The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-21 00:00:00

VIDE-CHANCERY.-('PHIS DAY.)

The Vice-Chancellor of England took m tions to-day, it
being the second seal, but no case of any interest, except t. the
parties concerned, came before his Honour during the morning.
(Before Vice-Chancellor 13nucE.)
BU URI OCR V. ROW.

His HONOUR said, 1 hare read the .petition in this case, and
I apprehend that it,does not seek to affect the bond fund ; it is
the policy of insurance fund. The increase of the policy of in-
surance fund is payable to this lady for her life, and in the ori-
ginal settlement the trustees were to pay it in the same manner
as the other fund. The other fund was for the whole of her
life, but independently of the then husband only. Therefore
it may be a question at least whether that singular deed, the
second one, could have any operation in this particular.
Mr. Srmnustsorr—ln reading over the petition it struck
me that that singular deed was of no avail whatever—that she
had no power at all during the coverture.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR.—Otherwise the suit would be
wrongly framed from the beginning. This does not seek to
I:f:inch the bond fund.

Mr. SDIPKINSON.—GnIy the insurance fund.
His HONOUR (after reading part of the petition) said—Then
upon this application the arrears of dividends upon this fund
w ill be paid or transferred to her, and the dividends for the
future paid upon her separate receipts until further order. The
decree will be dated as of to-day. You must totally discard
the language of the prayer of the petition in the language of
the order. •

(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
SUTTON V. TORRE.

His HONOUR gave judgment in this case. The question to
be decided was the construction of the residuary clause of the
will, so far as it related to that part of the testator's estate which
was given to his daughter, Lady Harriet Manners Sutton, now
Lady Harriet Everton. There was no dispute as to the parties
mentioned by initials. Now taking tkc bequest alone, it was a
bequest " To my daughter H. B. M. S., and her younger chil-
dren of the one part." What was the construction of those
words taken simp'y hy themselves? If there were a be-
quest of personality to a number of persons, named
A, B, C, and D, and nothing more, there would be no doubt
that those persons would take as joint tenants. So also, if there
were a class of persons described as children and grandchildren,
or if, instead of being a simple bequest, a stranger were added,
no doubt they would take as joint tenants. Ihe question was,
whether, if the person who was not of the class expressed to be
a parent, and there was nothing more in the will, the con-
struction would still be the same as regarded the joint tenancy.
The cases fully warranted him in holding that it would. It
had been stated at the bar that the Vice-Chancellor had made
an adverse decision, and if that were so, lie should
scarcely have felf himself justified in departing from it ; for
there was no Judge whose opinion he respected more highly
on such a question. He had since had an opportunity, how-
ever, of consulting him on the subject, and the Vice-Chancellor
said that, so from entertaining any doubt as to what in the ab-
stract the construction would be, in a case which was heard be-
fore him, he had held that a child not born at the time of the death
of the testator, but who was living at the time of the death of a
tenant for life, took solely, all the other children having died
in the interim, thus affirming tLe principle of a joint tenancy. to
the utmost extent that it could be followed. The question
was then, whether there was anything in this case to vary the
construction of the will. Now, in the case of Lady Louisa
Cater it appeared that the bequest was to her for life, with re-
mainder to her children ; in the codicil it was given to Lady L.
C. and her children for their sole use and benefit; and, in the
subsequentbequest of the share of the residue to Lady L. Cator
and her children, it was given to her, &c. Whereas in the case
of Lady Manners Harriett. Sutton, it was not given in any way
to her sole use; it was given to her, and not to all her children,
as in the case of Lady Louisa Cator, but to her and her younger
children, and then he afterwards gave over the share which had
been given to his brothers and sisters ; it was given to
her and 'her younger children, repeating the same
words. In this case, therefore, he had nothing whatever to
'justify him in departing from the literal construction of the
words, excepting the circumstance that in another case, where
the bequest materially differed from this, the Court had held
that the construction should be different. That was not the
case of the same legacy, but the case of its being given to an-
other child. The declaration which he must make wds, that
they were entitled as joint tenants ; and, it being alleged that
some act had been done whereby the joint tenancy had been
severed, he referred it to the Master to inquire whether any such
act had been done.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
Sittings at Nisi Prins at Guildhall, before Mr. Justice
,COLERIDGE and a London Common Jury.)
UNDERWOOD U. KING.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a livery stable.
keeper, to recover the value of a horse which had been hired
of plaintiff by the defendant, and which .had bean killed in
consequence of defendant's negligence.
It. appeared from the evidence that the defendant had hired
a horse and gig of the plaintiff for the purpose of going to
Croydon. The plaintiff's foreman brought the horse and gig
to the Green Dragon in Bishopsgate-street, where the defendant
was residing, and defendant then told plaintiff's foreman that he
should return from Croydon the same evening. It appeared that he
arrived at Croydon the same day, accompanied by a lady.
They remained at Croydon that night, and the next day left at
twelve in the gig, and returned at seven o'clock, having in the
interval driven to East Grinstead and back, a distance of forty
miles. On his return the ostler at the inn at Croydon observed
thit the horse went lame, and on examination discovered that
he had lost a ahne, and his hoof on the fore part had been worn
down to the quick. The ostler informed the defendant of the
state in which the horse was, and defendant ordered a shoe to
be put on. This was done the next merning, and defendant
set off to drive to London, the horse going very lame, on
three legs only. Instead of returning to London, how-
ever; defendant drove to Richmond, and on his arrival
there the appearance of the horse excited considerable
attention ; he was examined, and it appeared that his leg was
broken. The defendant at first denied that this was the case,
but on examination it appeared that such was the fact, and
ultimately the horse was shot. Plaintiff offered to enter into
an arrangement with the defendant, and to accept of 151. to
avoid litigation. The defendant refused to enter into any
arrangement, and this action was brought to recover 251., the
value of the horse.
For the defence it was contended that the hiring was not as
stated for one day, but for an indefinite period, and that the
value of the horse was considerably less than the sum sought to
be recovered.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 251.

COMMON PLEAS.--(THIS DAY

----- V. LAWSON.

This was an action on the case against the Times newspaper,
to recover remuneration and compensation for the publication
of extracts in that journal from a pamphlet written by the
plaintiff, an exile, and late Captain in the Polish army, and en-
titled the " Eastern Question--Can it be satisfactorily settled?"
It appeared that the plaintiff, in October, 1840, procured a
friend to submit to Mr. Barnes, the late editor of the Times,
for his approbation, a manuscript bearing the above title, of
which Mr. Barnes expressed a most favourable opinion,
suggesting, however, that the most convenient way
to make use of it in the Times, was in the shape of a review.
He proposed, therefore, that the plaintiff should get a bookseller
to publish it in the form of a pamphlet, and promised that if
that were done and a copy supplied to the Times, before any
other paper, he would write a favourable notice ; and, at the
same time, he requested to know what remuneration the plain-
tiff would expect? To the latter inquiry, the defendant wrote
to say that he would accept any remuneration
which Mr. Barnes would consider adequate. The letter
of Mr. Barnes being shown to Mr. Ridgway, he
unhesitatingly undertook the publication, not so much
las he had this day stated in court) becaus# ha excted
' favourable report in the Times, for he eonsidVred the sale of
a