Page images
PDF
EPUB

328

[ocr errors]

OFFENDER."

but

1171

Why should

The Recorder of HulleCorrespondence.-County Palatine Chancery Billing THE RECORDER OF HULL. : COUNTY PALATINE CHANCERYH

BILL. REMISSION OF PUNISHMENT ON JUVENILE

TAE clauses in this Bill giving jurisdiction The Hull Advertiser (a liberal paper) of the 15th instant, observes, that “The boy Regan.

to the Lords Justices to hear Appeals, are whose case gave the noble Secretary of State doubtless beneficial;

the power

of comso much trouble a few months ago, was again pelling the appearance in this local Court of tried before the learned Recorder of this boro gh, on Monday last (the 10th July), and

persons residing in London or Cornwall, or having for the fourth time been found guilty

elsewhere, is very objectionable. Why should of felony, was inercifully sentenced to four the County of Lancaster possess a Court of years' penal servitude. We do not believe Equity, whilst Yorkshire and all other counties that the Recorder ever appeared to more ad- are denied a similar privilege? vantage upon the Bench than while trying and passing sentence upon this incorrigible lad. executors, trustees, legatees, creditors, infants, He spoke of the conduct of those who had ad- and others, be required to appear in person or dressed the Secretary of State as influenced by by unknown agents at Preston, or elsewhere, the promptings of a generous humanity; and he when the business can be more conveniently, pointed out to the boy the ingratitude of which he was guilty in rendering himself unworthy expeditiously, and cheaply transacted in Lonof an interference so kind, and as regarded the don? Even in the County Palatine itself, Crown 80 successful. But it was the Re the suitors and their solicitors can in general corder's account of what he himself had 'pri- more readily communicate with their London vately done to reclaim the lad, which told with such touching effect upon the audience. The agents (to whom they are writing daily) than Recorder had himself been the first to extend to their Preston correspondents. mercy to the lad, and to put him in the way of The advantages proposed by the Bill are reforming, if moral reformation in Hull had confined to the officers of the Palatine Court been possible. He now felt it to be his duty and the practitioners residing at Preston, at wisely to remove him from the scene of so much temptation ; and he discharged that duty the expense and inconvenience of all the with a dignity, a decorum, and in a spirit of suitors, witnesses, and solicitors who do not kindness towards those who addressed the Se belong to that locality. We conceive, that at cretary of State on that occasion, which will be Liverpool and Manchester, it would be preferlong remembered to his credit.”

able to conduct the business in London, where

the leading solicitors of Lancashire, as well as SELECTIONS FROM CORRE

their clients, have so frequently occasion to SPONDENCE.

resort.

COPYHOLDS.-NON-APPEARANCE OF HEIR.

STAMP DUTIES BILL.-COUNTERPARTS.

The tenant hy copy of Court Roll dies; the

NOTES OF THE WEEK, usual presentment of death is made at the Court, and three proclamations for the cus. tornary heir, &c., to come in and be admitted ;

NEW QUEEN'S COUNSEL. -but no one claiming adınission — can the

Peter Erle, Esq., and Edmund Beckett lord in such case, or his steward, issue a war. Denison, Esq., of the Chancery Bar, and rant to the bailiff to seize or must the lord Thomas Phinil, Esq., and Robert Porrett Coba bring ejectment?

R.

lier, Esq., of the Common Law Bar, have been sworn in before the Lord Chancellor as Queen's Counsel; the two last- mentioned gentlemen

with patents of precedence. By the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 63, an ad vlorem Mr. Erle was called to the Bar by the Ho« duły was imposed on conveyances, in conside. nourable Society of the Middle Temple on ration of a year'y rent charye, &c., but the Act June 1, 1821, and received his appointment does not provide for the stamps on the dupli- as Chief Commissioner under the Charitable cates of such conveyances. Can any of your Trusts' Act, in October, 1853. readers inform me whether anything is being Mr. Denison is M.P. for the Yorkshire West done this session to remnedy such omission ? Riding, and was called to the Bar at Lincoln's

J. S.

Inn, November 22, 1841. {The Bill now before the House appears to

Mr. Phion was called to the Bar at the Inner supply this dzect.--Er.

