persons mentioned in a certificate. Talbot Jewkes was Serjeant-
at-Arms in the reigns of Anne and George I. This was the
tradition of the relationship in his family.

The Attorney-General submitted that the letter was re-
ceivable in evidence:

In The Bishop of Meath v. The Marquis of Winchester (1), a case purporting to be a case stated for the opinion of counsel, on the part of A., a former Bishop of M., touching the right of presentation to a church, and found in the family mansion of A.'s descendants, was held to be, in an action of quare impedit, admissible as against his successor in the same see. Sir R. Bethell:

That case does not govern the present. It may be that ancient documents need not be shown to have come from the custody of the party who was legally and strictly entitled to the custody of them. If they came from the custody of a descendant, who was in possession of the family documents, as appeared to be the case in *Meath v. The Marquis of Winchester, that might be sufficient. But here the witness could hardly be called a descendant of the Mrs. Jewkes, who was said to be daughter of the Talbots.

The witness stated that there were in his possession other letters to the same person, and deeds of property which had come to him from Samuel Jewkes.

The Solicitor-General did not think, considering the facts proved by the witness, that this could be said to be an unnatural or an improper custody for this document, and he did not, therefore, oppose its admission in evidence.

The Committee thought the letter admissible. Other letters to the same person, from the Duke of Shrewsbury, were also produced by the witness, and admitted in evidence.

A bill and answer, brought from the Rolls Office in Dublin, in a suit of Edgworth v. Talbot, were tendered in evidence.

Sir R. Bethell objected, that the answer did not appear to be signed by the defendant. It could not have been received without signature and the oath of the defendant, except upon an order of the Court, and no such order had been proved.

2nd

The Solicitor-General pointed out, that it was indorsed, "I consent that this answer be received without oath. July, 1713. JA. DARBY," who was the plaintiff in the suit.

(1) 42 R. R. 38 (4 Cl. & Fin. 445).

THE

SHREWS

BURY PEERAGE.

[ *32 ]

THE SHREWS

BURY PEERAGE

April 23

[ 33 ]

May 4.

Sir R. Bethell:

The objection is not removed. of the plaintiffs who were minors. to make it evidence.

LORD WENSLEYDALE:

Darby was the next friend His consent was not sufficient

It must be received as the statement of the party making it; and being found upon the files of the Court, it must be presumed that it got there by proper authority.

Evidence received.

The Attorney-General proposed to offer in evidence a pedigree purporting to bear the handwriting of Mr. Anstis, Garter King at Arms.

Mr. Netherclift proved, from comparison of signatures to various authentic papers, that this pedigree was signed by Mr. Anstis.

Mr. King, York Herald, stated, that the pedigree was found last December, in consequence of a search made for another pedigree. It was found in a box in which it must have been placed (with other similar papers) in 1844, when, in consequence of building a new library, many documents had been put into boxes which had not since been opened. Witness had at that time inserted the title of this pedigree in a catalogue. The title was, "Some collections concerning the name and families of Talbots, by J. A. Gr." (John Anstis, Garter.) It was a collection of private entries made by Mr. Anstis. He died in 1743. It was bought by the Heralds' College in 1780, from the executors of Mr. Edmondson, York Herald-bought as part of a herald's collections. It was not an office book. The Committee, on this last fact, held the pedigree to be inadmissible. Evidence rejected.

Mr. Ellis summed up the additional evidence which had been produced for the claimant.

Sir R. Bethell opened the additional evidence proposed to be adduced in opposition by Lord Edmund Howard.

Mr. Peter Burke begged to be heard on behalf of Major Talbot, who, he said, had prepared a case to lay before the House. He did not appear as a claimant, but he asked to be heard as one interested in the claim.

The Committee decided that he could not be heard. He was not like Lord Edmund Howard, who, though not a claimant of the peerage, had an interest in the estate, which was to

follow the peerage, and who, on that account, *was allowed to be heard in opposition. Major Talbot did not claim the peerage nor the estate; and if he did, he could not now be heard, except after laying his claim before the Crown, and coming before the House in a regular way. He had not, therefore, any title at all to be heard.

Mr. Burke attempted to renew his claim to be heard, but was refused by the Committee as before. From this time the counsel for Major Talbot ceased to appear.

Sir R. Bethell was then farther heard on the additional evidence.

Farther evidence as to the state of the tomb in the church at Bromsgrove was given.

Evidence was given on behalf both of the claimant and of Lord Edmund Howard.

A visitation of the county of Northampton, dated in 1681, 1682, was tendered in evidence. There had been search made for the commission under which it was taken, but none could be found. The visitation purported on the face of it to have been taken by Chester and Rougedragon heralds "by virtue of several deputations from Sir Henry St. George, Kt., Clarenceux King of Arms." The deputation was read; it began, "To all to whom these presents shall come, Sir Henry St. George, Kt., Clarenceux King of Arms, &c.;" it then went on to recite the commission to Sir Henry St. George, which was to be executed "by himself or his sufficient deputy or deputies, under the seal of his office, deputed and authorised to visit all the said province." The visitation was signed by Sir Henry St. George.

Upon this the visitation was admitted in evidence.

Mr. R. Palmer was partly heard to sum up the additional evidence on the part of the opposition.

Mr. R. Palmer continued and concluded his summing up.

The Attorney-General was heard in reply, on the part of the claimant on this day, on the 18th and on the 20th of May. On the last of these days the Solicitor-General (Sir H. Cairns) was heard on behalf of the Crown.

