Star.
London, England, 1830-07-27 00:00:00

~AU' REPORTS.

I it: COURT OF CHANCF:RV, 3171. Y -2(1.
Ihi AIroRNEY-GENF.RAI... the SOLICITOR-GENERAL, and
Air Tss ::ttetaled the Lottl CHANCELLOR iu his private room
hefore the sitting of the Court, to takc the oaths as King's Counsel.
is I .0,11:1,:ltTrt CANAL t °MEANT V. LORD MANVEHS AND
OTHERS.
is I,..nrisitt r duetted two issues in this case, the particulars of
which have been stated r the first to try whether the works proposed
by the attendants, consisting of a floating boom and fender-piles, at
the mouth of the warping drain, would have the effect of removing
the obstruction to the navigation, which it had been the object of
the injunction to prevent ; and secondly, whether, if they were not
sufficient for that purpose, the use of the other expedient, consisting
of a rope fastened to a pile on the bank, would be effectual.
Mr. SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he hoped the plaintiffs would
riot inieist upon this as a preliminary step; but that they would
permit the effect of the new works to be tried, and if they should be
fue.:4l sufficient, that they would be content with them.
His Lordship said he had before suggested the propriety of this
lueasurt, and as a security, the defendants might deposit a suffi-
dent sum to indemnify the plaintiff's against any injury that
could possibly be occasioned by the use of the warping drain. If
this, however, did not meet the views of the parties, the issues must
he tried.
The parties did not come to an understanding on this point, and
the order was therefore made.
LEAR V. LEGGITT.
This appeal was heard, the question being whether a legacy
hieh had been given with a declaration that the bequest should be
mid if the legatee aliened it, had been forfeited on his becoming
bankrupt; and whether his assignees, or the parties to whom it was
4iveo over by the will, were entitled to it ? The Vice-Chancellor
had decided that the alienation by means of the bankruptcy, not
having been by the act of the legatee, but by the operation of law,
the legacy was not forfeited.
Mr. HonsE and Mr. KNIGHT were in support of the appeal.
Mr. SOLICITOR-GENERAL and Mr. VrIGRAX supported the
original decision.
Mr. WooD appeared for the trustees under the will.
His lonosuir deckled that the operation of the bankruptcy,
by which the assignees had become entitled to the legacy, was not
-uch an alienation as had been contemplated by the provision of the
w ill, and that therefore the legacy was not forfeited. He therefore
,linnisscd the appeal with coots.
RIVER WEV NAVIGATION.
Mr. PEPYS moved to dissolve the injunction granted in this case,
to restrain the owners of mills upon the stream from drawing off
water from the river. The affidavits on the part of his client stated,
that they had made no encroachments and that they had only exer-
cised the right which they and their predecessors had enjoyed as long
as the river had been navigable. They were entitled to certain small
payments from boats passing up and clown the river, by way of re-
muneration for the trouble occasioned by their penning the waters
of their respective dams, so as to afford a water-way for the passage
of crafts. This they stated they were willing to continue to do on
having the same payments made to them which they had been me-
discerned to receive.
Mr. RUSSELL was heard on the same side in support of the right
contended for by the millers.
Mr. SOLICITOR.GENERAL and Mr. WooD, on the othes side,
insisted that, under the act of Parliament, the passage of the river
ought at all times to be free, and that the millers had no right to the
tell levied by them.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, after hearing the matter discussed at
great length, was of opinion that the demand made by the owners of
the mills was lawful and reasonable, and lie therefore directed the
injunction to be dissolved, the millers undertaking to pen up the
waters so as to preserve the navigation on receiving the customary
payments.