Temple, November 20, 1840, was appointed Recorder of Portsmouth in July, 1848, and transferred to Devoriport in Deçensber, 1951. Notes of Week, Superior Courts: Lord Chancellor, Lords Justices.- Rolls. 119 He was first returned for Bath; in Jaly, 1862, |, papers for the use of the Court to the proper and is still the M.P. for that city,

officer, and he felt it his duty for the future to Mr. Collier was called to the Bar at the Inner Temple, January 27, 1843, and is React on the Order of the 3rd April, 1828, which corder of Penzance. He has represented Ply. empowered the Court to make the solicitors mouth since July, 1852.

neglecting to deliver the papers pay personally

the costs occasioned by such neglect. COLONIAL LAW APPOINTMENT. George Smoult Fagan, Esq., Barrister-at- APPOINTMENT OF LECTURERS AT THE INLaw, has been appointed senior magistrate at Calcutta.

Mr. Archer Shee has been appointed Lec

turer for the ensuing year, on Equity and NEGLECT IN DELIVERING courT PAPERS. Bankruptcy; and Mr. Charles Pollock on Com

The Vice-Chancellor Stuart intimated that mon Law and Criminal Law, much inconvenience and loss of time resulted The Lectures will probably commence on from the neglect of solicitors to deliver the Friday, the 3rd November.

CORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.

RECENT DECISIONS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS.

ING RETURN OFF FILE.

EVIDENCE OF

Lord Chancellor.

transfer a case from the paper of one

Juriye to another, it is necessary to obtain Exparte Pope, July 15, 1854.

the assent of both the Judges. CORONER.-WHERE ELECTION VOID.-TAK

This was an application, by consent of all

parties, for leave to transfer this case from the On the election of a coroner certain votes were paper of the Master of the Rolls to the paper

decared insufficient for want of qualifica- j of Vice-Chancellor Kindersley. tion by the Court of Queen's Bench, and a C. M. Roupell in support. new writ issued for the election of a The Lords Justices said, that leave would ner: An order was made on molion to be given upon the assent of both Judges to the take the return of the coroner who hud transfer being obtained. been elected by reason of such votes of the file, with hberty to the sheriff to muke a

Master of the Rolls. fresh return, but a declarution that the other competing candidate was coroner with- Underwood v. M'ing. July 18, 1854. out a fresh election was refused.

GIFT OVER TO SURVIVOR,

SURVIVORSHIP. It appeared that on the election taking place to the office of coroner for the district of Heinel The testator and his wife were swept off the Hempstead, Herefordshire, Mr. Pope was in a

deck of a vessel at the same time, and were minority in consequence of the votes polled on

not seen to rise afterwards, but their behalf of the other candidate, Mr. Frederick Day,

daughter was a shorl time after seen by a of about 70 persons, who claimed to vote in sailor, who gave evidence thereof in a suit respect of their right of pasturage over cert: in by her representative : Held, that the death waste land at Boxmoor, which had been held

of the testalor and his wife must be preinsufficient by the Court of Queen's Bench

sumed to be simultaneous, and that the (reporterl ante, p. 110), and that the under- plaintiff' was entitled as against the defendsheriff had refused the scrutiny demanded. A

ant, lo whom there wu8, under the wife's Dew writ for the election of a coroner having

will, a gift over, in the event of the testator issued,

survicing herse'f, and who, under the testaTripp now applied for a declaration that tor's will, took upon the deuth of both and Mr. Pope was coroner without a fresh election of their children.

The Lord Chancellor ordered the return of The testator, Mr. Underwood, by his will, Mr. Day, as coroner, to be taken off the file, dated in October, 1853, gave all his property with liberty to the sheriff to make a fresh re- to his wise for life, in case she survived him, turn, the writ in the meantime to be suspended, and afterwards to their children, with a gift but said that the declaration asked could no! over to the defendant (whom he appointed his be made.

executor) absolutely, upon her previous death,

and none of the children attaining 21, or if a Lords Justices.

daugliter marrying. Mrs. Underwood had Judge v. Baker. July 14, 1954.

also, on the saine day made a will, under a TRANSFER OF cause. - ASSENT OP JUDGE. If he survived' her, with a gift over to the de

power, whereby shie appointed to her husband,

fendant, in case her husband died before her. Held, that upon an application for leave to It appeared that they embarked in the Dal

- PRACTICE.

