360

List of Sheriffs, Under-Sheriffs, Deputies, and Agents, for 1853.

Sir William Edmund Cradock Hartropp, of Four Oaks-hall, Sutton

Coldfield, Bart..

Thomas Arthur Bertie Mostyn, of Kylan, Esq.

::

:

:

::

::::

:::

:

::

List of Sheriffs, Under-Sheriff's, Deputies, and Agents, for 1853.

Under-Sheriffs.

ENGLAND.

William Daggett, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Esq.

William Woodgate, of Lincoln's-inn-fields, Esq...
Thomas Heath, of Warwick, Esq.

John Heelis, of Appleby, Esq.
Thos. Baverstock Merriman, of Marlborough, Esq.
(A. U. West Awdry, of Chippenham, Esq.).
George Croft Vernon, of Hanbury, Esq. (A. U.
Messrs. Hyde and Tymbs, of Worcester)
Charles Pidcock, of Worcester, Esq.
William Gray, of York, Esq. ·

Deputies and Town Agents.

361

Messrs. Williamson, Hill, and Williamson, 10,
Great James-street, Bedford-row.

John Wickham Flower, 17, Gracechurch-street.
Frederick Ouvry, 13, Tokenhouse-yard.
George Mounsey Gray, 9, Staple-inn.

Messrs. Bircham, Dalrymple, and Drake, 46, Par-
liament-street.

Messrs. Taylor and Collisson, 28, Great James-st.,
Bedford-row.

Messrs. Holme, Loftus, and Young, 10, New-inn,
Strand.

"Messrs. Davies, Son, Campbell, and Hand, 17,
Warwick-street, Regent-street.

Messrs. Holme, Loftus, and Young, 10, New-inn,
Strand.

Messrs. Capes and Stuart, 1, Field-ct., Gray's-inn.

Messrs. Taylor and Collisson, 28, Great Jamesstreet, Bedford-row.

George Mounsey Gray, 9, Staples-inn, Holborn.
Messrs. Lewis, Wood, and Street, 6, Raymond-
buildings, Gray's-inn.

Messrs. Hall and Hunt, 11, New Boswell-court,
Carey-street.

Henry Bedford, 4, Gray's-inn-square.

Messrs. Bell, Brodrick, and Bell, Bew Churchyard.

Henry Anderson, of High Peter-gate, York, Esq.. Charles Fiddey, 3, Paper-buildings, Temple.

362

Notes of Week.-Superior Courts: Lord Chancellor-Lords Justices.

In re Robinson's Charity. Feb. 26, 1853.

WELCH CHARITY.-APPOINTMENT OF NEW
TRUSTEES IN LIEU OF JUDGES OF PRIN-
CIPALITY.

Held, that the Vice-Chancellors have juris-
diction under the 11 Geo. 4, and 1 Wm. 4,
c. 70, s. 31, to appoint new trustees of a
charity in the place of the Judges of the
Welch Courts, thereby abolished, who might
have been nominated to act as trustees.

THE testatrix, by his will, dated in November, 1703, appointed the Bishop of St. Asaph and his successors, together with the Chief Justice of Chester and his successors, and his associate Justices, trustees of a charity thereby created, and it had been since duly administered according to his directions. By the 11 Geo. 4, and 1 Wm. 4, c. 70, the jurisdiction of the Welch Courts was abolished, and this petition was presented by the direction of Vice-Chan- a sellor Turner, by the bishop and the present vicar of Ruabon, in whom the legal estate vested, for an order to appoint new trustees.

By s. 31 of that Act, it is enacted, that "in all cases where any trust for charitable uses or of a public nature shall have been cast upon the Judges of the Courts hereby abolished, by virtue of their offices, it shall be lawful for the Lord High Chancellor or Keeper of the Seals for the time being, or for the Judges of Assize upon their Circuits in the county of Chester or principality of Wales, to appoint such other trustee or trustees as they shall think fit, by any writing under their hand in place of the former Judge or Judges."

Kennion in support.

CASES.

Chancellor had jurisdiction to make the order asked.1

over.

Feb. 23.-In re Fussell-Cur. ad. vult.
23, 26.-Edwards v. Champion-Stand

26.-In re Dixon, exparte Bulmer-Part

Heard.

Lords Justices.

Stansfield v. Hobson. March 2, 1853.

MORTGAGE. EQUITY OF REDEMPTION.—
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. ACKNOW-
LEDGMENT.

A mortgagee in possession of certain pro-
perty mortgaged by a building society,
wrote to the plaintiffs' agent in answer to
a letter asking for a meeting on the sub-
ject, as follows:-"I do not see the use of
meeting here or at M., unless some party
is ready with the money to pay me off:
Held, dismissing, with costs, an appeal
from the Master of the Rolls, that this
was a sufficient acknowledgment to take the
cuse out of the operation of the Statute of
Limitations, and that the plaintiff's were
entitled to redeem.

