Star.
London, England, 1829-07-04 00:00:00

;LLIGENCE:

'HANCERY, hay S.
41103Z/4i/4yr PARRATT.
Mr. Tititst.ove ap lied to the Lord Chancellor for the
discharge of the deiendant Russell, who had been com-
mitted to the net tfor a contempt, in having contracted
a marriage with a ward of the Court without the con-
sent of her guardians or the Court. The petition stated,
that the Master had reported the marriage to be valid,
and that the sett!emerrts prepared by him bad been duly
executed.
The discharge of the prisoner was ordered.
JACKSON V. HANKEY.

This petitio•t was then called on. It was an appeal
from a decision of the Master of the Rolls when Vice
Chancellor, by which he had dismissed the bill filed in
this cause. It appeared that a settlement had been
made out on the matria;;e of Mr. Saville, by which
a sum of Bank Stock had been settled on the husband

and wife for their j pint lives, and on the death of the
wife the dividends and principal were to go to the
children of the marriage. Mr. Saville, who was a
man of considerahle wealth, had continued to receive
the dividends after the death of his wife, and after
his children came of age. In the course of his life,
certain family arrangements had been made, in
which his right to do so was not disputed, and the
general result of those arrangements had been much
more advantageous to the children than the receipt of
the dividends to which they were entitled. Alter his death
a bill had been flied against the trustees of the settle-
ment, for an account of the dividends which they had
permitted the husband to receive. Their defence to
this was, that the persons entitled had sanctioned such
receipt by concurring in the arrangements made by the
late Sir. Saville, and that after such concurrence they
could not maintain their present demand. Besides this,
the trustees filed a cross bill, in which they claimed to
be reimbursed, if the Court should decree them to be
responsible for such dividends, out of the estate of Mr.
Saville. When the cause came on to be heard before
the then Vice Chancellor, he expressed an opinion, that
under the circumstances the demand was an ungracious
one, and that the parties ought to be precluded from
raising it after what had taken place, and he ultimately
-dismissed the bill.
Counsel were heard on both sides, and
The LORD CHANCELLOR postponed his judgment.
ROLLS COURT, JULY 3.
IN RE sHEPPARD'S CHARITY.

This is a charity for the maintenance and clothing of
a certain number of aged men and women, and the
payment of the salary of a Nonconformist Minister is
also provided for under the same trust. The funds arise
from landed property, and the sum of 8001. having been
obtained from the sale of timber belonging to the estate,
the trustees thought proper to purchase a landed estate
for upwards of 9001. A petition was now presented,
praying that an order might be made for the payment
of the purchase money out of the funds arising from
the sale of timber and other sources.
The MASTER of the ROLLS said the Court had no
authority to do what was required.
It was urged that the very charity estates in question
had been purchased in the same manner as was now
proposed, under the authority of the Court of Chancery.
His HONOUR replied, lie was sorry for it; the Court
of Chancery had no power to do so. In the present
case, the petition must stand over.
LAUDERDALE AND TWEEDALE.

This was a petition to confirm the M4ster's report,
and order tl.e payment of a sum of upwards cf 2,0001.
in South Sea Annuities to the petitioner. A larger sum
(about 8,000/.) than that now in question was originally
directed to be laiJ out in landed property, under a
settlement, for the benefit of the children of the Lauder-
dale family. No settlement was made, and the money
was not Lid out in land, but in various securities. The
younger children had all been paid the sums due to
them, and an order was made by a former Master of
the Rolls to ascertain how far the present Earl of Lau-
derdale was entitled to the residue of the property. An
inquiry was accordingly made before a Master, who
found that the Earl was entitled to the residue as tenant
in tail. The present application was to confirm that
report —The order was granted.
COCKLE V. WHITING.

The plaintiff was second mate in a ship engaged in
the South Sea whale fishery, the defendant was the
owner and consignee ; the present proceeding originated
in a dispute relative to the distribution of the produce
of the cargo. It appeared that the defendant was en-
titled to one fourth of the adventure, the remainder
being divided in certain proportions among the crew,
kc. The plaintiff, as second mate, was to receive one six-
tieth share for his services; in 1820 the ship sailed, and
she returned in 1823 ; previous to het arrival the defen-
dant disposed of his I.4th of the cargo at the rate of 521.
per tun ; when the vessel came into port, the crew called
for a settlement ; an estimate was made of the quantity of
the cargo in the usual manner ; it was taken at 260
tuns and the men (the plaintiff among the rest) received
their proper shares of the computed produce at 421. a
tun, which was then the market price, oil having fallen
in value subsequent to the period when the defendant
sold his fourth. It was in evidence that the sale of the
defendant's share was en his own account, and exclu-
sively for his own benefit; and further, that notwith-
standing 421. a tun had been allowed the crew for the
entire of their proportion, a part of it was disposed of
at 411. 10s. However, it appeared that the actual
quantity of oil was more than the estimated quantity
by six or seven tuns, and the plaintiff, who had given a
receipt for 1401. as his share of the adventure, filed the
present hill to compel the defendant to allow him his
proportion of the seven tuns extra, and of the surplus
101. a tun obtained by the defendant on his own one-
ft.urth share of the oil at the first made sale.
The MASTER of the ROLLS in giving judgment ob-
served, that he saw no reason for complying with that
part of the plaintiff's demand which related to the dif-
ference beta een 421. a tun ahich had been allowed to the
crew on their shares, and 521. the price obtained per tun
by t►,e defendant for his proportion of the cargo. The
plaintiff mistook if he supposed himself entitled to a share
of the cargo; he could only claim his share of the produce;
and. w itlr regard to the owner's fourth of the oil, it had
evidently been sold, as appeared from the broker's note
of sale, on his own account exclusively. and as _a matter
of speculation in which the crew had no right to
participate. With respect to the other point—the
surplus quantity of oil—it was equally clear. It
appeared that it was customary for the cooper of
the ship to make an estimate (before the oil was sold)
of the probable quantity of the cargo, and that it was
usual to settle with the crew, going upon that estimate.
Here the estimated quantity was 260 tuns, and finally
it turned out that it amounted to seven tuns mote—it
might have turned out to be seven tuns less, for in mak-
ing thee calculations, it seemed that a good deal de-
pended, as far as regarded minute accuracy with re-
spect to the precise quantity of oil, more or less, spoil
the state of the atmosphere. One thing was evident,

that the crew (and among them the plaintiff) had
agreed to accept the estimate, made in the usual manner
of dealing in the trade, as the measure of their respec-
tive shares, and it was now too late fir any of them to
complain. The bill must therefore be dismissed, and
with costs. _ _

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Witsrunisszs, Jon' 5.
Sittings in Banco.
The Court was engaged the greater part of the morn.
ing on cases from the special paper, in which Mr. Justice
James Parke had been engaged as Counsel ; and that
Learned Judge held the nisi prius sittings for Lord Ten-
terden at Guildhall, it being arranged that the special
cases should be argued in his absence.