The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-26 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 25.

This being the last day of term, the Vice-Chancellor
of England took motions, none of which were of any in
terest.

(Before Sir K. BRUCE.)
LYON V. COLVILLE.—JUDGMENT.

His HONOUR gave judgment in this case this morning.
The circumstances were exceedingly complicated, in-
volving the claims of creditors on the estate of the tes-
tator, the liability of the property of the widow and ad-
ministratrix to part of tho,e claims, the settlement of
the accounts of the executors, and the question whether
certain estates in the island of Jamaica, were, by the
construction of the will and the statute law of the colony
and of England, converted into equitable assets for the
benefit of the creditors. With respect to the first point
his Honour grounded his decision on the case of Eland v.
Eland, and said, though it might seem a hard case, yet
if that decision was rightly given, it would be wrong to
award the plaintiff what he claimed. With respect to
the question whether the funds of the testator in the
island of Jamaica were equitable assets, he thought,
considering the Acts of the Colonial Legislature, and the
British statute' the 37th of Geo. 111., that those funds
must be treated as personal estate, and there-
fore became legal assets. 'This principle ap-
peared to him to be clear of doubt. With
regard to the lands in Jamaica—the Prospect, Paradise,
and Retrieve estates—he thought there was not in the
will any devise or disposition by which they were con-
stituted, a real estate for raising a fund for the payment
of equitable assets. Though he had come to this con-
clusion he had not done so without much doubt, as it
was a question of much difficulty. But if any part of
those estates was to be held to be equitable assets, it
must be by some other authority than his. He directed
the case to be mentionedagain on Thursday week, and the
minutes which would require much care, to be drawn up
in the interim.

(Before Sir J. WIGRAM.)
PRY V. FRT. JUDGMENT.

In this case Frances Maria Burn by her will dated
the 28th of June, 1832, gave all her leasehold estates at
Newington, to J. J. Taylor, Esq., and T. W. Fry, to
hold as her executors upon trust, and manage them for
the benefit of the purposes of her will. The trusts
were declared to be out of the rents, issues, and
profits to accrue from time to time from her
estates, to pay, first, ber debts, funeral and
testamentary expenses, and legacies, afterwards,
given ; secondly, to pay the ground-rents, taxes, Sze., of
the property ; thirdly, to pay certain annuities, which
were given principally to near relations of her late hus-
band ; and also other annuities subject to certain special
provisions. Subject to these incumbrances the property
was to go to Mrs. S. C. Fry and her husband, for their
lives, afterwards to their children, with a proviso for
their maintenance in the event of their surviving their
parents ; if there were no children of Mr. and Mrs. Fry
who could take the property, then it was to be disposed
of, according to the joint appointment of both those par-
ties, to the next of kin of Sarah Fry. Subsequently, by
a oldicil of the 15th day of September, 1834, the testa-
trix revoked so much of the bequests of her will as re-
lated to the whole of the leasehold estate, and by that
codicil she gave one-half of that estate to Mr. and Mrs.
Fry, and the other half to Mr. Charles L. Gee. The
question then was, according to the construction of the
c what was the subject of the revocation, and
what was the subject of the new disposition.
For the children of Mr. and Mrs. Fry it was contended
that nothin-, was revoked but the beneficial interest of
Mr. Fry, determinable by his death ; also that the sub-
ject of the revocation and bequest commenced with the
gift of Mr. Fry, and that the whole of the estate was sub-
ject to the charges mentioned in the will. For Mr. Geo
it was contended that the whole of the disposition of the
will had boon revoked, and that Mr. Gee took one moiety
of the estate, discharged of all the debts, charges, and
incumbrances, stated in the will. His Honour over-ruled
the first point contended for by the children, and, with
regard to the other two points, he decided that the case
must be considered as a bequest of the leasehold estate,
after the charges thrown upon it, and that, subject to
those charges, one moiety should go absolutely to Mr.
Gee, and the other moiety to Mr. and Mrs. Fry and their
children, ono half of the charges to be borne by each.
With respect to costs, he would hear counsel on a futnre
occasion, if there was any objection to throwing the costs
upon the general residue.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nor. 25.
(Sittings in Banco.)
THH QUEEN V. BARNARD GREGORY.
The defendant in this cue was brought up by habeas