The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-06-30 00:00:00

k...,

COURT OF cp

.ANOCRSTRIN V. MARTIN AND °toms.
Mr. Harr stated this was an application for the inter-
ference of the Court, founded on a most important goes-
tion arising out of the will of the late Mr. A ngerstem, a
gentleman of celebrity in the mercantile, and in the fashi-
on Ate world. This gentleman disel recently, possessed
of property to a very great amount, and by his will, after
devising his real estate. he gaveto his trustees all his per-
sonal property, in trust, to lay out, with the consent of
the ptaintiff, him oddest son, in the purchase of estates.—
The testator had gone on to point out the counties in
which the estate was to be purchased; but with respect to
the disposition of the interest arising from the property
in the mean time he was silent. His Lordship would
therefore be called on to decide a question of great inter-
est to the profession, or rather to the publica—namely,
whether the tenant for life, or the residuary legatee, was
entitled to the interest of the personal property for the
first year after the testator's death. The principle would
sloulotess be of equal importance, if it related only to as
many hundred', Ali it did to thousands. in the present
rase. The role hood-{coq hulde to much objection ante-
rior to the time of his Lordship. The Learned Counsel
then proceeded to examine and discuss, at considerable
length. the eases laid down in the books on the subject,
and ultimately adverted in the case of Taylor N. Hibbert,
' derided by the Master of the Rolls, and that of Stott tr. '
Hollingsworth by the Vice Chancellor. These decisions
were roweled on site! ..st' his Lordship in the ganef Sid-
well o. In the case of Stott v. Hollingsworth,
tts honour the Vice Chancellor, on a principle which
he said ,Misted in the case of Sidwell o. Barnard, decid-
ed that the interest was not payable until two years after
the death of the testator. He (Mr. Hart) had. however,
read over the latter ease with the most earnest attention,
without being able to discover in his Lordship's decision
the principle which was imputed to it. • The Learned
Counsel, after havieg contended that the plaintiff was
entitled to the intetest of the personal property until laid
out aceordi ,ir to the direction of the will, concluded an
elaborate argument by praying that his Lordship would
set this important question at rest as a satisfaction to the
profession, and as a bounty to the public. -
• Mr. MA nTIN appeared for the trustees, when
Mr. Purr's interposed, and intimated that it was not
neual for trustees to take a part, either for the plaintiff or
defendant. They were supposed to await the directions
of the Court.
The LORD enANcat,Lon said that be was very willing
to hear Mr. Martin, if he would argue for both parties.—
His Lordship said it suited his judicial taste to hear
Connsel on both sides.
Mr. MARTIN declined his Lordship's invitation, and
said he was not desirous of occupying his Lordship's time
needlessly. He merely begged tp state, that the trustees
were in possess* of 300 0001. which they were ready
to incest, .4 mete 'Deices to relieve themselves from
'heir tespodMbPlity as trustees under the direction of the
Co wt.* fis,
Mr. rente4;En the other side, observed, that the goes
Lion was iw fact whether the whole of the profession, is-
eluding dm two Learned dodges who had been named,
had oe thi faith of his Lordship's decision iii Sidwell v.
BOtroardk been in the wrong for the last twenty years. It
was trite that some difficulties might arise from the Rule
as laid down by his Lordship in the case of Sidwell v.
Harmed, but the inconveniences arising from the este.
hlienenerit of an opposite principle would he infinite. The
ft*** a testator, free from all debt, had been supposed,
end a query suggested by his Lordship, whether, in that
the trustee or cermet would be justified in with-
holdinLthe interest for a year? He was aware that an
exert," although not compelled to pay a legacy till the
expiration of the yew after the death of the testator, was
at liberty to discharge it immediately, without incurring
any responsibility for such proceeding. But the main
point at present was, whether the Role had been mei--
faired ? Whatever might he the result of his Lordship's
reconsideration of the edge Sidwell it. !brand. no doubt
jtsel been entertained since his Lordship's determination
of that ease. The Master of the Rolls had considered the
doctrine to be clearly established. The Learned Counsel
relied on a series of decided cases, and concluded by
praying that his Lordship would direct the interest for
the year in the property iu question to be thrown into the
vsidite.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said tbe question was one of
great importance, both to the plaintiffs and to the public,
and that in order to be correctly decided it must be clearly
understood. He had sever taken more pains to ascertain
hath,from the living aid the dead, the practice of the
Court, than in the case of Sidwell v. Barnard. That case
and the one before him differed extremely. The case of
Sidwell it. Barnard was that of Mr. Phipps, tbe convey-
ancer, who had died leaving considerable property, di-
recting by his will his personal estate to be laid out in
the purchase of land. tlee interest to accomnlate, and the
money until laid out, to be vested in Government securi-
ties. 't he present case was the very converse of this.—
The question now was from what period the tenant for
life was to hare interest, whether immediately—from the
year—or from the elate of the decree. The Vice Chan-
cellor in the cam. of Stott v. Hollingsworth, took no no.
lice of the general rule, and the Master of the Rolls bat
given an extension to the rule somewhat beyond his
(the Lord Chancellor's) meaning. In the case of Fearns
tr. Young, is was expressly stated, that the rule was not
settled. Under these circumstances, all his Lordship
could now do, was to look back to, and re-consider the
case of Sidwell it. Baruard. Indeed be should be acting
most precipitately and rashly, if he gave,judgment in a
case of such difficulty and importance, without a delibe-
rate bearing of Counsel on both sides.
—awe—

