Court Of Chancery, Monday...
The Times, 1824-11-16T00:00:00

tAW REPPon T. - - d sur. urampton haid married a waid o-'o Court, and accorditg tothe Jgrent of the Lord Chancellor, had committed a grous corntempt, and a suxbposna was served upon him to attend the Court this morning. The naother, who is tbe petitioner, and the dauh brid who is defendant, were in Court, together withi the youth. fu e-gtroomu. The Lont CLANTCFT .LOn entased the young couple to be called before hir misi'h privaterooni. The nature of the interview was only known to the vrofessional gentlemen who attanded, for the par. tics, and to tbe pnrtles thernselyes. EXK-@AILTt. IaUttND'ANE 302X, tN THE .MtATTERSs OF ISAAC BLACEn1J3RM, ANKC1tU?T AN,J)D OF FtTEn YLACr;UItrn, a uANItUpT ; so'rTs OF PLY31OUTH. One oF thecc bankrupts had drawn upon the other, and the bills were disounted by the petitioners, without knowing of a partner- ship between tiem until lie second becanme bankrupt. The peti- tioners, with fulU knowledIge obtained stibsequently, had been ad- vised to take the dividend under thc first commission, and this they did, with the understandin. that they had a right to prove iin- der the Joint and aevcral commissions; which right having been questnloled under the second conmiission, caused the present peti- tubn to be filed. The LIRDn CsAxcirL ,,OR haa tpken measures to prepare hic mind ?or the judgment; but had only recently perceived ene circumstance in the case which mad;e hirm pause. Supposing the right of the petl- tioners to be unquestiorable to prove under both commissions, their own admission5 was, that they knew of the partnership at the time they accepted the dividend under the first coemmission. flow far that dd or did not place them in the condition of parties making an election fro which they could not recede, he confessed himself un- able. Just at this moment, to determine. He would, however, take ed the opportunity of pcting thle c.ases, and wished the counsel me, with a view to assi5ting him with the benefit of' their Informiation, if he should need it. WVILCOX V. UltODES. - This was an appeal from the judgment of tie Vice-Chancellor- The petitioner was entitled to a legacy of personal property, which was guaranteed in the will by the leaseholds of the tesrator. The queition had. beeni, whether stle bequest vwasgeneral, or a specific legacy chargeable upon the leaseholds. The Vice-Chancellor de- creed that the legacy was cbargeable in the first place upon the lease- holds, "and those 'estates failing, then to be charged ,ateably with the otlier legacies upon the residuary persoisal estate." The LoyD sCRA?, CEtror pronounced this decree to be inconsis- tent with any sense which any man could apply to it with a view to setting the question. He confessed his entire inabilitv to discover what was mieant by " .-aleably with the other legacies," in the event of the le-aseholds failiig. Su%qpose the leaseholds paid lOs.. in the pound, were the Iegaciee c'nargeable upion themii to come upon the re- ciduary- estate for the deficient lOs., or " raleably" with ilte other legacies for 2dg. ? As ito one hut tile Judge who fralsed the decree could clearly e:;pisin that X as intended by the w ord, he would talce O PpOrtunity of consulting his Honour upon the subject. b4 COURT OF CHANCERY. A1a5nAY. Nov. 15 Y_ L - - __ WELLER V. WELLER.