THIS was an appeal from the Master of the Rolls (reported ante, p. 114). It appeared that piece of land in Union Street, Oldham, which belonged to the Union Building Club, was mortgaged to the defendant in September, 1824, and March, 1825, to secure two several advances of 1,000l. and interest. The defendant had entered into possession, and in Jan., 1844, the bookkeeper of the society wrote the defendant a letter on the subject of the mortgage, and stating that the members were desirous of settling the business and asking an account of what was due for interest. The defendant, however, never rendered any account, and in February, 1850, in answer to a letter

The Vice-Chancellor Wood, on Feb. 28, accordingly appointed the vicar of Ruabon and the rural dean for the time being, and two

The Lord Chancellor said, that the Vice- others, trustees.

Superior Courts: Lords Justices.—Rolls.-V. C. Kindersley.

from the plaintiffs' solicitor, asking him to fix a meeting on the subject of the property, he wrote:-"I do not see the use of meeting here or at Manchester, unless some party is ready with the money to pay me off." The Master of the Rolls having held that this was a sufficient acknowledgment under the Statute of Limitations, and decreed a redemption against the defendant, this appeal was presented.

Elmsley and Osborne for the plaintiffs and respondents; R. Palmer and J. J. Hamilton Humphreys for the defendant, in support of the appeal.

363

In this case the exceptions, which had been taken to the defendant's answer, had not been answered, and upon the defendant neglecting to pay the costs, according to order, he had been taken into custody for contempt. This motion was therefore made to take the answer off the file. Cur. ad. vult.

The Master of the Rolls said, that as the defendant still neglected to pay the costs for which he was in contempt, the answer must be taken off the file with the costs of this motion.

Feb. 23.-Watson v. Parker and others-Injunction granted.

24. In re Henland-Order for appointment of new trustee.

The Lords Justices said, that the letter was an admission the defendant held as mortgagee, and that some person had a right to redeem if provided with the money due, and it could only apply to the mortgagors, to whose agent it was written in reply to his letter on the sub-Cur. ad. vult. ject. The appeal would therefore be dismissed, with costs.

25, 26.-In re Manchester New College

26-Asher v. Longridge - Interim injunction granted.

March 1.-Cowley v. Watts-Decree for

Feb. 25.-In re Crowther-Commission de specific performance of contract. lunatico inquirendo to issue.

26, 28.-Gooch v. Gooch-Cur. ad. vult. 28.-Great Western Railway Company v. Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway Company-Part heard.

March 1.-Rodgers v. Nowill-Motion for commitment discharged by arrangement, for breach of injunction.

Master of the Rolls.

Trimmell v. Fell. Feb. 21, 1853.

MARRIED WOMAN. WILL UNDER POWER
IN SETTLEMENT.-SURVIVING HUSBAND.

A married woman bequeathed a sum of money
by her will under a power of appointment
in her marriage settlement, but she survived
her husband and died without republishing
her will. In the event of her so surviving
she took the property absolutely: Held,
that the will was inoperative.

THE testatrix, Mrs. Frances Hutton, had bequeathed by her will a sum of 1,300l. under a power, contained in her marriage settlement, of appointment in case she died before her husband. It appeared, however, that in the event of her surviving her husband, she took the property absolutely. The testatrix survived her husband, and died without republishing her will.

Lloyd and Rogers, for the devisee, contended the bequest was valid; Roupell and Shebbeare, contrà; R. Palmer and E. F. Smith for other parties.

The Master of the Rolls said, that the will was inoperative.

Coyle v. Alleyn. Feb. 28, 1853. DEFENDANT IN CONTEMPT FOR NON-PAYMENT OF COSTS OF EXCEPTIONS To

ANSWER. TAKING ANSWER OFF FILE.

The answer of a defendant was ordered to be taken off the file where he was in contempt for non-payment of the costs of exceptions to his answer.

- 1.-Rochdale Canal Company v. King— Part heard.

THIS was a petition on behalf of the mortgagee of one-tenth of the income of an estate, directed by the will of the testator in this administration suit to be sold, but which had been taken by the London and North Western Railway Company for the purposes of their railway, for the transfer of the purchase-money Vict. c. 18, to the credit of the cause, and for which had been paid into Court, under the 8 the costs to be paid by the company. All the parties interested had been served, and four had appeared separately.

Follett, J. Baily, Fleming, Speed, and Eddis, for the several parties.

The Vice-Chancellor said, that the company were liable to the costs of the parties who was entitled to appear on the petition. As the parties having the same interest as the petitioner might have given in an appearance on the petition, the company were only liable to pay the costs of the petition and the trustees, and the other costs would have to come out of the estate.