--PRACTICE.

230

Superior Courts: Rolls.C. Kindersley.' housie for the purpose of proceeding to Aus- other Judges) said, that examiners were bound tralia, and that they were drowned when it was to take down the depositions in their own wrecked off Beechy Head. One of the sailors handwriting, but that in the present case, as gave evidence that when the ship was struck the parties had acquiesced in what had been the testator and his wife, together with two of done, the depositions would be filed. his children, were standing together and were all swept into the sea, and were not afterwards seen to rise to the surface, and that their other In re Rose's Settlement. July 14, 1854. daughter, Catherine, was a short time after will. - CONSTRUCTION, DIVIDENDS ACseen by him struggling in the water, and was CRUING DUE WITHIN YEAR. lashed by himself and another seaman to a

The testator, by his will, in pursuance of a spar. The plaintiff, as personal representative of this daughter, who also perished, claimed

power of appointment under his wife's will,

appointed a sum of 2,0001. among his ne. the property as against the defendant. R. Palmer and Prendergast for the plaintiff;

phews and niece equally, the share of such Roupell and Baggallay for the defendant.

as should at his death have attained 21 to The Master of the Rolls said, that the death

be paid within 12 months next after the of the testator and his wife must be pre

same should happen without the interest

and dividends due thereon, and the share sumed to have been simultaneous, and that the gift over to the defendant, upon survivorship,

of such as should not have then attained 21 did not take effect, and the property, therefore,

to be paid on attaining that age or mar. went to the plaintiff as next of kin and personal

riage, provided neither happened within

12 months next after his death, and in representative of the daughter.

that case within 12 months nert there

after: Held, that the dividends accruing Vice-Chancellor Kindersley.

due during the 12 months after the tesSlobart v. Todd. July 13, 1854.

tator's death on the shares of the adult

children went to the regiduary legatee. SPECIAL EXAMINER UNDER EQUITY JURIS

The testator, by his will, dated in July, DICTION AMENDMENT ACT.-DEPOSITIONS,

1851, in pursuance of a power of appointment

under his wife's will, gave 2,0001., equally, Held, that a special examiner, under the 15 & unto and among his nephews and niece nomi

16 Vict. c. 86, s. 32, is bound to take down natim, share and share alike, and directed that the depositions in his own handwriting, and the share or shares of such one or more of that it is insufficient when in that of his them as should at the time of his decease have clerk, although signed by the witnesses and attained the age of 21 years should be paid or the examiner, but where the parties had transferred to him or her within 12 inonths acquiesced in what had taken place, the next after the same should happen, without the depositions were, under the circumstances, interest or dividends due thereon, and the ordered to be filed.

share or shares of such one or more of them This was an application for a direction to the as should not have then attained that age Clerk of Records and Writs to file certain depo- should be paid to them on their attaining that sitions taken before a special examiner, under age, and the share of his niece on ber attaining the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 32,' although not in that age or marriage, provided neither of those the hand-writing of the examiner but of his events happened within 12 months next thereclerk. It appeared that they were signed by after. Then followed a clause of survivorship, the witnesses and also by the examiner. and a gift of the residue to Mr. Gray, his exe

J. Hinde Palmer and Bagshawe, jun., for the cutor. The fund was paid into Court under respective parties.

the 10 & 11 Vict. c. 96, and this petition was The Vice-Chancellor (after consulting the presented on the question whether the divi

dends accruing due within 12 months after the " Which enacts, that “the depositions taken testator's death fell into the residue or not. down upon any such oral examination as afore- Tripp for the legatees; Wickens for the resaid shall be taken down in writing by the ex. siduary legatee; Elderton and Giffard for other aminer, not ordinarily by question and answer, parties. but in the form of a narrative, and when com

The Vice-Chancellor said, the testator's inpleted shall be read over to the witness, and tention was, that the dividends should not signed by him in the presence of the parties, go to them, but to the residuary legatee, or such of them as may think fit to attend : and that if any of them attained 21 within the provided always, that in case the witness shall 12 months, the transfer would not be monde refuse to sign the said depositions, then the until 12 months after the testator's death. examiner shall sign the same," &c.; and by s. 34, “When the examination of witnesses be- Stock v, Whitmore. ` July 17, 1854. fore any examiner shall have been concluded, the original depositions, authenticated by the ADMINISTRATION SUIT, costs of;--TESTA'S signature of such examiner, shall be transmit

MENTARY EXPENSES.--CONVERTING REAL ted by him to the Record Office of the said Court to be there filed."

