The Sun.
London, England, 1842-11-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY. Nov. 4.
M4IIADDEN V. JENKINS.-JUDGMENT..

The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment this morn-
ing in this case, which was argued some time since.
The case came before the Court upon appeal from the
decision of the Vice-Chancellor Wigram, upon a
motion for an injunction to stay proceedings at law.
The facts stated in support of the application were,
that the testator in the cause, Thomas Warry, lent a
sum of 500/. to the defendant Jenkins to be returned
by him in a short time. Sometime afterwards
Thomas Warry sent a verbal direction to Jenkins
to hold the 5001. in trust for Mrs. Warry ; this Mr.
Jenkins did, and the question was, whether under
those circumstances the transaction was binding on
the estate of Warry, the executors having brought an
action against Jenkins for the recovery of the money
lent, and it being obvious that the question could not
be settled in a Court of Law, the bill was filed in
this Court, and the injunction granted. Those points
were disposed of by Vice-Chancellor Wigram which
were free from doubt, and which were not contested
in this, namely, that a declaration by parole
was sufficient to create a trust of personal pro-
perty of the testator. Thomas Warry had in his
lifetime declared himself a trustee of the debt for the
plaintiff; that, in equity, would perfect the gift to the
plaintiff against Thomas \\Tarry and his estate. The
distinctions on this subject were refined, but there
was no difference between such a case and the present.
The testator, by directing Jenkins to hold the money
in trust for a certain purpose, impressed a trust upon
it which was complete and irrevocable ; the trans-
action bore no resemblance to an agreement to assign,

it was a clear trust, and the aid of the Court was not
necessary to complete it. Such being his Lordship's
opinion, and corresponding as it did with the opinion
of the Vice-Chancellor Wigram, he could not do
otherwise than dismiss the appeal. In doing this, he
must be understood as not pronouncing any conclusive
opinion on the facts of the case ; it would be difficult
to say what would be the result on the hearing of the
cause, but as the appeal seemed to have been brought
at the suggestion of the Court below, it must be dis-
missed without costs.

IN THE MATTER OF SUISSE.-THE LATE MARQUIS OP

HERTFORD.

Mr. SUTTON SHARPE said the Court would recol-
lect that sometime before the long vacation a motion
was made in the matter of Suisse, the valet of the
late Marquis of Hertford, and that motion was or-
dered to stand over until after Suisse had been tried
at the Central Criminal Court. That trial had taken
place, and he had now to apply to the Court to ap-
point an early day for renewing the motion.
Mr. FOLLETT, who appeared for the executors of
the late Marquis of Hertford, was instructed to ask
for time to answer an affidavit made by Suisse.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—We will take it on
Thursday week, as that will be motion day.

IN THE MATTER OF SIR GREGORY PAGE TURNER,
A LUNATIC.

The remainder of the day was occupied with hear-
ing the arguments in this case, which came before
the Court upon the petition of Mrs. Friar, the only
daughter of the lunatic, praying that she might be
allowed the sum of 2001. a year out of the lunatic's
estate. From the statement of the Learned Counsel
on behalf of the petitioner, it appeared:that there was
an annual surplus, after paying the allowance to the
lunatic and his lady, of upwards of 3,0001.; that the debts
of the lunatic at the present time amounted to 11,000/. ;
and that there was upwards of 12,0001., in cash and
Consols, in Court, and under such circumstances the
petitioner who, previously- to her marriage, had re-
ceived 2001. a year, but which had been discontinued
since, prayed it might be again paid to her.
Mr. Teed and Mr. Wilcock, who appeared for the
petitioner, addressed the Court at considerable length
in her behalf.
Mr. Stuart and Mr. Bethell appeared for the com-
mittee and the creditors, to oppose the petition.
The LORD CHANCELLOR declined to make any
order on the petition until the marriage settlement of
Mr. and Mrs. Friar was executed.

ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 4.
BARWELL V. BARWELL.
This was an application on behalf of Edward Bar-
well, the plaintiff, for an injunction to restrain the de-
fendant, Mary Barwell, the widow of the plaintiff's
brother, from proceeding in an action at law com-
menced by her against the plaintiff for 2001., the
amount of a promissory note passed to her husband
by the plaintiff.
Mr. TURNER, who appeared for the plaintiff, entered
into a detailed statement of various money transac-
tions between the parties, who were greengrocers ;
and on the grounds upon which he rested the applica-
tion, but they were by no means of an interesting
nature.
His LORDSFIIE saw no just grounds for the motion,
and accordingly refused the order.

THE LONDON CAOUTCHOUC COMPANY V. CARPENTER

In this cause, which has been frequently before the
Court, the present application was on behalf of the
plaintiffs for an injunction to restrain the defendant.
Samuel Carpenter, of Birmingham, from manufactur-
ing, using, &c., the plaintiff's invention in India-
rubber, webb, braces, &c.
His LORDSHIP granted the order.