The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-19 00:00:00

SKEGGS V. SKEGGS.

This was a petition on the part of Thomas Watson Skeggs,
praying that a sum of 2,6501., to which he had become en-
titled during his minority, should be paid to him, after de-
ducting the costs of Court, he being now of age. It further
pra3ed, that the receiver should be discharged from all
further liability.
His LORDSHIP—You may take an order for the payment of
the money, but I can grain no order respecting the receiver
till the balance has been paid.

VIOE-CHANCELLURS' COURT, 11/ov. 18.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
SMITH V. WARDE.

The further arguments in this part-heard case occupied his
Honour the whole morning.
At the conclusion of the arguments,
His HONOUR, without calling upon Mr. Bethell to reply,
gave judgment. He considered that if he decided in favour
of what had been called the claim of the infant, the present
Sir Lionel Smith, he should be doing great injustice, because
he never could think that it was the intention of the late Sir
Lionel Smith to give the 12,000/. to the present Sir Lionel
alone. The correspondence had been much relied on
as showing what the intentions of the late Sir
Lionel were. Now as to that the Court had been struck
with the looseness of the expressions in the letters. If the
present Sir Lionel had a claim to the whole sum of 12,0001.,
it ought to be clearly defined at any time, but no one could
say that that clear definition could be made from the letters.
On the whole his Honour was clearly of opinion that the
12,000/. remained part of the estate of the late Sir Lionel
Smith, aNd that therefore it came under the operation of the
re.,iduary clause.
The effect of this judgment will be, that the 12,0001. will
be divided among all the children of Sir Lionel Smith, in-
stead of going to the present Sir Lionel alone.
_ (Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
BENSoN V. HEATMORNE.—SAME V. EDWARDS.

This suit, brought against the directors of the Bahia Steam
Navigation: Company by the plaintiffs, themselves directors,
came on for further hearing to-day.
The arguments having been concluded,
His HONOUit said that Mr. Heathorne had been declared
liable to an interest of five per cent., and the liability of his
estate to brokerage had also been declared. The first ques-
tion was as to the liability of the directors for the sum that
ought not to have been paid by the Company, tor the vessel
" Nieumaha ;" it does not effect Mr. Farmer, but the other
directors are involved. His I fonour thought that although
strict investigation might have brought to light more defi-
nite details or the transaction in regard to that vessel, the
Court could not impute any ill intention on the part
of those directors, and therefore did not charge them with
that amouet. On the next point the question of
commission on brokerage. As the report has found
consent and privity, on the part of these directors, the Court
orders that each be made liable to such sum as their consent
and privity have subjected them to, but this without preju-
dice to their coming in, if they wish, on the bankruptcy of
Mr. Heatherne. As to interest, his Honour thought the
case was not one to be subjected- to five per cent., and ordered
four per cent., which shall not terminate with the time
of the fiat. As fur the discount, there was less diligence
and care over the transactions than there ought to have
been, but, considering the absence of any.unfair intention on
the part of the directors, his Honour thought the Court was
not dealing more leniently with them than it ought under
the circumstances in not making them liable for this amount.
His Honour allowed the plaintiffs their costs out of the estate,
and made the defendant Directors liable for the general costs
of the suit, excepting Mr. Farmer, who should be allowed his
costs, in as far as his case had no connexion with the" Nieu-
maha." The present directors are allowed their costs out of
the funds of the Company.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM. )

L,U4GFOND v. BRIGHTON AND HASTINGS RAILWAY.

Injunction was prayed by the plaintiff to restrain the Rail-
way Company from trespassing on his lauds.
Arguments will be heard on the motion on Thursday
morning.