Star.
London, England, 1819-04-01 00:00:00

LAIV INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CIIANCELLOR'S COURT, MARCH 31.
THE MARLBOROUGH CASE.
Mr. HEALD, this day, brought this case before hi;
Honour the Vice-Chancellor, on a Petition presented
on the part of the Legatees under theW'ill of the late
Duke of Marlborough, praying the Court to decide
whether or not the duties that arose on the legacies
in question should be paid out of the Legacy Fund,
or taker. from the accumulated hind of the real
estate? Adverting to the legacy given by the
Testator to Lady A. S. Spencer, he begged to call
his Honour's attention to the directions given in re-
spect to it, and particularly to the manner and pe-
riods at which it *as to be paid ; namely, £1.5,000
on the day of that Lady's marriage, she being at the
time of the bequest single, and the remaining twoo
(a third part of another bequests at some future spe-
cified time, subsequent to the death of the Noble
Duke. Antecedently to the death of his Lordship,
Lady Amelia Sophia Spencer entered into the holy
bands of wedlock, and in consequence his Grace, on
the 28th of June, 1818,' added a codicil to his will,
whereby he revoked the former legacy, and gave her
Ladyship an aggregate suni of £lB,OOO, which was
directed to be secured in the Government Funds,
and invested in certain Trustees named, for the bene-
fit of the Legatee and her issue. The question which
now arose was, whether the duties on the legacy
were to be paid by the Legatee in question, or whe-
ther it was not theintention that Lady Amelia should
have the sum in question clear of all deductions ?
Whether his Grace intended his real estate should be
charged with the payment of the Legacy Duties or
not ?
The VICE-CHANCELLOR expressed his opinion to
be, that the Noble Donor did intend his real estate
should be chargeable with the payment of the duties
in question, in which opinion his Honour was
strengthened by the fact of his Grace not having
made any provision for their payment. The intent
and meaning.of his Grace, therefore, must, in his
Honour's opinion, be implied from the circumstances
he had before stated, and under this idea he thought
the duties ought to be paid out of the real estate.
Sir ARTHUR PIGOTT mentioned the legacy to the
Marquis of Blandibrd. In the first instance his
Grace had given him £lOOO a year during his life-
time, until he arrived at 25,. when he was. to have
£2OOO, but •which had afterwards been revoked by
the same Means as the former bequest mentioned by
Mr. Heald, and a sum of £BOOO per annum given to
him after attaining the age of 25. The question that
arose on this part of the case was, Did or did not
the adding the codicil revoke the former legacy
If it did, then the parties were not liable to be called
on to parthe legacy duty. If that was not the case,
was not the sum given by the codicil to be taken as
a new legacy ? He quoted the case of Cooper v.
Lee, Merrivale's Reports, p. 154, in Which the late
Master of the Rolls held, that an addition to a le-
gacy, made by a codicil; did not make the parties
liable to pay increased duties.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, he perfectly well re-
membered the case referred to, but there the words
were sufficient to satisfy that great and eminent
Judge to come to the conclusion he had. That, how
ever, was not the case in this instance ; here no di-
rections on the point in question had taken place.
Mr. Mama said he would not occupy any farther
portion of the time of. the Court relative to the other
legacies, since they all went on the same grounds as
those which he and his. Learned Friend had men-
tioned. His Honour had already given his judgment
on them, and as that would be binding on the re-
mainder, he would, if his Honour pleased, take an
Order that .the real estate should be charged with
the payment of the legacy duties.
Ills HONOUR, 'after. some further observations, di-
rected the Order to be made accordingly.
SURREY ASSIZES.
The Assizes for the county of Surrey were opened
on. Monday morning, at Kingston, by Justice BAYLEY
:nad Sir .1. A. PARK, who, at an early hour, after
hearing Divine Service, at once proceeded to business.
Clarks Whittaker, aged 22, was indicted for bur-
glariously breaking into the dwelling-house of Mrs,
Sarah Paul, of Bermondsey, on the 9th of February
last, and stealing a silver watch, a table spoon, five
tea-spoons, two pair of sugar-tongs, bracelets, rings,
necklaces, and other articles of property.--The pri-
soner was found Guilty, and received sentence of
Death.'
C. Kipping was indicted for feloniously receiving
three sacks of oats, tho property of B. Summerfield,,
knowing them to have been stolen.—The Jury found
him Guilty, and the Learned Judge immediately sen-
tenced him to 11 years transportation
Duacalfe was indicted for feloniously receiving
six hats, the property of S. Stansfield, he knowing
them to have been stolen. —Acquitted.
Wednesday John Best was indicted for stealing, on
.the 21st of August last, at trixton, from a stage-
coach, a shawl .and a bag, containing £2O in' save,.
'the.PrOperti of James Mbleley.
Ii appeared in eviabnee,*that on the day men-.
timed in Ai.-- indlctMen, the prosecutor, who resided
in London,
brotl4,.

!stifling.
shawl, 1

aril

COIi?

•,

!~

~...y„~

)ndon, wicking to transmit some money to his intelliketi
lat. iiiing at I.4st B9iiPoik, derive-ad iliaglo:1- apprelien
rig. bsenty pounils iti iilvet, %%TA, , 4 :if 4in a to be ,pi
1, to Viiili4os liatiaieno the driver(t ate- Best which iv:
nee h, 'kith direftits-ilis &aye rltthitsit 4esti7 tien to ri
d 1 i
n.
W 41e
" irrirhlidiesethl;:istage•eoack- wal t th:l
4,1%n
he Ii 40" - of iiitt -Qo6e ',.ppe van. , patient*,
arc. eutic,, elo , e . iii a Ce '
s‘lte,l ttopa)( e`si•ids Meal as Far as Bra- of the cc
to wtiet, Arsainate‘iagi i Prisciner got op ty 'ma
it
1 ~,