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Justx 28.
ROBERTS V. .1011810. ESQ.
This was an action against the Marshal of the King's
lieneb Prison, for the escape of a prisoner named Ste-
phens, who had been in his custody, is execution for a
debt due to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's ease was con-
ducted by Mr. SOLICITOR-OENBRA L, Mr. UURNRT, and
CRITTT ; and the defendant's by Mr. CAMPBELL.
It appeared in evidence that. Mr. Stephens, who lived
in Charles-street. Urosvenor-nptare, had been indebted to
the plaintiff on a bill of exchange, upon which jadgment
was entered up and execution taken out against him,
when he went into the rules of the King's Bench Prison.
It wee proved Ott. for nearly four months, he slept in his
own house every night. aid occasionally went into the
riles in the day time. On one occasion be went into
th county of Kest to attend a bunt. It did not appear
twat the defendant was privy to these proceedings; but,
bearing that Mr. Stephens was out of the rules oaths 3d
of &lamb last. fie seat an othaw to his house, and brought
his bark, and caused him to be lucked up within the
well.. The plaintiff now braised his action for the
en ape. and tbe question was. windier the defendant was
liable for the escapes, which took place prior to the 3d
of March.
The Caller JESTIrt was of Bpiniori that the Marshal
was sot liable; bat his Lordship allowed a verdict to be
label§ far the plaintiff vvit4 Merl/ to the defendant to
Nora to enter a unsnap.
scow v. walla:v.
This was an action tw remover fawn the defendant a sum
01 ow. lodged is his hands as stakeliolder to abide the
'west of a wager between the plaintillsod a Mr. Presb
*T. amino (with whom was Mr. Tacrounto) staled
hlabotifs aim The plaintiff sad Mr. Preebtield.• is 1
glicerlsMith of Jalylast year, laid a wager with each Chili
WWI envier the frilotrftli Fmk,
4144 hotted 901. with -ptaintitf. fleet •he tr.) rani ,1,
A6l a ass that would beat the Ithdatif got It GUMP

.
.

-
--

_

Ta

1001. No combatant woe then-warqed, bet it was under
etood that Spring was to b. Freshfield's man. The
Unaccepted the bet, and agreed to fight, if 1001. was de:
posited Within a given time. On each ride the sum of:
M. was deposited to the hands of the defendant, who
keeps the Turf Hotel, in St. James's-street, to abide the
event of the battle. It turned out that the sum of
could not be made up, anti, consequently, the fight not
having taken place, the plaintiff applied to the defendant
for a return of this money, bat the defendant declining,
lender pretence that the plaintiff bad not peid a bet lost,
i upon a fight between Spring and Neate,the present action
was brought.
The Soractroa-Oaersaat. and Mr. Comex were on the
other side.
The Loan Cater JUSTIVi interposing said, he certain-
ly should not suffer the case to go to the Jury. The
public time was net to be wasted by such discussions.—
He should discharge the Jury. If persons of this de-
scription could not make a law of their own to settle
such disputes, this Court would not allow the law of the
country to be the test of their warm—Jury discharged.

