Star.
London, England, 1825-06-03 00:00:00

.


LAW
VICR-CRANCILLOR'S COURT, JUNE 1.
COMMITTAL !Olt cowTRHPT CF COURT.
CIAOR V. HARRISON.
In this case an application was made .some dayrego,
for an order to commit the defendant, Mr. Harrison, to
the Fleet Prison, for disobeying the injunction of the
Court. The complaints Made against him, and forming
the ground of the application, were three: first, that he
had cut certain sewers ; secondly, that he had cut osiers ;
and thirdly, that he had permitted his cattle to injure
the plants of the plaintiff, all against the prohibition
of the Court.
On the whole of the evidence it did not appear, that
the defendant himself had cut them ; but it appeared
what had been cut out, had been taken away by his
sons and servants; and, therefore, it was to be inferred,
that it had been done by the defendant's order; conse-
quently, for the sake of example, though what he had
actually done was in itself of little importance, the
Court felt it absolutely necessary to make the order for
the committal of the defendant.

LOGAN V. TAMIL
His Honour gave judgment in this ease. He stated,
that a Mr. John Holme made his will in the year 1810
at Calcutta, by which he bequeathed the whole of his
property to be equally divided between his brother and
sister in this country, with a provision, that if his sister
was dead before she could become entitled to her moie• y,
her children should have it equally divided between
them. The testator appointed a Mr. David Clarke, in
the East Indies, to be his executor, and died in the year
1816. Mr. Clarke afterwards converted the whole of
the property into money, which amounted to 7,0001. and
remitted it to Fairlie and Co. as his agents here,
to be paid as the testator had directed.—Messrs.
Fairlie accordingly paid to testator's brother 3,5001.
but finding that Ellen Logan (the sister) had died
at Berwick-upon-Tweed, before the testator, leaving nine
infant children, they refused in any way to part with
the other 3,5001. except under the order of the Court.
A bill was then filed on behalf of the infants, praying
that the 3 COOL might be ordered to be paid into
Court, and then to be invested in the Accountant-
General's name, for the benefit of the children.—
All this was done, and upon the hearing of the cause,
the nine children were declared to be severally entitled
to a ninth part of the fund. The present application
was on the part of one of the children, who had now
attained her twenty-first year, that her ninth part might
be ordered to be paid out' to her, and the question was,
whether the legacy duty should be paid in this country
on her pant bf the legacy ? Strictly speaking, this ques-
tion was not cognisable by this Court, the Attorney-
General having the right to litigate that question in the
Court of Exchequer; the Court of Chancery, however,
could decide the question, but yet it would give the
Petitioner the option of going to the Court of Exchequer,
if she v ere dissatisfied with the opinion of this Court.
Mr. r/011111ITON interposed, and said, the amount was too small
to litizate the question further.
His lioNotrn then •said, if a testator die in India,
leaving the whole uf• his property then e, appointing an
executor there, with directions to remit the money to
legatees in this-country, and if such money was remitted
either to the legatees here, or to agents, to be paid to
them, the legacy duty in such a case is not payable;
but if part of the testator's esta e be found in England
without any specific appropriation of such part, then
that is to be considered as administered in this country,'
and the legacy duty must be paid on it. The latter
was the case here, in the opinion of the Court, because
the 3500/. had been remitted to this country to be paid
to Mrs. Logan, but Mrs. Loon's legacy had become
lapsed, and therefore that money formed a residuary
legacy to be administered in this country to other per-
. mons ; consequently the legacy duty -would have to be
paid upon it. It was to be observed, however, that this
suit had gone en all along irregularly, because no per-
sonal representative had been br ought before the Court,
but the objection was now too late to avail.