Star.
London, England, 1809-11-18 00:00:00

L4U' INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, NOV. IT.
•
DODS V. tIPSTONE.
This came on in the form of an exception to a
Master's Report, under the following circumstances :
A Mr. Dods was possessed of certain leasehold pro-
perty, consisting principally of a well-frequented pub-
lic house in Wapping; and upon marrying the pre-
sent plaintiff a deed was entered into, by which, in
case of his death, his wife was to enjoy this property.
Two pirsons of the names of Upstone and Bates
were appointed trustees under this deed ; but Up-
stone alone agreed to act as trustee, and he being the
attorney who drew it up, the deed was placed in his
possession. Some time after Dods, the husband, got
the deed from Upstone, with the view, as he said, of
getting it signed by Bates, the other appointed trus-
tee ; instead of which, however, he destroyed it, and
sold the property without the knowledge of his wife,
who had a contingent interest in it. Soon after
Dods became a bankrupt, and his wife, the plaintiff,
being deprived of the means of support, filed her bill
against Upstone, the trustee under her marriage set- I
dement. The cause came on before the Master of
the Rolls, who ordered a master to take an account
of the value of the property secured to her at mar-
riage, and that Upstone should be liable for the value
of her contingent interest in the same, during the life
of her husband. The Master found the value ot this
property to .be between 7 and £800; and Mr. Mor-
gan, the actuary, estimated her contingent interest in
the 'same at £340, she being ten years younger than
her husband, and of a lively disposition, &c. This
then became the sum, which, by the decision of the
Court, the. ,defendant, the trustee, was bound to
pay. But before the proceedings were out of Court,
Dods, the hattand, died, and his widow, the plaintiff,
filed her bill, laying claim to the whole. The Mas-
ter of the Rolls decreed, that she should rece ve the
value of the property, beyond what she was already
entitled to, as her contingent right, and appointed a
Master to enquire what this additional value was,
and the Master found it to amount to 400 and odd
pounds, making in all about 8760, which Upstone
was to pay. Upon an appeal from the detree of the
Master of the Rolls, it was confirmed by the Lord
Chancellor.
Mr. HART now excepted to the Mastet's report, on
the ground that Mrs. Dods was only entitled to the
se34o which the Court had assigned to her as her con-
tingent interest. Had she died immediately after be-
ing decreed this sum, her representative would have
been entitled to it, and nothing more.
Sir S. ROMILLY contended that his Learned Friend
had not brought forward an exception to the Master's
report, but was, in fact, urging the rehearing of a
CAUSE already decided, and which could only be tried
again in the House of Lords. It was true, that in
the exception, the additional sum she was said to be
entitled to, was only £6, and not £4OO and odd, but
this was supported by no proof, and was contradicted
by the report of the Master.
The LORD CHANCELLOR refused to sustain the ex-
ception, observing, that by the decree, the plaintiff
was entitled to all the addition,el value of the property,
and it was only referred to the Master to inquire what
that additional value was. He observed, that it was
sometimes difficult to see the grounds on which ac-
tuaries went in calculating contingent remainders.—
From this case they seemed to think that the liveli-
ness of a wife might sometimes be oppressive to her
husband.

TYTHES..-.4IYELY Vs FOWLER AND OTHERS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR intimated, that he had ap-
plied to Baron Thompson, to learn whether it was
the practice of the Court of Exchequer to allow the
consolidation of Tythe, and other causes relating to
the same matter, upon a motion of course before an-
seers were put in. The impression upon his own mind
had been that such was the practice, as stated by Sir
S. Romilly. But Baron Thompson had replied that
he had no notion that the consolidation of causes un-
der such circumstances could be pet mined as matters
of course, though this might be allowed upon special
reason stated.
Mr. HART argued, that the practice contended for
on the part of the defendants, who objected to the.
payment of their full tythes, was contrary to the rea-
son of the thing; for it was impossible to know, be-
fore answers put in, whether the defences would be
the same. Some might plead parish modus's, others
farm modus's, &c. and the 32 defendants might have
20 different defences.
Sir S. ROMILLY referred his Lordship to the case of
Fife v. Brocke, in Peere Williams's Reports, in favour
of the practice for which he contended.
The Loan CHANCELLOR said he would look at the
case, and apply again to Baron Thompson.
DALTON V. SIR J. INNSS KERR. •
Mr. HART, for the plaintiff stated, that a deed of
separation had been executed between Sir :fames In-
nes Kerr and his late wife, by which she had the right
of devising certain property by will, which she did to
the plaintiff, who filed his bill in the Rolls Court for
an account. The defendant, after taking all the time
which the Court would allow to put in his Answer,
filed a cross bill, alledging that the deed in question
was contrary to the instructions given to the person
who drew it, and offering to prove this. The origi-
nal cause was to be heard on Monday ; but Mr. Bell
had obtained, as a matter of course, an order to en-
large publication to the last day of term, that the de-
positions taken under the cross hill might be read by
way of defence to the original. Mr. Hart contended
that as the defendant had before takes advantage of
all the delay in the original cause to which he was en-
titled, he ought not to have had m,,re, without spe-
cial reason assigned ; and he therefore moved to dis-
charge the order.
Sir S. ROMILLY and Mr. BELL observed, that there
had been no unnecessary delay on the part of the de-
fendant, who bad used every diligence in bringing
forward the only defence he had, which was by cross
hill, and that it would be hard if he should be depri-
ved of that defence.
The CHANCELLOR said, that the question was, whe-
ther the delay should have been allowed of course ?
He had some doubt as to the practice in that respect,
, and would inquire into ir. In the mean time, he re-
: commended to Mr. Halt t) take the costs of this ap-
plication, and a peremptory undertaking, to try on the
, first day of the s►ttings after term, to which Mr. Hart
agreed.
•