Commission Comm Dl:stmt.-0o Wednesday last,
Wooller Blake, a genteel-looking young man, apparently
about 19 years of age, was indicted for that be, on the
sth of May, in Saekville-street, in the city of Dublie MN
leg employed in the ',mittens( the General Post-Ape,
as a letter-sorter, did, wilfully, wittingly, and feted-
onsly% and knowingly, embezzle and secret a, letter V.
rected to Daniel Neale, of ideate, and did take there-
from a promissory note of the Bank of Ireland of the.
value of thirty pounds, payable to the order of
,James Lawler, at seven days sight. There wet*
three other counts in this indictments heehke
another indictment against the prisoaer, which stated *u It
letter had been put into the General Post Meat on *web
of May; and which charged the Fleenor with basin wit
tingly, villfully, feloniously, and knowingly. embesiltd,
openedomd destroyed the said letter, without having re-
ceived any authority for so doing, or without the party to
whom it was addressed having refused to pay for it, or with
out its having been returned to the post-cling. note was
also another count in this indictment.
After witness had been heard is support of the
prosecution, Mr. Hamilton, submitted to the Coen that
all the indictments against the prisoner described him as a
letter-sorter in the post-otlice, and that it was not proved in
evidence that he was such ; if the evidence did not support
the Indictment in this particular, it would be fatal to the
prosecution. In answeets a question from the Court,-the
Recorder said that there was ao indictment against the pri-
soner except as a letter-sorter. The objection was support-
ed on the part of the prisoner by Messrs. Hamilton, O'Con-
nell. and Finlay. The Recorder, Mr. Crofton, and Mr.
111.•Kiwe argued against it. The Court admitted the objec-
tion. The issue was then sent up to the Jury, who returaed
a verdict of Not Guilty on all the indictments.
In the course of the above trial, as one of the witnesses
was about to be examined, a commotion was occasioned
near the door of the Court, by the sentinel calling out
for a file of soldiers. The Court inquired the.cause of
this disturbance, and the sentiuel came forward and said,
that a man at the door had all at once as said that be
would strike him, but that he (the sentinel) had sent for
a file of soldiers to take him into custody. The Court
told the soldier that be should not take him into cus-
tody, and desired that the person should come forward.
A Gentleman then approached the table, and, addressing
the Court, said, tbat he bad come from Mr. O'Connell,
who was retained for the prisoner, to communicate with
the other Gentleman who were enraged as Counsel for
the defence; that although be stated at the door tb..t 1.0
came on the business of the trial, be was prevented .from
entering, and the soldier put his bayonet to his breast,
and said that he would put it in him if be did not go
back; on this he moved a step back, and tad the soldier
that if he had a bayonet he should net put it in him.
The soldier confirmed this statement, by saying that he
was the mail; that he told him to go bark or that lie
would put his bayonet in him, and that he all as one as
said be nould not let him ; " but," said the soldier, "
have sent for a file of soldiers to t the hint into custody."
The Court said that the soldiershould not be obstructed
in his duty, but that his conduct was not altogether free
from blame. He was told that lie should not take the
man Into custody,and was desired to go back to his post.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jute 28.
BTORSY V. SAMPSON.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN stated that the plaintiff in this
case was the son of a person deceased, and the defendant
her executor and residuary legatee. It appeared that
the testatrix had laboured under a dreadful and
lingering disease for a considerable time before ber
death, and for the last three months of her life she re-
sided with the plaintiff, who was put to a heavy expense
on her account, by hiring additional servants, and who
was proved to have been unremitting in his attentions to
her. It was also proved that the testatrix had most
warmly expressed her praise of the plaintiff's conduct,
and had declared that she would reward him.
Mr. Sergeant Laxs, for the defendant, attempted to
spew that the defendant had acted in this manner to the
testatrix, in expectation of receiving a legacy from her,
and therefore that the action could not he maintained;
for in such a case as this, if the plaintiff acted in this
manner in expectation of a legacy be could not, on being
disappointed in that respect, tarn round, and claim a
compensation for his trouble.
Mr. Justice PARK said, the law bad been properly
stated by the Learned Counsel for the defendant, and
mentioned a case in which a German Baron, who had
been carefully attended in his illness by a young min,
left the greater part of his large property to publ►c chari-
ties, to one of which especially he bequeathed the sum of
80,0001. The young man afterwards brought an action
against the executor to recover the expenses he bad in-
curred, and the Court directed a nonsuit to be entered.
because declarations made by the plaintiff were given is
evidence, by which it appeared that he attended the Ba-
ron in the hope of being rewarded by obtaining,. le..
gacy.—in the present case, however, no proof of similar
declarations had been offered, and the Jury must give
their verdict for the plaintiff, estimating the compensa-
tion moderately.
The Jar( retinue verdict for the plaintiff.—Da-
usages 1001.