Star.
London, England, 1818-12-25 00:00:00

THZ EARL AND COUNTESS Of YARMOUTH V. SIR JAMES

MONTGOMERY AND OTHERS, EXECUTORS OF THE
LATE DUKE OF QUEENSBERRY.
Mr, HA... stated that this was a petition by the
touittless of Yarmouth, praying for an order of the
r Court, calling on the defendants to assign to Lord
Yarmouth certain chattel interests, bequeathed to Ur
by the will of the late Duke of Queensberry. The
principal object of this application was to be enabled
to put a valuable house and its premises, situate at
Richmond, in a state of repair, and to preserve them
from a decay which threatened to be ruinous. Lady
Yarmouth was one of the specific legatees under the
will of the Duke of Queensberry ; and the legacy our
thorised her to appoint trustees, by leaving blanks
for their names, to hold the estate to her sole and se-
parate use. The only difficulty he had in this appli-
cation arose from the circumstance of the blanks not
being yet filled up. The petition only stated that
her Ladyship wished to appoint Lord Yarmouth, as
the trustee, and prayed that the estate in question
might be assigned to him in that capacity. The
Lord Chancellor had already ordered a considerable
number of pecuniary legacies to be discharged, out
of the sum evidently forming a surplus above the
amount of legal claims, as far as those legal claims
were already adjudged.
Mr. TROWER, for the Executors, declared that they
had no other objection to the prayer of this petition
than that it might affect their own responsibility in
the event of the assets piciving in adequate to the pay-
ment of the debts. He did not know that it was,
but it might be the intention of the petitioners to sell
this estate. He hoped, therefore, that the order
would be drawn up in qualified terms, so as to give
full security to the Executors, in the discharge of
their office.—(Sir A.Piggott said, no intention to sell
existed.)
The VICE CHANCELLOR thought this almost a re-
proach on the past proceedings of the Court in di-
recting the payment of pecuniary legacies, to express
any apprehensions that the Executors might be preju-
diced by the order which was now applied for.—
Though it could not be granted till the present bill
should be amended in point of form, the substance
of the prayer appeared to him, especially after what
had been already done by the Lord Chancellor, to
be a matter of course. At the same time there could
be no, impropriety in drawing up the order for the
Executors to assign, in terms which would make the
legacy still subject to such claims as might exceed
the personal estate.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL U. THE DUCE OF MARL-
ROROUG:I.
His HONOUR, on Monday last, intimated his desire
that the discussion of this case, with reference to the
Act of Parliament, giving £5OOO a-year to the Duke
of Marlborough, should come on the first, after the
hearing of the cause petitions. Accordingly. the
Counsel for the Demurrer was heard at great length
this day.
Mr. BELL, in obedience to the wish of the Count,
had prepared to argue the question, as if the Act
just mentioned was contained• in the Bill, and was
taken in by the demurrer. He thoright the point
which the gentlemen opposed to him would have to II
contend for, was one of extreme difficulty. It could
not be denied, that the power of committing Waste
was incidental to ali estates in tail., This• was a sim-
ple principle, and it would be for them to thew, That
there was,something in 'the Act to do hammy. If it
was ineant that the Act did it by WO-cation, he de-

..... ~
sired that it could be io clotte The terms should be' a. 74, ihai the eciuiveeal Meaning iiiiinf
i
clear and unquestionable: He submitted, that if the part of an • Act was to be explained
Legislature did oat intend at the successive Dukes' the contordant sense of all the Acts
should be free from impeachment of Waste, and that i The last Aci, therefore, filled up whit
it was to be left to their own feelings to protect the ,to make apparint the sense of the i egit
estate against destruction, they would have dearly former Acts; and it was undeniably a ,
so expressed it in the Aci by limitations to that effect, elusion from the whole, that the House
or given it to a guardian, as they did in the base of as a third branch of the Legislature, gave
the bake of 'Wellington. They could never mean a year, to be applied to ilie support of
that the taste of those days impressed on the estate, and honour supposed to be contained i
should remain until the end of time. But if the ar family mansion, in order that there might -_
gument of the gentlemen opposite meant ,any thing, to all ages, iii which each branch contributed
