The Sun.
London, England, 1842-12-17 00:00:00

LAW IN TELLIG ENCE.

CHANCERY.--(THIS DAY.)

IN RE SUISSE.
In this case, which was partly-heard yesterday, Sir
C. Wetherell resumed his argument, and was followed
by Mr. Sharpe. An injunction had been granted by
Vice-Chancellor Wigram, restraining Nicholas Suisse,
the valet of the late Marquis of Hertford, from selling
out a quantity of stock, on the allegation that it bad
been purchased with the money of the late Marquis.
The question now before the Court is, whether the in-
junction should be continued or not. It was stated
that after the death of the Marquis, Suisse had pur-
chased stock to the amount of 30,0001. • he had also
received 4,0001., which in the course Of his duty he
ought to have applied to paying the household ex-
penses of the Marquis; this sum, however, had been
traced, and found to have been invested beySuisse in the
purchase of French Stock. The defendant s answer was,
that there had been a verbal settlement between he and
the Marquis, and that he -(Suisse) had received a
check, but he could not remember the amount; he also
denied generally that he had applied any of the money
of the Marquis of Hertford otherwise than directed,
except in paying some bills on -his own account.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY).
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
HICKS V. MAINWARING.
Mr. BETHEL in this case moved for an order of the
Court to set aside a deed of conveyance of estates to
a very large amount, as fraudulent both in conception
and design. The circumstances of the case render it
both interesting and important. It appeared that
Sir Henry Maini,varing, at present a gentleman
advanced in years, was possessed of very
large estates in the county of Chester. From
various causes, however, his circumstances be-
came much involved, so much so, that, previous to the
year 1838, he was compelled to retire to the Conti-
nent, where he resided at Boulogne, in order to avoid
the demands of his creditors. While he so resided
there, his son, Harry Mainwaring, formed a scheme
for getting the.life estate of his father, transferred to
himself, and prevailed upon his father to make the
conveyance of that life interest by the representation
that otherwise the creditors would take possession of
the property, and that he would be deprived of the
means of support. The scheme, therefore, in which
the deed originated was, both in its commencement
and throughout, a direct endeavour to- deprive the
creditors of their just demands. The scheme so per-
fected by the son, had not only that direct end, but
also, in the issue, another one, for after Sir Henry
Mainwaring parted with the life estate, the son's pro-
mises to provide the father with an income were
utterly disregarded, and the old man had not received
a shilling of the rents, and had been obliged to sur-
render himself to the very creditors with a view of
defrauding whom he was prevailed on by his son to
make this conveyance. The bill was now filed for the
purpose of setting aside the deed of conveyance as
fraudulent, and the Court would then be asked to take
possession of the rents of the property itself, as it ap-
peared that the son had received since the date of the
deed rents and profits to the amount of 27,0001., and
unless the Court interfered the creditors and tenants
would be deprived of every shilling. The Learned
Gentleman then proceeded to read the allegations of
the bill, and entered into a minute statement of the
case, which occupied the greater part of the day.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir JAMES WIGRAM.)

BALDERCOTT U. BALDERCOTT.
His HONOUR said he had read the papers in this case,
and he was of opinion that he could not make the or-
der asked. It was a bill to administer the estate and
effects of a testator named Benjamin Bragden, who
devised his real and personal estate upon trust to his
wife for life, for the benefit of herself and children,
with remainder over. His wife being dead, a bill
was filed to administer the estate. An answer had
been put in by the executors stating that there was no
personal estate after the debts of the testator were
paid ; and, therefore, that the wife took nothing. That
made no difference in the view of the case which he
had taken. The executors alleged that the wife ex-
pended money of her own in the lasting improvement
of the estate. What was then asked was an inquiry
before the Master whether that had been for the bene-
fit of the remainder now and tenant for life, and whe-
ther a decree should be made accordingly. With re-
ference to the statement that this was done in order
that the wife might obtain a security by way of mort-
gage, he: did not mean to say that there might not be
cases in which that would affect the tenant for life.
It was possible ; but in some cases the Court might be
induced to make some such decree as was here
asked. In the case of a real estate devised in a strict
settlement the Court might think it right to preserve
the estate already existing rather than to lay out the
whole on other lands, without any attempt to preserve
the existing estate ; but in the case of a tenant for life
laying out money for the improvement of the estate,
he had never heard of the Court creating a charge
upon the reversion in order to reimburse him for
what he had expended. He must make the common
decree.

MALLALIEU V. MILLER.
In this case his HONOUR directed the issue to be
tried in the Court of Queen's Bench.

WELCH V. WELCH.
The plaintiff in this case gave his estate to four
persons, on trust, for his wife, and after her death for
the benefit of any child, or children, who might still
be living, with a gift over in case his children should
die under twenty-one. He died, leaving one child
only, the plaintiff in the cause. The mother had mar-
ried again. There had been a difference among the
trustees with regard to the management of the devised
estate, and three of the trustees had given notice that
no money should be paid to the fourth. The bill was
filed to have a receiver appointed. The decree sought
by the present application was a decree for an in-
quiry as to what children of Christopher Welch, the
testator, were living, to have an account taken, a
declaration of the right of the several parties to the
suit, and for the Master to approve of a proper settle-
ment.—llecree accordingly.