Star.
London, England, 1828-07-26 00:00:00

1311'ER IA b PA R AIII4,NT.

MUSE OF LORDS, .luLy

'Pie Royal As:ent was given by Commis.ion to the Exchequer
(16,500.000) Bill, the National Debt 8111, the Mil!tary and
Nevi) Pensions Bill, the Welland Canal Bill, the Customs Bit, the
Pilotage Bill. the Abo,ition of Slavery Laws Consolidation Bill.
the Charitable Lands Bill, the Lunatics Estate Bill, the Criniiital
Justice (India) Bill, the New South Wales Bill, the Irish liatikeret
Composition Bill, the Promissory Notes (Ireland) Bill, the Butter
Trade in Ireland Bill, the Watching and Lighting Towns in Ire-
land Bill, the Deserted Children (Ireland) 11111, the Turnpike tto.th
Dill, the Hulyhtad Road Bill, and some I'nVate Bills.
The Lords Commissioners were the Lunn CHASCSGLOR, the
Earl of Suartesauar, and Lord Viscount Maxvis.t.s.
The Appropriation Bill, the Waleot Charity Estates Bill, and
two other Bills, were severally read a third time and passed.
31rStAGE 11,„0M flit CrIXI.W.S.
MR. PALLDUR. and other Members' Intinunced that the. Om-
inous had agreed to the Lords' Amendotent tit the Savings Banks
Act Amendment Bill.
Lord CA LT DOR PE presented Petitions from the Protestant
Dissenters and other Friends of d It I
Civil All_ Liberty of a
Parish in the County of Gloucester, from the Inhabitants of van
Parishes in Derby and liedtord. of the City of Rochester, the
Towns ol Chatibrin and Uxbridge, end the Female Inhabnhts of
Chipping Norton, for the Abolition of Slavery.
The House then Adjourned until londay at Oise o'CLocit.

CIIIIICIITON V. GRUIRSON.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment in this
case.. It was an appeal from a dtcisioli of the Court of
Session in Scotland, respe, tog the right of the deceased
James Crichton to dispose of his property as he had
done—namely, as follows: During his life-zime, he
settled part of his property on his wife. and added to
the instrument a clause, having the effect, "that as
tie &Torrent had ni:t- then dettrmined what fur-
tier distriloit on of his remaining proper y to make,
he reserved to himself the right .to d•t what he
pleased therewith." A subsequently-added •codicil
lett t .e property to be applied to such charitable put-
poses, and given to such of hit friends and relations,
as should be appalled by his awns, and agreed to
by a maj..rrty of Ins trustees; and in case of t ie death
of his is de, the trustees were atithi rued to dispose
of tl e property in the war they should think most
agreeable to t disponen.'s wishes, it living. The
first obj:ctinn raised was, that the last clause left no
lioritatom to the trustees, and was too generally caps essed
to be valid. His Lordship was, how evet, of a different
opinion, and thought that it should be coupled with the
former dispasttion—that is, such charitable purposes
and to such of his friends and relations as the trustees
might approve of.. The Court of Session had de-
cided that, according to the law of Scotland, the
deed was a valid one, and it was against that de-,
tision the present appeal came. It was. contended
by the appellant's Counsul, twat this decision would
go 10 give others the power to make the will of
a deceased person. This was not the case, because the
disponent had narrowed the selection against his widow
and the trust. es, as it pointed not particular objects and
particular individuals from whom they were to select.
The Noble and Learned Lord adverted to several sinni.
lar cases, that of " Mut ray v. Firming," decided so far
back as 1729, in which a similar point was raised and dt-
cided in the same mode as his Lot dshi o niiw recommend-
ed; and in the case of " Hill v. Hood," in which the late
LordGilford had laiddown a similar rule, after adverting
to all the former cases beating on the point, and deduced
loom them the principle that the law of Scotland did
not inter fete to prevent a person from dispoing of his
property as the deceased in this case had dime. It was
also said, that the trim relario-s " was too indefinite,'
and unit st be extended to mean all mankind, inasmuch
as all men were in some degree rad) other's relations.
Bat to the case of s, Murray and Fleming," to which
his Lordship had adverted, the terms of the disposition
were solo all my blood relations," and in that case no
objection to the validity of these terms was made.—
Under these circumstances, the law of Scotland gave
plainly this power of disposition. and he should there-
fore move their Lordships to confirm the judgment of
the Court -below.
The judgment was then lot malty confirmed, and the
appeal oisa.issed.

,
4
; ,-
~:1
!
i ,
I
I
_
. ...
:
I ',
1
•
,
1
il
,
,
~
, I
I! .
ti
,
i
i