Star.
London, England, 1821-11-15 00:00:00

TIM GAY-JUST PU131351111).

Frail Plant ! whose early buds display
Their beauties to the opening day,
And fade with its declining ray,
To bloom no more !

When thy poor scatter'd leaves I view,
So lately bright with morning dew,
•heath the green bush on which they grew;
So lowly laid;
An emblem of myself I see,
When cheerful morning dawn'd for me;
But I have droop'd and died like thee,

-
In sorrow's night !
Yes I Hope once dwelt within my breast,
Calm were my days, serene and blest.
While her soft accents whisper 'd rest
For future years!
. But when Affliction's chilling night
Shaded the morn, so fair and bright.
Palm this sad heart she took her Sight,

-
• To those more blest !
Fresh buds the morning will bestow,
The cheering Sun again will glow,
And gentle Zephyrs round thee blow,
Each changing day
But Hope again within my breait
Will never Sed a settled rest,
For in her sad forsaken nest,
Pale sorrow dwells

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, N0V.14.

JONES V. BROMLEY.
, The plaintiff, Mrs. Jones, a widow, was, by the
will of her late husband, left the life interest of all
his property, provided that she should remain a wi-
dow and not keep a public-house, or have any in-
terest or concern therein, or in any other business.—
The trustees under this will refused, after a certain
period, to pay the interest to the plaintiff, on the
ground that she kept a public-house. She filed a
bill in Chancery, and it was by consent referred to
the Master. The Master reported that the plaintiff
had not forfeited, and the case was argued this day
in the form of an exception to the Master's report.
Meisrs. HEALD and KEATE contended that there'
was clearly a forfeiture, because the plaintiff openly
kept the Roman Eagle, iii Church-street, Deptford,
ordered spirits from the spirit-merchant in her own
name, and had her name marked on the pewter pots.
It was very unfortunate for this poor lady, but the
terms of the will were perfectly explicit.
Mr. BELL argued that Mrs. Jones was only the
servant of Messrs. Taylor and Co. brewers. There
was an iitlidavit proving that the pewter pots had
been ordered by Messrs. Taylor and Co. and that
the whole business was conducted as theirs, the plain-
tiff receiving one guinea a week for her services. It
U. 15 here objected that there was an Act of Parlia-
ment against brewers selling in less quantities than
whole casks, and this was shewn to be the state of
the law.
Th? VICE-CHANCELLOR said, it was manifest that
the testator's intention had been to prevent his pro-
perty from being lost by the plaintiff engaging in
any business that should subject her to the bankrupt
laws. The plaintiff had subjected herself to the
bankrupt laws, for it was not to be believed that such
respectable :,en as the brewers in question would
declare to the world that they were guilty of a fraud.
She therefore kept the public-house, she was an-
swerable for all debts, and her property would be
chargeable.
Mr. Bent. argued with great ingenuity from the
analogy of tontines, and club-rooms, and hotels by
subscription, that the conduct of the brewers WAS
such as the Excise generally winked at. But let the
brewers be guilty of a fraud on the Excise or not,
the plaintiff was not answerable for that, and her'
case could not be affected by it. A forfeiture would
not be decreed, without the strictest examination
of the terms.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said the forfeiture must
come within the principle of the testator, and the
words of the testator, before the Court could sanc-
tion it; but here it was a kezping.of a public-house
contrary to the principle and the letter of the will.
Mr. LOVAT addressed his Honour on the same side
with Mr. BELL. With respect to the Revenue laws,
they had nothing at all to do with the present case.
In support of this proposition he referred to a case
decided by Sir William Grant, late Master of the
Rolls. Then as to the apprehension of the plaintiff
having come under the bankrupt laws, there was not
one tittle of evidence to shew that a single bottle of
wine, or single pint of porter, or any other.article,
had been sold by the plaintiff without doors.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR.—If you get rid of that
objection, arising from the bankrupt laws, you will
remove a great difficulty from the case.
It appeared that there was not even an allegation
to the effect on the other side.
Mr. LOVAT proceeded.—The plaintiff was osten-
sibly keeper of the public-house, but not in reality.
It also deserved to be mentioned, though strictly it
was no part of the case, that MI s.Jones had brought
£BOO to her late husband, and afterwards by her
activity in keeping a public-house increased that sum
to the amount left in his will, and of which the life-
rent was now in question.
Mr. &Ammar: appeared for the trustees, and
wished that the decree of his Honour should be left
subject to further inquiry as to who were next of kin.
Two brothers had appeared, but it was not known
whether there were not other relatives.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR, after some deliberation
on this point, said that the judgment he now pro:.
trounced might be open to motions to amend the re-'
cord, and that if the Master should, upon inquiry,'
find there were parties who-were not new present in
Court, the whole case would be open to be argued
again. The liability to the bankrupt laws being
now entirely out of view, it was evident that the
plaintiff was not keeper of a public-house, either ac-
cording to the principle or the letter of the
Therefore there was no forfeiture.
IN RE HOWARD AND GIBBS.

This Petition, which had been 6zed for three o'cloo
this afteraooo, was postponed till Friday mt.