Star.
London, England, 1816-11-21 00:00:00

that the devisee could not be meant in both ; and That
therefore Thomas Brailsford the elder, though he
could not claim as • a devisee, should not be cut off
from his rights us heir at law., •' ' -
Sir S. !Instil-Ll', for the devisee; Thomas Brails
(mil, son of Samuel Brailslord, the nephew of the
testator, contended that as no oitt.r—Phonias Brails-
ford was mentioned: before the clause on whiek the 1,
question arose, but his cl:ent, the. words 44 the said"
did not slink of the least ambiguity. It was no pre-
sumption against his being the Fetsun meant to enjoy
the testator's estates in fee, that they had formerly
been devised to him fur a life interest. It was plain
the will was not drawn up with much knowledge of
14w or much technical precision. It was not allow.
able to raise a latent ambiguity by striking out words
out of a legal Instrument, and then to allay that am-
biguity either by a conjectural construction cf the
other parts of the deed, or by the admission of parole
evidence.
Mr. I.leu. followed on the same side. _ _ _

The Luan CHANCELLOR said, whatever might be
his' wishes ur his opinions as Sus individual, he was
obliged to adhere to the natural and legal construe.
non of the instrument before him, if it involved no
impoWbility or absurdity. His Lordship went over
the will, commented on the different parts of it con-
nected with the present suit, and concluded by affirm-
ing the judgment of the Master of the Rolls.

IiETMOUR SI. EUSTON. •
This was like Wise an appeal Case from the Rolls.
Sir A. PIGOT stated, that the appellant was George
Fradeis Seymour, the eldest son of the late Lord',
Hugh Seymour, who claimed a right by a codicil to
his lather's will to 2-7thri•of the property disposed of
by that instrument. Lord Hugh Seymour left six
children. The whole of his property was converted
into personal estate, or left to trustees to be so con-
verted. One of these trustees was Lord Euston.—
The Master of the Roils was of opinion that the
plaintiff was entitled to Whits of some of his father's
personal property, but only to I.6th of the rest ; and
Born this judgment the appeal was made. The will
of Lord Hugh Seymour was drawn up in 1793. By
it he directs, that his real property, consisting of an
estate in Hampshire, dec. should be sold by his trus-
tees, and the proceeds vested in the funds or oilier
,securities, for the benefit of his family. The divi-
dends and interests of these funds were to be applied
for paying 41,200 a-year to Lady Horatio Seymour
Conway, his widow, for the maintenance and educe
tion of his children. The principal was directed to
be equally divided among the children, the sons re-
ceiving their shares when they obtained the years of
majority, and the daughters, either at that period,
or upon their marriage, if their marriage should be
approved of by the trustees. It was allowed that
this will made an equal distribution of the testator's
property among all his children ; and the claim of
the present plaintiff was founded only on a codicil,
*at lie contended had the effect of altering the pre.
vious disposal of it. This codicil was dated April,
1797, and recited, that the te'tatnr being, at the
time he wrote it, ignorant of -the extent of provis;on
made for Lady Horatio in her marriage-settlement,
and not recellecting the provisions of the will of 1793,
had ocly to state his present wishes, which he be-
lieved ccnsonant with his former will, that Lady
Hosatio should enjoy, .after his decease, 41,200 a-

_
year, that she should use at much as she might re-
quire of his furniture, plate, linen, and wine (ot I
which there was a great quantity), and that the re.
mainder should be sold for the benefit of his children;
which, together With the prize-money that fortune
might entitle him to, should be divided into seven
shares; two of which should be given to his eldest
-son George, end his other children their proper shares
of his small property when they came of age. The
question was here, did the cOdicil‘dfvise to the eldest
I son only 2-7tlis of the money accruing from the sale
of the wine, linen, and plate, with the contingent
prize-money, or 2-7ths of all the testator's property?
Did the word •• which" refer merely to •the residue
of the purchase-money, plate, &c. or to the whole
what the testator afterwards calls his 41 small pro-
perty ;" Would the testator. in wishing tn disrin-
gnish his eldest son, as he evidently did. from the
rest of his family, have left him so small an addi-
tional testimony of his favour ? . The sale of pro-
peity, which might be exhausted by his widow, and
the proceeds of contingent prises, which might never
be realized, was not likely to be the only fund out of
which the eldest sou was to have his augmented share.
The testator afterwards, in 1798, made another co-
dicil to his will, which added sB2OO to his widow'S
jointure ; but 'did not alter the provisions in his for-
mer deeds. It was contended, on the minx side, that
this codicil referred to the will, and took no notice of
the codicil of 1797 ; but was not a matter of any
consequence. as it left matters as they previously
I stood.

Mr. Liam followed on the same side, and ad-
vanced some very ingenious arguments for the appel-
lant ; but as the Court rose earlier than usual, the
pleadings on the otlutr side were postponed.

IRELAND—In consequence of the murder of Lynrh
and his family, a Meeting was lately held at Castle.
bellinghana, at which 21 Magistrates were present,
when it was unanimously resolved to memorial the
Loan LISIITZNANT of IRO AND to proclaim the Ba.
ronies et Ardee, Loath, and Upper and Lower Dun-
dalk. A reward of 4400 is to be paid to the par-
son who shall give the first information that shall
I lead to detection and conviction of the persons con.
cerned in the above atrocious murder. To each of
the next four persons who shall give information, a
reward of 0200. To every other. person who shall
next give information 450 ; and 025 to each person
who shall give private information. resides the
above, the Police Magistrates of Dublin have of.
fered a reward of 450 for a similar purpose.
PROMENTIAL &SAM —On Wednesday, the 6th
iastant, the Post Boy, bye packet, Captain MAGEE, '
on her voyage to Carnarvon, with passengers, was
lost on the bar of Carnarvon. She had sailed from
Dublin on Tuesday morning, having on board the
family of the Rev. C. Balmoroan, &c. On the night
of Wednesday, through the ignorance or obstinacy
of the pilot, attempting to pass the bar at an im.
roper time,of tide, she unfortunately:truck, and
instantly wentedowns The passengers had fortunately
quitted'hur id the boat abut a quarter .of an hour
befouls-au! faiglapatiodirsereedlp thou to save the
istimaretr.
•-a _0 .r.°. •V` •

•. .

.4.- •'"

••. • •