Star.
London, England, 1816-11-21 00:00:00

•
the peace towards all his M.ijesty's stiliects for twelve
months
The Court thettadjourned to the 9th of February.'

Coy T OF KING 'rt BENCH.
it • 1
REX C. t INIIJAISITANTs or Petignl.
TawJust:ce by am order, removed Robert Morris,
his wile. and four childrea, from the parish of —,
in Pearyn, to the parish of Calttiorp, both in the
county sit Cornwall. Ttre Sessions on appeal, confirmed
the order, subject to the opinion of this CGurt on a case,
stating that the pauper occupiedleur rooms in a house'
in the borough of Penryn, for which he paid in per
annuni, the whole rent of the house being sCIS ; in
respect of which last mentioned suet he was assessied,
and duly paid the said assessment, his landlord de-
ducting the amount from the rent payable for the
four rooms. The question for the opinion of the Court
was, whether the pauper gained the settlement in the
borough of Penryn under these circumstances, by
virtue of the statute S Will. S. c. 11. which declares
that "If any Perlon, who shall come to inhabit in
any town or parish, shall be charged with 'and pay
his share towards the public taxes or levies of the said
lowa or parish, he shall be adjudged to have a legal
settkeitnt in the same," &c.
Mr. Gemara and ;4r. W. P. Tatoterow contended
that the pulpit gained a settlement in the borough
of Penryo, relying upon the authority of the above
statute and several analogous cases.
Mr. GUMMY (contra) contended, that this head'of
settlement law had been put an end to by the nat.
35 Geo. S. c. 101. 3. 4. which enacted, d•that' front and
alter the passing of this Act, no person or persons what-
soever, who,ahail come into any parish, township, or
place. shall gain a settlement in such parish, &c. by
being charged with and paying his or their share to-
wards. the public taxes or levies of. the said parish, /cc.
for and on account or in respect of any tenement, not
being of the yearly value of £10." He relied upon
Rex v. the Inhabitants of Islington, 1 EastJ StlIS. as
a decisive authority.
The Court thought the words of the Statute 95
Geo. 111. c. 101. as conclusive, and therefore affirm-
ed the older of Sessions.

PREROGATIVE COURT, DOCTORS' COMMONS.
WEDNESDAY, NOV. 20.
DOFFELL AGAINST JOHNSON AND JOHNSON, BY HIS
GUARDIAN.

This came before the C•;urt on the admission of
the alkgation. It arose respecting the Last Will
and Testament of James Johnson, tormerly of the
Island of Jamaica, and late of Wimpole.street, in
the parish of Mary-la-bonne, in the county of Mid-
dlesex, Esq. deceased. It appeared that the deceased
executed a Will on the 21st of. June, 1793, by.which
he provided for his wile and his two children, and
also for the child or children of which she was then
pregnant. That afterwards he came to Englaad to
reside, leaving his original Will in the Island of 'Ja-
maica. It further appeared, that after the deceased
came to this country, he had issue three more chil-
dren, and he intended to provide for them by a sub-
sequent paper, which was an unfinished paper. It
also appeared that the deceased died suddenly on the
3J July, 1815, leaving personal property to the
amount of 4200,0(X).
The Learned Judge (Sir JOHN Miami) observed,
that as the property in question was of great magni-
tude, and a proceeding was now pending respecting
the same, he was unwilling to come to any decision
on the admission of an allegation, and accordingly
rejasted it. •

HILLMAN AGAINST DICIONSOS/ AND °TIMMS.
This was 4 cause respecting the lest will and codi-
cil of John Hillman, late of Hampton. in the county
of Middlesex, Esq. deceased. It appeared that the
will of the deceased bore date th: 13th December.
1806, and the codicil, which was written at the bot-
tom of the will, was without a date.
The evidence in this case, in support of the instru-
ments in question, being so full and satisfactory, the
Learned Judge pronounced for the validity of the
same.

COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER IC
CHAMBERS V. BRAILSFOIM.

This case was heard on an appeal . from the judg-
ment of the Master of the Rolls.• The question it
involved arose on the construction of the will of Sa-
muel Branslord, made in 1'7951. • The testator, at the
time ne dr w up his will, had a brother named John,
and two nephews called Thomas and Samuel, sons
of an elder brother, called Thomas. • Thomas was
the elder, and Samuel the younger cf these nephews.
The latter had a son called Thomas, who was of
course the grand-nephew of the testator. The testa-
tor, after various legacies and devises to his wife, his
relatives, and friends, devised his real property, con-
sisting of some lands in Derbyshire and Notting-
hamshire, to the trustees, his brother John being one.
They were to hold the said lands to the use of Tho-
mas Brailsford, son of the testator's nephew, Samuel
Brailsford, or his assigns, during the term of his
natural kite, and afterwards they were to stand seized
to the use of the firsthorn son of Thomas Brailsford.
After devising the said lands to John, his brother,
during his life, en the death of the said Thomas'
Brailsford, or in failure of issue, he disposed of the
residue of his real property to is the said Thomas
Brailsford, son of his nephew Samuel Brailsford, in
fee." The question was, whether the worde,.." the
said Thomas Braitsford." referred to the nephew or
the grand nephew of the testator. The Master of
the Rolls decided in favour of the latter, and from
his decision the former now appealed.
• Mr. HAUT and Mr. LEAL% were hoard for the ap-
The former contended, that though the
legal and grammatical construction of the words
" the said 'nom*: Brailsford," if there had been no
I opposite evidence in the deed itself, would bare re-
ferred to the grand nephew of the devisee, and not
the heir at law, yet that there was such improbability
in this interpretation, that it could not be sustained.
Thomas Brailsfoid was, in one part of the will, to
enjoy the use of the lands in question for the term of
his natural life, and afterwards (that is, after his
death) he was to .7.njoy theirs in fee. As this was.ob-
•served the samtperson could not be meant in both
passages whett such devises were made. Therefore
the testator in one of them must have meant his ne-
phew, who would, if this interpretation were re.
jetted, be the Only one of his rehitiOns foistitten fey
him.
Mr, LRAM contended, that es the words in both
.plosts mould not a yto the seer individual, there
was a la trot Ipteittapp.of ths tiptor
. rt

; ;A' 'lr.

•

t • . 9..