The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-21 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Jan. 20.

(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
His HONOUR was occupied during the morning with
hearing some motions which possessed no interest.
The Court rose at a few minutes after 12 o'cicck.
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
DOWNER V. PARKINSON.

The bill in this part-heard cause was filed on behalf of
Mary, John, and Martha Bowmer, who were infants, by
their nearest friends, against Mrs. Parkinson and others,
devisees in trust of the testator's real and personal
estates, and against Mary Bowmer, the testator's widow
and her husband, who were appointed executors by the
testator's will. John Bowmer, one of the above-
mentioned infants, was the heir-at-law.
The bill prayed the usual accounts of the real and per-
sonal estate, and sought to charge the defendants, the
trustees, with wilful default, both as regarded the real
and personal estate. The testator, by his will, had de-
vised to Parkinson and others all his freehold and copy-
hold estates, chattels, &c., to be held by them on trust,
for the benefit of his wife, Mary I3owmer, during
her life, provided she remained unmarried, and took
care of, and maintained, his children ; and after her de-
cease, the property to be divided among his children as
she should direct by her will. In case his wife married
again, the testator directed that she should no longer
have any power over his property ; and if she died in-
testate, the trustees were to divide the property among
the children in equal shares. The will also contained a
power, for the benefit of the family, of sale or mortgage.
The testator (lied in 1832, and the will was proved by the
executors in March 1833. In January, 1836, the widow
married, and, consequently, her interest in the property
ceased. Immediately on her marriage, the stock on the
testator's farm was sold, and no steps had been taken by
the trustees according to the trust imposed on them in
the events that had happened. The widow and her
husband had been permitted to continue in possession
of the property and were so permitted, as the bill
charged, only because the trustees did not take upon
themselves the duties imposed on them ; neither had
any accounts whatever been required by them from the
widow of the real and personal estates from the testa-
tor's death to the present time. It was also set forth
in the bill that there was abundant property
for all the purposes of the will, without any
sale or mortgage ; that the trustees had neglected to
enter into possession; and that there wero various sums,
and a legacy of 6001., payable to the testator's estate,
which they had neglected to get in. According to the
plaintiffs' Counsel, the answer put in by the trustees
amounted to this,—that they had done nothing at all in
the matter of the trust. The present application was
fora special inquiry, reserving the question of default.

His -HONOUR thought that he should direct an inquiry
as to the circumstances under which no account had been
sought from the widow respecting the legacy and
estates ; and that, as the heir-at-law was an infant,
an interrogatory should be exhibited to prove the will,
and if the Master should find the will proved, he should
proceed with the ordinary administrative accounts, that
an inquiry shoidd be made by whom the children were
maintained since the testator's death, as well before as
after the marriage of the widow, and that the Master
should appoint a guardian in the usual way.
Mr. SPENCE, who appeared for the plaintiffs, sug-
gested that in addition to the common accounts, there
should be an inquiry as to who was in possession of the
testator's real and personal estates from the time of
his death to the present, and under what cir-
cumatance' and whether any • part of the pro-
perty had been let out, and by and to whom. With re-
spect to the personal estate, that the Master should in-
quire and report whether there was any portion of it out-
standing, why it had not been got in, and whether any
proceedings had been taken for the purpose of getting
it in.

Mr. BOTELER, who appeared for the trustees, and Mr.
FOLLETT for the widow and her husband, having ad
mitted the plaintiffs' right to a decree to the above
effect,

His HONOUR accordingly directed a reference to the
Master on those points.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAIVI.)
No case of any public interest came before the Court.