Held, that the costs of an adıninis!rution veit

ESTATE.

SUIT BY DEVISEE AND SOLE EXECUTOR

AGAINST HEIR-AT-LAW.ISSUE AS TO

Superior Courts : 1. C. Kindersley. V. 7. Stuart:-V.C. Wood.

231 5 . are not included in testamentary ex- in support; Bacon and Shebbeare for the next

in penses," to which the whole of the testator's of kin; Goodeve for the executor of the will." : of property, consisting of personal, mixed, and The Vice-Chancellor said, that the rule of

real estate was made liable, and thut they law which presumes the death of a person who were payable by the several parties benefited had not been heard of for seven or more years by the estate being administered.

was subject to exception, where, as in the preHeld, also, that the costs of converting real sent case, it was unlikely the party missing

estate fall exclusively on such real estate. would have had communication with her The testator, by bis will, gave the residue friends or relatives. It appeared she had of his property, which consisted of personal, quarrelled with her family and become a mixed, and real estate, after payment of his Roman Catholic, and there'must therefore be debts, funeral and testamentary expenses, and further inquiries directed. legacies, as therein directed, and he subjected the whole of his property to the payment of Waters v. Waters. July 18, 1854, specific debts and legacies. It appeared that a soit had been instituted to administer the es. tate, and the matter now came on upon the

TESTATOR'S SANITY. -COSTS. question, whether the costs were testamentary espenses and payable out of the residue. Anissue had been directed in an administration Feed, Baily, Glasse, Tenison Edwards,

suit by the devisee and sole acting executor of Gurine, and Jones, for the several parties.

a testator against the heir-at-law and parties - The Vice-Chancellor said, that the costs of

beneficially interested to a Court of Law, the cut were not included in the testamentary

at the instance of the heir, as to the sanity experises, and were to be borne by the several of the testator, but the will was established, parties benefited by the estate being admini- and an application for a new trial had been stered. The expenses, however, of converting

refused with costs : Held, that as the heirthe real estate must fall exclusively on the real

at-law had not raised the question of sanity estate.

improperly or dishonestly, he was entitled to his ordinary costs of suit, including

those at law. Bice-Chancellor Stuart.

In this administration suit by the devisee Bouden v. Henderson. July 17, 1854. and sole acting executor of a testator against LEGATEE. - PRESUMPTION OF DEATH. the heir-at-law and parties beneficially in

terested, an issue had been directed to a Court #here a person entitled to a share in a les of Law, at the instance of the heir, as to the gacy had not been heard of since Feb. 1835, sanity of the testator. The will was, however, when she was living in France, although in- established, and an application for a new trial quiries had been made and an advertise- had been refused, with costs (reported 2 De G. ment inserteil in La Presse, but it appeared & S. 591). The question now came on upon that she had quarrelled with her friends and further directions and costs. had become a Roman Catholic, and it was

Hallett, for the plaintiff, cited Berney y. unlikely she should again communicate with Eyre, 3 Atk. 387, and contended the heir was her friends or relatives : Held, that the not entitled to the costs of the issue. Tule of law presuming her death was inap

Osborne and B. L. Chapman for other plicable under the circumstances, and parties. further inquiries were directed.