it must have amounted to this, that the es to and its Blenheim; therefore, was a principal and ,•
ornaments should remain in the very same position ject annexed to the title, in order to be
it was placed in by theoriginal Duke of Marlborough, nument of the illustrious services perforMed
They might as well contend, that the Parliament of Dake of Marlborough. Was it not absurd,
Henry 111. could oblige the Barons of those days, fore, to say, that this Blenheim so annexed,
and their successors, to remain in their castles, with- so maintained, so long as the dignities •
out the power of altering them to this day. But it Act were to be en' d joye —so generally
was obvious, the Legislature in the time of Queea by the branches of the Legislature as
Anne, could not have meant so much in effect. No of a great national era; was it not
Duke of Marlborough, if that doctrine were good, that this Blenheim was intended by ,
could ever remove what was once placed as an orna- to be swept away from the face of the
meat on the estate, however obsolete it might have or at any other time? The Duke of '
become. So that when one part of the trees were so must be considered to have no power
Arranged as to describe the battle of Blenheim, and the house—no power to destroy that
`another part to describe describe
twelve signs of the zodiac, rily tended to the shelter or ornament G.
she had seen done, the Duke could have no power When the Court should have to execute
to touch these ornaments, however incongruous and the construction of this Pension Act, it
grotesqtle. no great difficulty before it. It would
The Vies Cnawestr.on sail, that the line of argu- encounter so much obsuaction as had
meat was addressed to a point which did not then in distinguishing between what was done
arise. The point of equitable waste was already dis- with the shelter and ornament of the fat
t ..- Supposing the successors of the Duke of and what was done tending to destroy
Marlbotttugh Were at liberty to makealterations, upon ever the Duke might hereafter commit
the view of the case under the circumstances of the the estate, it would be for those in remainder r.,
estate being subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, what was the nature of the waste committed,
it could interfere, and see whether such alterations the Court would not hesitate to interfere -
were consistent with the sheltering and ornamenting it from every equitable intrusion.
the family mansion of Blenheim, or whether they His HONOUR intimated to Mr. Bell,
tended to its destruction. , stood the Lord Chancellor would sit a
Mr. Bui.t argued, in substance, that taking each the Seal. He himself will not sit until ,
Act connected with the grants to the Marlborough COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DECEMBER
family separately, and examining them, he coupSLANDRR.--SROORS V. BRITT
I not find any such thing as an intention on the part The only case which was heard to-,
of the Legislature, to restrict the successors to this which was an action against the defendant,
estate, beyond the mere power of alienation. If they
did intend so, they would have expressed their inten-
. ing used words of the plaintiff, charging
Lion by words, or they would have made a guar-lan the. commission of an unnatural offence. The
to provide against waste, if they intended that the ration averred that he had said of him -
successors to the estate should be restricted from an a man better than a woman." To whit,
dant put on second the single plea of r
absolute dominion over it. There was an extreme
Mr. MA recur
stated, that his el:-
difficulty even in the principle contended for on the
.other side ; namely. that die power of enjoyment tiff, was a young man who had hitherto
was granted to the Dukes, without the power of alte- an unblemished fame in the world,
ration ; and this difficulty arose from the uncertainty lament the loss of every claim on society, .
of ascertaining where the ornaments ceased, and quence of the prejudice which this malicions
where the enjoyment began. But the Legislature im- had raised against him. He had lived '-
plied that the family was the best jut iat of what was of time, up to August last, in the defent
beneficial to its own character, and it would be most at Waltham Abbey, and worked in the
Mr. Peak, of that place, at his trade,
anxious in preserving it. He would beg to observe
that the whole of the Bill only applied to the timber, of a tin-plate-worker. Finding some
and could have no reference to the house. So that accommodations, he thought proper
if the injunction could prevail as to the house, the house. He met the defendant a few ..
