The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-12-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT—DEc. 13.

Mr. S. Sharpe appeared in support of a petition which
asked a reference to the master to inquire and state whether
it would be fit and proper, and for the benefit of a lady named
Mrs. Georgiana Carisbrook, that an appeal against a decision
of the Court of Chancery of the county palatine of Lancaster
should be prosecuted in the House of Lords. Mrs. Canis-
brook, by her will, had left legacies to the amount of £20,000.
The petition was presented on behalf of one of the residuary
legatees of that lady, whose husband, Mr. Thomas Canis-
brook. had become possessed of large property under the
will of a Mr. Thomas Eccleston, in 1806. That will had
been the subject of much discussion in the Court of Chancery
and in the House of Lords. The husband of the testatrix
was the second son of Mr. Eccleston, according to whose
direction he had taken the name of Carisbrook, and claimed
to be entitled to certain estates known by the name of the
Eccleston and the Carisbrook estates. The trustees of Mr.
Eccleston were Lord Skelmersdale and a Mr. Masters, to
whom, also, Mr. Thomas Carisbrook, in 1815, had executed
a deed of trust, assigning his estates for moneys advanced.
There had been a question under the will of the original tes-
tator, whether Thomas or his brother, Charles Carisbrook,
were entitled to the estate. By an order of the Court of
Chancery of Lancaster Thomas was declared entitled.
Charles Carisbrook had appealed to the Duchy Court of
Lancaster, when the order was reversed in favour of Charles.
It was alleged that there was a sum of £60,000 to which the
testatrix's estate might. become entitled if the order of re-
versal was carried by appeal to the House of Lords, which
the plaintiff was advised to do, the present fund being only
sufficient to pay the pecuniary legacies. The petition was
presented on behalf of the residuary legatees.
Mr. Rolt appeared on the same side.
Mr. Roupell and Mr. Mylne appeared for one of the ex-
ecutors, who did not resist the motion, and also for two of
the residuary legatees.
Mr. Lowndes appeared for the defendant, the executor,
and opposed the motion. The present fund was sufficient to
discharge the testatrix's pecuniary legacies in full, but with-
outinterest ; and he objected to the appeal being tried at
the expense of the pecuniary legatees.
Mr. Sharpe, in reply, argued that it was the duty of the
court to get in the whole of the outstanding estate in the first
instance, and the prosecution of the appeal was a necessary
means of doing so, and ought to be assisted by the court in
the manner proposed.
His Honour took time to consider.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURTS, FRIDAY, DEC. 16.
'(Before Sir L. SHADWELL.)
WALSH V. GLADSTONE.

This was a petition by Lord Camoys, Elizabeth Tempest,
and Charlotte Stonor, who were the residuary legatees under
the .will of the late M. Blundell, which has been several
times before the Court, and particularly upon a charitable
bequest for the benefit of Roman Catholic priests in and
near London. The petition stated that about a year before
the decease of Mr. Blundell, he delivered to William Hall,
his butler, two sealed packets, with a direction to retain
them in his possession until after the testator's death, and
then to present them to Messrs. Heywood and Co., Mr.
Blundell's bankers, at Liverpool. The packets were re-
tained by Hall until after Mr. Blundell's death, when they
were duly taken by Mr. Gladston'e, one of the executors, to
the banking-house, and one packet was found to contain a
check for £5OO, payable on demand to Hall, and the other a
similar check for £3OO, in favour of a female named Harris.
The testator made a will after the date of these instruments,
by which he gave Hall an annuity of £2OO, and Harris an
annuity of £6O, and, without any allusion to the two checks,
made a revocation of all former dispositions, declaring that
to be his last wilt The Ecclesiastical Court having granted
probate of the two checks, a fund of £1,200 stock had been
set aside to meet them, and the question now raised upon the
petition was, whether the two checks were not revoked by
the subsequent will of the testator.
Mr. Stuart, with Mr. Fleming, appeared for the peti-
tioners, who claimed the fund; and Mr. Roupell and Mr.
Rolt were counsel for the two legatees. _ _

The Vice-Chancellor said, the Ecclesiastical Court had
taken upon itself the jurisdiction of construing the two
papers merely for the purpose of admitting them to probate ;
but any thing that Court had done on the ground of con-
struction did not bind this Court ; and the question still re-
mained, notwithstanding probate, what was the construc-
tion. It appeared from the probate that the two papers were
dated September, 1833, and this Court was bound by the
decision of the Ecclesiastical Court that they were to be
taken as part of the will of the testator. Then the testator
executed a subsequent instrument, which he stated to be his
last will, by which he gave legacies to the objects
of the bequest in the previous papers, without any
reference to their being before mentioned, and then he made
a residuary bequest, and finally declared that he revoked all
former wills. His Honour thought this was a clear revo-
cation of the two papers, and therefore directed the fund to
be paid to the residuary legatees. f.!