretion was clearly given by the will to the azimuthal,
and it was not for the Court to say that they had improperly ex-
ercised that discretion ; for it appeared that Mr. Samuels alrendy
received a considerable sum out of the testator's property ; and,
also, that he was in that condition of life that the support and
education of his daughter
,could not prove burtheuso►Me to him.
Under all the circumstances, in his opinion, there was no reason
for the interference of the Conn. The petition must, therefore,
he dismissed; but to prevent an increase of that irritation which
evidently existed between the parties, he should decree the costs to
be paid out of the funds in Court.