Lord CRANWORTH, as he had held the Great Seal when this case was first heard, moved the judgment of the Committee. Having gone fully into the case, he expressed himself satisfied with the proof given on the part of the claimant, and he

THE SHREWSBURY PEERAGE.

[ 34 ]

May 6.

May 14.

May 17.

[ 35 ]

June 1.

THE SHREWS

BURY PEERAGE.

1858.

Feb. 12, 15.
June 2.

July 20.

Lord CRANWORTH. Lord WENSLEYDALE.

The following
Judges
attended:

COLERIDGE,
J.

CROMPTON, J.
CROWDER, J.
WILLES, J.

[ 35 ]

[36]

moved that "It is the opinion of this Committee that Earl Talbot has made out his claim to the title, honour, and dignity of Earl of Shrewsbury."

This resolution was agreed to.

It was then ordered that the Chairman do report the said resolution to the House.

VERNON v. WRIGHT (1).

(7 H. L. C. 35–68; S. C. 28 L. J. Ch. 198; 4 Jur. N. S. 1113.) Devise "to the right heirs of my grandfather S., deceased, by M. his second wife, also deceased, for ever." The rule in Mandeville's case applied (2): Held, that the first words created an estate tail, which was not enlarged into an estate in fee by the use of the words "for ever."

Trustees entered into possession of rents and profits, and paid them over under a trust deed to a married woman to her separate use; it afterwards appeared that she was not entitled to receive them, but that upon the true construction of a will they ought to have gone to another person. That person filed a bill and a decree was made in his favour, but an account of the rents and profits was only ordered from the date of the filing of the bill:

Held, that whether an account should be directed from the filing of the bill, or from an anterior time, is a matter of discretion, and that in this case the discretion had been rightly exercised.

The respondent was allowed to object to a part of the decree though he had not brought any cross appeal.

SIR THOMAS SAMWELL, Bart., of Upton, in the county of WATSON, B. Northampton (who will, for convenience' sake, be afterwards described as Sir Thomas, the grandfather) was twice married. By his first wife he had one son, Thomas, and a daughter, Mary. Thomas succeeded him in the title, and will be described as Sir Thomas, the testator. Mary married Stephen Langham, and had issue, three daughters, Millicent, Frances Ann, and Phillis. Millicent Langham married William Drought, and had issue, Thomas Fuller Drought, Frances Drought, and Juliana Drought, Frances Ann Langham and Phillis Langham were never married. They were the testatrixes, whose wills were the subject of discussion.

Sir Thomas, the grandfather, had, by his second wife, Mary, the daughter of Sir Gilbert Clarke, a son, Wenman (who succeeded to the title on the death, without issue, of his halfbrother, Thomas), and a daughter, Catherine. This daughter married Thomas Atherton Watson, and had three sons and one daughter. The sons were Thomas Samwell Watson, Wenman Langham Watson, and Atherton Watson. The daughter, Char

lotte Felicia, married Benjamin Tinley, and had issue, two daughters, Clarissa Felicia Tinley and Charlotte Henrietta Tinley. The former married a Mr. Woodford, and left issue, Wenman Langham Woodford, one of the respondents; the latter married William Wright, the other respondent.

Sir Thomas, the testator, had no lawful issue, and by his will, dated November 1st, 1778, devised the estates (which were subject to terms still unsatisfied and outstanding) to his illegitimate son, for life, with remainder to the sons of his said son in tail male, with remainder to Wenman Samwell, the testator's brother of the half-blood, for life, with remainder to his sons in tail male, with remainder to Thomas Samwell Watson, a son of Catherine, *the testator's sister of the halfblood, for life, with remainder to his sons in tail male, with remainder to Wenman Langham Watson, another son of Catherine, for life, with remainder to his sons in tail male, with remainder to Thomas Fuller Drought, son of Millicent Drought, a niece of the testator of the whole blood, for life, with remainder to his sons in tail male, with the ultimate reversion to his, the testator's, own right heirs for ever. And the will directed, that Thomas Samwell Watson, and Wenman Langham Watson, and Thomas Fuller Drought, on succeeding to the estates should take the surname and arms of Samwell.

The testator died in 1779. His illegitimate son took the estates and died without issue. The testator's half-brother, Wenman Samwell, succeeded to the title, and afterwards to the estates. On the death of Wenman Samwell without issue, the title became extinct. Thomas Samwell Watson then took the estates under the testator's will, and assumed the name and arms of Samwell, and will, in the course of the case, be called Colonel Samwell. He died without issue. He died without issue. Each of the other persons named as a tenant for life succeeded in turn to the estates, and also died without issue; and no one of the successive tenants for life ever did any act to bar the entail. On the death, without issue, of Sir Thomas, the testator, his nieces, Millicent, Frances Ann, and Phillis, became his coheiresses, entitled to the ultimate remainder given by his will, subject to the special limitations therein contained.

While Colonel Samwell was in possession of the estates, under the will of Sir Thomas, the testator, namely in April, 1827, Frances Ann Langham and Phillis Langham made their wills. Each will, with the exception of the name of the testatrix, and of the first devisee, was in precisely the same terms. Each testatrix gave all her property, in the *first instance, to her sister for life; then to trustees, "in trust, for my two

VERNON

WRIGHT.

[ 37 ]

[ *38 ]