The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-18 00:00:00

SMITII W. NVARDE

This case came before the Court upon further directions
'and costs. The bill was filed by two of the infant daughters
of the late Sir Lionel Smith, Governor of the Mauritius,
against Mrs. Warde, a married daughter of the late Sir
Lionel Smith, the present Sir Lionel Smith, his son,
and two relatives of the family, named Pottinger,
who were appointed guardians of the children, and
also Sir Henry Pottinger. By the statements in
the bill it appeared that Sir Lionel Smith died in the Mau-
ritius in 1842, and his lady expired three days after him.
Mrs. Warde, one of the defendants, married a clergyman
belonging to the Government at the Mauritius, and under
the care of Mrs. Warde and her husband the other children
of Sir Lionel were brought to this country. Sir Lionel,
after giving to his wife and children certain sums, directed
the residue to be divided among them equally. Under these
circumstances the principal question for the judgment of the
Court was what were the rights of the infant plaintiffs in
respect of the investment of 12,0001. 314 per Cent.—whether
Sir Lionel took that amount absolute, or whether it formed
part of the residuary estate of the testator.
The case appears likely to occupy some days, the principal
gentlemen of the bar being engaged in it.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
RAWLINGS V. MOSS.

The defendant again came into Court on exceptions to the
Master's report. All now in dispute was certain professional
charges made by Mr. Moss, who was also a trustee on the es-
tee. The arguments on this subject occupied the attention
of the Court throughout the day, but are entirely void of any
general interest•.
His HONOUR said, as to allowing the professional charges
incurred by the plaintiffs before Mr. Moss became trustee he
had little reason to hesitate, but take other items of costs
and claims, though they were in such a state of confusion
that he could hardly hope to arrive at a conclusion on them,
lie would again give his consideration.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 17.
(Sittings in Banco.)

JONES V. CARTER.

DERBY LorrEmEs.—Counsel moved for a rule for a new
trial on the ground of misdirection. The facts of the case
were to this effect :—A person named James had subscribed
53. to what is called a Derby Lottery, held in a house in the
Haymarket, which subscription was entered in the name of
Lord Collingwood. The lottery proposed to pay 20/. for the
first horse, and 81. for the seeond. The ticket taken by
James he transferred to the plaintiff Jones, who sued for the
8/. In that action the jury found for the defendant, on the
ground that the contract was made by James and not Jones,
and that therefore the defendant had not been aware that he
had made any contract with the plaintiff. After a long
argument, the Court said it would defer judgment.

DOE, IN DEMISE OF COX, V. AUSTIN.
This case was tried before Mr. Justice Mattison, and a mo-
tion for a new trial was now made, on the ground of misdi-
rection to the jury. The facts of the case were these :—Cox
held certain premises from the governors of a foundling hos-
pital, and there were certain covenants in the lease, a breach
of any of which would destroy the lease. Cox let the pre-
mises to another tenant, who converted the premises into a
beer-shop, whereupon the Foundling Hospital trustees
brought an ejectment against Cox. Counsel contended that
them was a waiver of the covenant by Cox, inasmuch as
that the premises had been converted into a shop, and so
used for fifteen years, and therefore he could not bring an
ejectment against the under tenant.—Rule refused.