at the Sun public-house, when some
demurrer would still be good as to the woods.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, though the Bill did cation having arose between them, he
not mention the house, yet• it was necessarily involved with having been guilty of a crime,
in the discussion, because the demurrer vindicated the which,. human nature 'revolts in horror.
general right to waste. His opinion on the subject In consequence of this, the plaintiff
of equitable wastealready delivereti, would not allow the service of Mr. Peak ;het as the _
him to give his sanction to destructive waste. It was mission of which, was one which armed
not the intention of the Legislature, that the obsolete against him, it eventually robbed him
taste of the days of Queen Anne should continue as his fame' and his aIL
impressed on this estate to the end of time. The' Matthew Bateman, the brother of i
Duke could make alterations on the, estate, provided implicated in the charge, bore testimon
they were consistent with the honour and dignity of der ased at the SUR public-house, in
the family. Then the question would be, if the Cut- This was not the first time the words ,
ting of the*imber was for the destruction of the this meeting was brought about by some
estate, or for the honour and dignity of the family. "tiffs friends, toelieit fromthe defenda
Mr. WRAY, for the demurrer, argued, that no re- having used them. Instead of that,
his first assertions.—(This witness was
ference could be made of a restriction, which, if it
detail of circumstances'so offensive air..
was meant to be laid, was too important not to be d
made the subject of an express clause. The first Act human nature, that the Court interfered,
did not give to the Duke the grant of the estates in get his examination might not be prolonged
than justice required.)
order to be made perpetual, to him for the support of
Witnesses were then examined on ,
his honour and dignities, for they were vested in him
defendant, tending, in a great measure,
in fee, and he could have sold them the next day
truth of the assertions he had made.
The second Act did not create any further restriction
The CHM Justice charged the '
upon him ; neither did the third, or the pension Act,
for that was merely a re-grant. The £5,000 a-year merited severely upon the evidence ..
was given originally by Queen Anne during her life- who, his Lordship said, had forfeited s
time, and the House of Commons only altered the that finest of female attributes—deli
terms, by rendering it perpetual. There was noth;ng part she took in this transaction.
in all this, implying an intention in the Legislature had not delicacy, they must not tale
to make these estates an exception in any manner racity ; and, from the combination
from the general laws of estates in tail. . with circumstances, the Jury wout
very light damages.—Thedury, after
Mr. HAMPSON, on the same side, said the Lord
Chancellor decided, that the estate and manor were gave only One Farthing damages.
COURT OF COMION
alienable to creditors, but that the pension Was not ; PLEAS, DI
COLUNSON V. ARDLIP
and he contended from that, that a pension so dis- This was the only remaining Speci
tinct in its limitation could not be given for the sup-
the lat. It was an action f6r assail]
port of the estates.
The defendant was charged in the
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, after all he had
heard upon the subject, that the impression was still h aving assaulted and beaten the plait
ship called the White, imprisoned
unchanged, which he had received from perusing the
Act, in the first instance. He disclaimed all author 'n double irons, for two months together.
tfendant had pleaded, that the plaint
rity to construe the terms of the Act contrary to the
mutinous conduct, and that he had
intention with which it was drawn up. The triton-
violence than was requisite to -main:—
tion was to-be collected from the language of the
Act ; and a necessary implication constituted as of the ship. Upon.this issue was joined.
was not gone into, the plaintiff havie--
much the meaning of the Act, as what was directly a verdict
conveyed by any words in it. In explaining a parti- for £5O damages.
WHITELAMB V. RITCI
cular Act, all the Acts on the same subject were to
This was an action for education,
be looked into for the purpose. It was not by refer-
ring solely to that particular Act, but by taking the &c. furnished by the plaintiff to the r
collective sease of all Acts on the same subject, that count of a natural child which had
any particular Act was to be explained. The que.- the care of Mr. Ritchie.