364

Superior Courts: V. C. Kindersley.-V. C. Stuart.

Feb. 23.-In re St. Marylebone Joint-Stock The Vice-Chancellor said, the arrears as the Banking Company-Arrangement as to hear- first charge must be paid out of the dividends. ing of this motion.

25.-In re Great North of England and Yorkshire and Glasgow Union Junction Railway Company, exparte Carrick-Stand over to Trinity Term.

26, 28.-Pennell v. Roy-Stand over. 24, 26, 28; March 1.-Attorney-General v. Blackburn-Stand over.

Vice-Chancellor Stuart.

In re Commercial Dock Company, exparte Lady
Sydney. Feb. 26, 1853.

LANDS' CLAUSES' ACT.-COSTS OF PARTIES
IN REMAINDER, ON PETITION FOR PAY-
MENT OF INCOME TO TENANT FOR LIFE.

Certain leasehold property had been taken by
a dock company for the purposes of their
Act, and the purchase-money been paid into
Court. On a petition presented by the
tenant for life for payment of her share of
the fund, the company were ordered to pay
the costs of the petition, and of the parties
entitled in remainder who had been served
therewith.

THIS was a petition on behalf of the tenant for life of certain leasehold property taken by the above company, for the payment of her share of the fund, which had been paid into Court under the Lands' Clauses' Act.

In re Moore's Estate. Feb. 26, 1853. ARREARS OF WEEKY PAYMENTS CHARGED

ON PREMISES TAKEN BY RAILWAY COM

PANY.

In re Turner's Trusts. Feb. 21, 1853.
CHARITABLE BEQUEST.-MORTMAIN ACT.—

BOND GIVEN BY CORPORATION.-TRUS-
TEES' RELIEF ACT.-TRUSTEE'S COSTS.
A testator gave a moiety of the income of a
sum of 1,000l. lent on bond to the corpo-
ration of Liverpool to provide a salary for
the organist of a church, and for other
charitable purposes: Held, that the Mort-
main Act did not apply.

The bond was sold and the proceeds paid into
Court under the 10 & 11 Vict. c. 96, by
the executors of the testator's trustee, who
alone proved the will and acted in the
trusts. The party entitled to the income of
the other moiety petitioned as to the invest-
ment, &c., of the fund, and the other trus-
tee who had never acted or proved the will,
appeared to oppose-the Court disallowed
him his costs, the fund being insufficient.
It appeared that the testator, Jellicoe Turner,
had lent a sum of 1,000l. on bond to the cor-
poration of Liverpool, and by his will directed
the income of a moiety of the same to be ap-
plied for providing a permanent and regular
salary for the organist of Stevenage church
and for other charitable purposes. The testa-
tor died in 1844, and the bond had been sold
and the proceeds paid into Court under the 10
& 11 Vict. c. 96, by the executors of his trus-
tee, Mr. Robert Maggy, who alone proved the
will and acted in the trusts. This petition was
now presented by the husband of the annuitant
of the other moiety, for the investment thereof,
and payment as directed by the testator.

Speed in support; Saunders for the Bishop of Rochester and Rector of Stevenage, to whom the income was payable.

W. H. Terrell for Mr. Fitzjohn, the coexecutor, contrà, on the ground the bond was within the Statute of Mortmain.

The Vice-Chancellor said, the petition must be granted, and that as the executor had never proved his testator's will nor acted until the present occasion, his costs of appearance would not be allowed, as the fund was deficient.

Feb. 23.-Llewellyn v. Cobbold-Decree for delivery up of deed to be cancelled.

24.-Corporation of Rochester v. Owlett -Order restraining defendant from disputing right of plaintiffs to levy toll on coal in action of replevin.

The widow of a testatrix was entitled to a payment of 14s. per week out of the rents of certain houses, which had been taken by a railway company: Held, that she was entitled to payment of the arrears, although she had not asked the investment of the fund which had been paid into Court. Freeling appeared in support of this petition, on behalf of the widow of the testator, for the investment of the proceeds of certain property taken by the Birmingham, Dudley, and Wolverhampton Railway Company, for the purposes of their Act. It appeared that she was entitled to 14s. a week out of the rents of the houses in question, and she now sought pay-way ment of the arrears, the money having remained for some time uninvested.

De Gex for the children, contrà, as to the arrears, cited Darbon v. Rickards, 14 Sim. 537.

25. Harrison v. Mayor, &c., of Southampton - Exception overruled to the Master's report.

23, 26.-Great Northern Railway Com pany v. South Yorkshire and River Dun Rail. Company-Stand over.

26.-Attorney-General v. Corporation of Sheffield Petition dismissed, with costs. March 1.-Fiott v. Mullins-Part heard.