New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-08-01

you, or 4 majority of you. compos,ug At the time
h ard Of Police OF the Metropolitan Police District.
po'sua,t - an set entitled. "Aa Act T. Estsbish q
Me'rop Titan Police District and to Provide for the
" Government thereof" passed. April Is 1857 such
pro eedng. have been had that you or majority If
you have rregulariy, and wihons authority jnris
dii"n IN toe premises, DISCHARGED, dismissed and re-
M Ned from Office, Richard Gambling policeman
daily appointed and holding Office in he Sixteenth Patrol
District, " Precinct, II the City of NewYork; and
rh1rees. II is alleged by the said Gambling that your
proceedings have been irregular, without author
Wv and in violation Of the opinions Of the act
aforesaid, md especially inviolation OF the 9TH
ceraiu reasons that all the proceedings con-
flee of said Richard Gambling before you remaining
with all the proceedings thereto appertaning should
be certified and returned by You into our Supreme
Court before Justices thereof a. General Term
Of sad Court, TO be held in the City II Ill in the City
Of New-Yetk on the 10th day of August 1857, at 10
O'Clock q m. OF that day, 20 that our said Justices
may further act thereon of right and according to
Law ought to be done and have you then there this
writ.
witn,~, Justice of said Supreme Court, a. the
City Han in the City Of RicHsR6 coSsyGLLY chg
LYMAN SHERWOOD, Attorney, No. l55 Broadway. N. Y.
HASDANUs DENIED.
The People the relation Of Henry A. Burr sg Lorenzo
Burroughs Controller Of tine State of New.york
This was an application for q writ of mandsmus BY
the petition it appeared that in the Supply bill Of 1867
there was clause directing the State Treasurer to
pay on the warrant of the Controller 81 l48 - to
cancel judgment rendered in his favor against Wm.
The Controller having refused to draw his warrant
10 pay the money, this application is made. The af6
davit OF the Controller, in opposition sisted that the
able, entirely exhausted, and that there we're
Moneys in the Treasury applicable to the payment Of
this demand. The application was denied, without
costs VIM. A. Hardenbrook for the petitioner s. Ii.
Hammond Deputy Attorney General, in opposition.
sURRosATEs coURT-JuLY sl.-Before A. W. BRAD
CONSTRUCTION OF A wILL-wHEN LEGAcIgs LAPSE.
In the Matter Of the Estate of George c. Reed
The SURRoGATE-The testator died NJ srch IL, 1855.
BY his will he bequeathed $4,000 in trust for his
"snd instead of the of gil $780, part of the $780,
1000" given in the viii, he substituted the devise Of
house and lot. 1t Is eontended that morg4g of
of the personsl estate. Ny opinion does not agree
with this view The provision Of the Revised Statutes
that mortgages are not a charge upon the general
estate, but that the devsee must take the property
oRere is urbed unless by clear and
express direction in the will. The testamentary in
strumeDt in the present instance contains on that SUBJ
.ect nothing more than general provision that all
" the debts and sums Of money" which the testator
should at the time of his death were to be paid
by the executors that is merely the usual direction
as to the payment OF debts and shows no signs OF an
intention ~ modify the statutory rule The devisee
cannot therefore, either the principal or the in
terst in at the time of Mr. Reeds decease paid
out of his estate The land devised must bear own
burdens. The resduary clause of the will under con-
sderation is as follows As to all the rest residue
and remainder of my estate Of whatsoever nature to
be converted ioO cash out and out as hereinbefore
directed, real and personal, order ana direct that
the same, when converted into cash, be divided by
nv executors into two equal parts or shares, aud
If said equal parts shares of the said residue Of my
estate give and bequead unto my said sister, Mrs.
Ann Henderson, for her and benefit, for and dur
ny the term of her natural fe and upon her decease
give and bequeath the said one equal half part
share Of the said residue Of my estate unto the said
John Henderson and Jane Ann Henderson, children
of my said sister, Mrs. Ann Henderson, to be equally
divided between them share and share alike, and to
their respective issue such issue taking the share to
which the parent, II living would have been entitled
but 10 case either the said John Henderson Jane
Ann Henderson should die before their mother with
out leaving wul issue living then the survivor 70 take
the part OF shsre Ofthe dying. Ms. Henderson
and her SOD John both died before the testatOr-he
former in 1850 and the latter in 1852 without issue.
The point arises whether the bequest or any portion
Of it, hes lapsed. The gift is of life estate to the
mother, with remainder to her two children. The
children were to take as tenants in common, "share
and share alike and not as joint tenants The gen.
era rule that by the death OF egaee before the tes-
tator his interest under the will lapses relates only to
the interest of the party dying, and where there are
other interests grated limited upon that of tue de-
ceased legatee they do not necessarily fall Oruina-
Ily, long the event upon which the testator has
made bis bounty contingent takes place, it would seem
TO be indifferent whether it in the testaors life
time after his death, provided the party Designed
10 be benefited be living. Where life tenant dies
before the testator but the party entitled In remainder
survives him. the death of the life tenant only extin-
cuisines the life estate and the remainderman is let in
to the immediate right to the gift the moment the Will
takes effect. (Nowatt We. Cana, Paige, 32S) The
extinction of the rs interest carved of the estate
only accelerates the right of the second tsker
am clear, therefore, that If both Mrs. Hendersons
children had been living at the death of MIR. Reed,
they would have been entitled to their respective
shares Of half the residue. One of them. however,
died before the testato and his share apsed unless
We find some provision reaching this contingency
and giving over the share to some other person. In
which case the limitation would be good, not
outstanding the event on which depended occurred
before the tesator's decease. The resduary clause
gives this remainder to the two children, TO be
equally divided between them, share and share alike
aud their respective issue, such issue taking the
" share to which the parent, if living would have
been emitted" But John died without ISIS so the
provision for issue does not apply. But, the re-
sduary clause proceeds in either the said John
Henderson or Jane Ann Henderson should die be-
"fore their mother, without leaving lawful issue liv.
ing then tie survivor to take the part or share OF
1.-The oae so DYING" Here are two conditions. John
died without leaving lawful issue living, and that
condition is fuflled but he did not die before his
mother and that condition was not fulfilled Inc SIS
ter now claims Johns share as survivor, on an
event or contingency different from the one named 10
the w-that is the testaor declared she should take
Johns share il he died before his mother, and she
demand Johns share when he died alter his uiotnei.
This cannot be. The will is not so written. Ii is
possible indeed think probable, that If the teststor
mad contemplated the state Of facts which has oc-
cured he would have provided for II IN the way TINS
claim ef survvorshp supposes but no Court can ADOPT
rule of construction conjecture or against the PLAIN
import Of terms will clearly expressed must re,
ceiye the Interpretation which the words compel and
80. o. contaminated be aided by