Mr. Serjeant Laws, on the part
tion, it was said, was not as to the house ; and if the
defendant asserted no power to destroy the house, ' frained, from motives of delicacy,
the Court needed not to entertain the question as to names of those parties who were
his right. But his expressions in the demurrer were case ; and called ..only two witnesses
vague, and it was a principle of the Court to confine however, the case was completely -
all vague expressions. When the Duke, therefore, rased that the plaita.i.ff was a V
asserted his right to cut down timber and commit Mr. yenning, 2n Copthall-conrt,
other waster, it was to be interpreted as meaning of whom this child livinghad been brought up .
waste, lindens generic, and then the question would the delendant had been :us eminent merchant
be, if he could cut down all the timber on the estate ? City, but had lately been unfortunate ir
Now, did the Legislature intend that the family man-
lion should be maintained ? Looking at the Acts, and pally
nsidering them in their collective meaning, it was g
impossible that any man, with common sense, could For the last eight or ten years he 12
resident abroad ; and during
Flouted to pay any thing for the ca
of his-Child; who had now arrived
avoid being convinced that the Legislature did in- Telarp.,„! being at the rate of £25 for
The sum now claimed b:
tend to maintain the house of Blenheim free from
,c.t)
sato%
The July gave ar verdict for t
lany injury, to the latest time. His Honour referred
to the Acts, and dwtlt upon them successively, demon- magas referred. Sittings are no.

IEIII4 Paitiiidai
by referring to
on the subject.
at was wanting
igislatuie in the
i necessitry con- 1 ,
se of .summons,
ay; this L',5,000
t of the dignity
:d in a 'splendid
ght be a record
tributed a part.
nd distinct sub-
-1
be a public rno-
Tformed by the t
absurd, there-
annexed, to be
tides under the
•
ay looked upon
as a monument
absurd to say,
the Legislature
the earth, now,
if Marlborough -
T of destroying •
t which necelsa •
-
it of that Nouse.
cute its duty on
, it would have
Ild not have to
rad been urged,
lone consistently
family mansion,
y either. When-
nit a waste upon
,mainder to state •
committed, and
rfere and protect
1 •
1, that be under-
a few days After
nil the Seal.
ZCEMBER 21. I
TTAN. '
aday, was this,
endant, for hay-
trging him with
nce. The dada-
ss that he loved
which the Jelin-
f Not Guilty.
:lient, the plain-
serto maintained
but had now to
ociety, in cove-
malicions report
ved for a period
efendant's house, •
the employ of a
, which was that
me fault with his
er to leave the
days afterwards,
ne trifling alter-
he was charged
e, at the idea of
irror.
ff was dismissed
crime, the corn-
med all mankind •
sins of his peace,
of him who was
nony to the slan-
n August last.—
ds were used, but
some of the plain-
nditrit a denial of
:, he persisted in
was going into a
and degradingtp
4'
erfered, and beg-
prolonged farther
in the part of the
'sure, to prove the
e Jury, and COM.
of a Mrs. Littler,
:ed every notior of
—delicacy, in the
But •though she
ink she wanted ye-
of her testimaiy
Id do well to give
ter someheiita:ion.
DECEMBER 24.
.YR.
iecial-Jury case on
;sault and battery.
the pleadings with
laintiff, on board a
him, and put hi% f‘
:ogether. The de-
intiff was guilty of
td not used greater
intain the discipline
joined. This case
Lying agreed to tale
.IHIE.
in, board, lodging,
se defendant, on ac-
id been entrusted to
of the plaintiff, re••
r, from stating the
e concerned in thie
messes ; by whom,
, made Gut. It ap•
warehooseman to a •
I-court, by the wife
inklit up : and that
nt merchant in the
mate in his business
he had bees prieci-
tg that time had rtes
care and education 1
ed at tite age of 14
sy the, plaintiff was
)rten years. „
r the plaintiff—Da-
nOw finished.