C6tiltT OF krga'S Bttefis llovr

POST-lIORSE DCTY.—SERJEANT WHITP4
This was a qui tan: action, by which the Plaintiff
sought to recover certain penalties of 101. each fr, m
the Defendant, a Post-master, f not charging him-
self with the full duty on certain horses let out by him
for posting. One count in the information, to which
the others were similar, charged that the Defendant
did let fur a less period than 28 days, namely, fur
one day, from Bishopsgate-street to Romfor I. two
horses, fur posting, by which letting tl..ere became(
due to the Collectors fOr the Farmers of t' ie Post-horse
Tax; 65.; whereas, in his weekly ticket, the Defen-
dant set forth only the vim of 3s. 6d. as due by him
on this account, being, as the information char d,
less than the real duty. The Defendant had demurr
red, and the question came to be, if the 3s. 6 1. was
enough?
Mr. RICHARDSON now argued the case for the Da
fendant. By comparing the Acts of the 44th and
48th of the King, with the Act of the 25th ot' the
King, on this subject, he
.contended that an option
being given, in the list mentioned Act, of chare,ing
by the day, or by the mile, namely, by the day
Is. 9d. for each horse, or 1 id. per mile, the Post \fas-
ter was still entitled to avail him:Al:of that option.
Lord ELLE:4I;OI4OI7DH said, the construction put
upon -.he Acts by the Learned Counsel, was directly
in the teeth of the words of those Acts, beyond which
the Court had nothing to do. It was impossible, noder
these Acts, to convert a mile hiring into a day miring,
when the distance was ascertained, as it seemed to
have been in the present case. If there were defective
provisions in the Act, the Court could not supply
them against the clear wo: ds of the Statute.
Judgment was therefore entered for the Plaintiff.
By this judgment it is determined, that whenever
the distance or number of miles is ascertained, and
known, at the time of hiring the chaise, the ticket
must be a mile ticket, not a day ticket.
BLACKIT V. SMITH.
This was a question between the West-India Dock
Company and a merchant, upon the reasonableness
of the charges of the Company, in respect to whar-
fage, &c. on goods belonging to a ship in their docks,
while it remained there to load, preparatoi y to going
on an outward voyage. It being contended by the
mcrclu.nt, that the 6s. 80. per ton, which was paid
to the Company, was all they were entitled to, in
ulis case, and that they were not to charge any thing
for stores belonging to the ship, even although sho
should remain six months in these docks taking in hef
cargo for an outward-bound voyage. On the part of
the Company it was admitted, that they slnalil not
charge for stores, such as were immediately n...Lessary
for the ship, while she remained at the dock ; bat as
to those stores which she might want for use during
her voyage, and which were put on board the r dock,
they were entitled to charge the same as for at y other
goods, wares, and merchandizes.
The Court intimated a desire to know whether di.
parties wished to add to the case the fact as it stood
whether the claim of the merchant here ( xtended to
the whole of the stores which the ship might w..nt
the whole voyage, or was confined to that which the
ship might want in these docks. If the latter only.
the Court inclined to think that the Company LOUIS
not make any charge beyond the Gs. Bd. her ton ; Inn
if the former, they thought the merchant asked i.(ys
much, and therefore should pronounce judgment 7;.'sa
for the Company, with liberty to add to the case tne
fact, if it was so, that the merchant claimed only an
exemption for stores for the ship during her stay us
these docks.