The Statesman.
London, England, 1819-02-18 00:00:00

HAND V. CHESTER.

Mr. ADOLPIIVII said, this was es action by Mrs.
Heed, to recover from the Defendant VI. fo► moose?
last. In opening this case, he felt it right to state,
that be labeerei wader considerable difficulty. It
might es asked, how it happened, that Mrs. Iliad
lest her money to Chester, and taken no eamoorms.
dam or security fir It. linf.trtonstsig fur hes, his
Client's confidence la Mr. Chester had estesied M.
)0t.,1 =wiry matters, Mb far as to have destroyed Mt
peace of mind. He bed bet one witness indeed, olio,
it was represented, was mama whew lOC pert of
t►e mosey, was lent; bet of this eriteem's &din
towards his Client be was apprehensive, since hv wee
hail for the Defendant. Sects evidence es he bed,
honeaer, it was his duty to submit to the Jury. Ho
thus salted

►lr. WMGa. wbs stated that he was a corn-dealer,
and knew both Plaintiff sad Delendsot. he had been
friesdly with bosh; and Mrs. Hand bad frequently sat
at In. ••bte. Ifs itelsred, however, on his banner
owl his oaih, he never saw Mrs. Hand lend a single
potted to the Defendaut. Hs was net aware she could
slyer hays had 271. by her is load any one.—Plaintiff
mousuited.

ROLLS COURT. COURT. FE.. 17.
SIMI*. *ANNUM -

Sir A. Preston stated, that this was an application
is the Coed to whilst She weaning sf a passage in
the will of Abraham Grudge, by which the testator
declarrd as fellows; " I give to Francis Sapte's chit.
sliest each 1001. when of age, in the mesa time to as
at Interest." At the time of the deyiease of
the testator, in 1616, Frauds Septa bad five children,
and within a year after another wet horn. Tht gees.
Lion, therefore, for consideration was, whether the
children born after the testator's death were entitled
to a share of the legacy. The eldest was now 17
years old, sod it did not appear bow deny others
sight' be bens. The lasoater had appointed three
residuary legatees, who could not receive the real.
dee, ustiliit was deckled to what children the bemused
should be given. If the child horn subsequent to Its
testator's death was entitled to • *hue, the father
laid claim to Its share, foe the child itself bad died
doling the coarse of the last year. It was also to be
decided whether the dewy should be paid for the
ids of the children, before the period of their do*
log twenty-one years.
Mr. Itourcu., on behalf of the residuary lega-
tees, argued that the legacy was contingent viva
each child reached the period defined by oho testator,
and also tbot no child born subsequent to the death
dale teststor was 'stifled to • dare.
The Marren of the ROLLS said, that theqoestion
for decision appeared to him to be, whether the le.
pcy was contingent or vested ; and neat what chil-
dren were entitled to It. With regard to the first
paint, it was clear frost the words urd by the tuts.
tor, soil by the care with which by provided for the
interest of the legac), that it west its intention that
the le‘scy should be sealed ; and in respect to the
second, it was equally amides.. that the testator bid
in lies only the children in being at the than of his
Jot rase, by his haring appoinitml residuary legatees.
The money was evidently intended for ibis Week of
the children on their arriving at the age of twenty-
one years, and not for any prior benefit. They were
• therefore entitled to receive • lien they reached that
!period of life.

Some villains enterkl the benne ♦t Mum. Baum,
21, Chester•piece, Kennington, a faor ninhas ago,
and Stole a trunk belonging to the setvent.inaid, coo-
'Wait% Gl. la Dotes and several articles of 'seeing
spore!.