Star.
London, England, 1829-01-15 00:00:00

• 4.411 V.

COURT OP CHANCERY, hi. 14.
This being' the first geal after the Christmas
vaca-
tion, his.Loidship sat in Lincoln's Inn Hall.
MAUL! N. ANTROBUI—JUDOURNT.
The LORD Cmanact.on gave judgment in this case.
which came before him on appeal from the Master of
the Rolls. By a will, and by a codicil, bath made in
1811, the t:-tator devised the bulk of his real property
to Richard Thomas Dawson, for his life, with remainder
to his 61st or other sons in tail. The testator was pos-
sessed of a house, called Stanhope-house, and of a con.
siderable quantity of valuable furniture. The question
which had arist n in this case regarded this furniture,
*hies, tooether with the house, which he held upon a
leaie for 900 years, the testator had e'en by his will
to his wife, -and after her death, tn. Richard Thomas
Dawson absolutely. The furniture was designated very
carefully in the will, and as to the construction of the
will there-was no doubt. By the codicil, which.was
added two or three months alter the !mention of the
will. a new disposition of the house and furniture was
made; the testator wishing that after the *death of his
rare, the personal property should pass. so far as it
leg -11 y could, with the real property, instead of going
absolutely to Richard Thomas Dawson. The articles
of furniture were not as particularly described in the
codicil as in the will. By the former, the testator merely
disposed of the house and furniture, " with• all the ap-
purtenances thereunto belonging." After going through
the argufnents of the Counsel, his Lordship decidectein
coat mstion Qf the judgment of the Master cfthe
that the word " furniture" included all the linen, plate,
and pictures of the house. His Lordship observed, that
he should suspend his decision respecting the medals,
watches. and jewels, until he had perused the Master's
report. In the absence of special circumstances, be
should be of opinion that the words of the codicil were
not sufficient to convey articles of this description.
His Lonutute intimated, that having to attend his
Al. jesty at Windsor, tin the Recorder's Repot t, he
should not sit to-morrow.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH. Jae. 14.
SIR J. PAUL, BART. AND ANOTHRR R. DOWLINO.
This was an ;mien brought to recover 1,1791. the
value of certain goods, seized by the defendant as the
property of Sir ChAtlei Itich, Bart.
The plaintiffs in this case were the assignees of Si,
Chatles Rich, a bankrupt, who formerly resided at
Brenham, near Reading, is Berkshite. On this elate
there was a lime and brick kiln, which had been built
in 1817, by the father of the present Baronet. At this
kiln, lime and bricks were sold to pet sons in the nigh-
bourhond uotil the year 1827, when Sir Charles Rich
became a bankrupt. In 1825, a house had been built
at Brenham by this Gentleman, at which a great pot-
trio of the a• ticks produced at the kiln wete used, but
the sale of the bricks and lime still continued in limited
wiAtrities. S.rme property formerly belonging to Sir
Itch had been seized by the defendant. The de-
fence was that Sir C. Ruch was not a trader who came
within the operation of the bankrupt laws, or that he
.iss as liable to them. It was admitted that the property
was of the value of 1,1791. that there was a good peti-
tico ing creditor's debt ; and that an act of banktuktcy
irad been committed. by Sir Charles Rich.
J hn.Robins. a carpenter, examined by the COMMON
&mars ter —lle was employed by the late Sir C. Rich
.t.. build a lime kiln at his estate at Beerihann in the
year 1817. A large portion of-the litue produced at
t is kilo was sold; wit ess had repeatedly bought lame
made at it, both in the late Sir Charles's time, and also
in the present Baronet's ; all the chalk used in making
lime at this kiln was purchased ; neatly all- tie lime
prepared latterly was used by the peseta Baronet in
building.
Cross-examined by Sir J. SCARLETT—The kiln was
originally built for the use of Sir Charles's farm, and
the remainder sa as intended for the use of the tenants
On the estate He had only bad two or three bushels
linte prepared at this kiln in the, present BAionet's
time; the lime was 9.1. per bushel, and he was charged
with it by the present Baronet.
Charles Mason, examined by Mr. MANSING—IIe is
a carpenter at Englefield; knew •t, lime was sold at
the kiln formerly belonging to Sir C. Rich; he had re-
peaetdly bought lime these, and some so late as the
year 1826 ; his account in one year for lime bad
amounted to 91.
John Macqueen examined by Mr. Guaway—Was
formerly a servant to Sir C. Rich ; the present Sir
Charles moved to Beenham House in 1820 ; there was
a lime kiln on the estate, which was under the manage-
ment of Mr. Matthews ; this was afterwards placed un-
..der witness's care; lime was sold at it. and it was also
tied for burning bricks for sale ; he sold them to an)
person who came for them. Witness purchased the
articles which were used at the kiln. They went on
billing lime un ii t`,e present Sir Charles began build-
Mg in 1825; but a very small quantity was sold after
this. Witness accounted to Sir Charles Rich for the
lime. &c sold at the k 'n.
CrOilmelAlVilleti by Sir J. SCARLETT.-41e does not
ren:embei the quantity at lime sold after the late Sir
Charles's death. in 1824.
Joseph Ryder, who was employed at the kiln, con-
firmed the evidence of the former witnesses; and stated
that several saleS of bricks and lime took place in the
years 1825 and 1826. Ile knew this., as hwkept the
account us the goods sold x. the kiln.
everal peg vitt: were cal ed and examined, who had
purchased lime and br cks at the kiln at Brenham,
S I JANIRS ScARLETT addies•ed theJuiy for,the de-
fendant. and sta., rf. that be should prove, berm! a
doubt, that Sir C. Rich had neserr been a trader within
die meaning .1 the b sokrupt laws. It would apreAl
that he made use f the hoick earth upon his estate to
build for his own plicate occupation. The litke WAS
ilsu' used in building upon his estate.
Several witnesses were called, and their evidence
strongly supported the defendant's case.
The Jury, under all the ciecumvioce, found a vcr-
dict for the defendant, and thereby established the fast
that Sir C. Rich hact not been a trader. •
PREROGATIVE COURT, Jam 14.
BARWICK V. AIOLLINOS.
The deceased in this suit was Mr. Joseph Mulling-.
of Coburg-place, Kent-road, who died November 16,
1827. aged el, possessed of personal property in houses
worth 10 70 1. He left a widow (of a second marriage)
but no child. There was a sister and four nephew 4 also
entitled to distoibutinn. In April, 1826, he executed
an instrument which purported to be a memorandum of
a will, but was termed at the conclusion "my will." L
ippoioted eaecntors, and bore his signature. In 18261
th, envelope of this hut, ument, which had been deuchited
in ale custody of one of the exectitins, was broken by the
deceased's nide'', with a viers cat its being altered. Sunday
Lea disposit.6 s were accordiaglj mare therein. and a
draught rota new wilt was drawn up by an attotueynoned
Cril.liirgwond. length and intricacy of this instill
mem emfiarrasstd the di ceased, who bad been ongi.
nal y a butcher, and was rather illiterate ; he repeatedly