The Vice-Chancellor said, that as the heir-at

law had not raised the issue of the testator's The testatrix, by her will, dated in May, sanity improperly or dishonestly, he was en1534, gave a sum of 1,7001. stock in trust for titled to the ordinary costs of suit as between the five children of Mr. Joseph Langton, in party and party, including the costs at law. equal shares, and appointed her sister Sarah Walker, of whom the plaintiff in this suit was the legal personal representative, her residuary

Vice-Chancellor Unicod. legateer It appeared that one of the children, De Windt v. De Windt. July 15, 1854. Letitia, had parted from her family and left

CHARITABLE BEQUEST TO CHAPEL.-PAYEngland for France about the year 1828, and had, after residing for a short while at Calais, gone to Paris as a governess. She had written A sum of money was given by a testator to a in February, 1835, to a relative in this country,

chapel : Held, on further directions, that stating she had become a Roman Catholie, and it must, be puisd to the trustees for the was going to take another situation as gover- purpose of repairing the sanie, and not to ness and housekeeper to a Mons. Bonboutier ;

the minister: but

, although inquiries had made after -THE testator, Major Bray, by his will, gave Prasz,teles could not be heard of,' and the tholio

, Chapel, at St. John's Wood, and the plaintiff accordingly claimed the skare'' in the question now arose on further directions, as to fund to which she was entitled.

whom the amount was to be paid.i. ir hlgeley andi IX. 2. Lewis, for the plaintiff, Willcock and Prendergast for the plaintiff';

EVIDENCE.

MENT TO TRUSTEES.

GENERAL

DEVISE

OF

REAL

TATOR.

232

Superior Courts : Vice-Chancellor Wood.
Rolt, Rudall and Hooper, for other parties; Thirtle v. Vaughan. July 17, 1854.
Wickens for the Attorney-General.

ESTATE, The Vice-Chancellor said, that in accordance

LAND CONTRACTED TO BE SOLD BY TES. with the decision of Allorney-General v. Ruper, 2 P. Wins. 125, the money must be paid to the

A testator decised all his real estates to his trustees of the chapel and not to the minister,

three children, as tenants in common, with for the purposes of repairing the same.

a gift over to other parties, in case any of

them died under 21 without issue : Held, Martin v. Wellstead. July 17, 1854.

that an estate which the testator had con

tracted during his lifetime to sell to the CHARITABLE BEQUEST.--VALIDITY OF

defendant was not included in the devise MORTMAIN ACT.

but descended to the heir-at-law. Gift of a sum of money to trustees in trust to

This was a claim on behalf of the executors invest in the public funds or on real secu

of a deceased vendur, for the specific performrity, and to pay the dividends or interest

ance of a contract for the sale of certain land in such manner as they should think

to the defendant, who had accepted the title. fit amongst poor persons of a lown, and It appeared that the vendor bad, by his will

, after the death of the survivor of the devised all his real estate to his three children, trustees, then to the corporation of the

as tenants in common, with a gift over, in case town as trustees, to be applied in a like manner, and with power to the trustees to ing issue, of the respective estates, interests,

any of them should die under 21 without leav. apply the capital and interest for or, to- and shares to which such child or children so wards establishing or promoting any alms dying would otherwise have been entitled, and houses or other permanent establishment of any accruing share or interest therein, to for the relief or assistance of the poor of certain parties therein named as tenants in the town, and the testator desired that they

common. should commence building such almshouses as children, both infants, one of whom was heir

It appeared that there were two soon as they conveniently could after his deat-law, and this claim was necessary on the cease : Held, thut the trust was within the operation of the Mortmain Act, and was the devisees under the will, or descended to

question, whether the trust property passed to therefore ocid.

the heir-at-law. THE testator by his will gave a sum of 400l. Murray for the plaintiffs ; Pearson and Babto trustees, in trust to invest the same in the ington for other parties. public funds or real security, and to pay the The Vice Chancellor said, that the words of dividends and interest thereon in such mauner the will referred to the beneficial and not to as they might think fit amongst poor persons the trust estates, which, therefore, descended of Rye deserving of the same, and after the to the heir, and in whom the legal estate death of the survivor of such trustees he gave vested. the said sum and the securities on which it might be invested to the Mayor, &c., of the

Griffiths v. Hatchard, July 18, 1954. town (whom he appointed trustees) to apply the dividends and interest thereon in the like CONDITION OF SALE AS TO TITLE DEEDS. The will also contained a power to

--PURCHASER OF LARGEST LOT. the trustees to apply as well the capital as the One of the conditions of sale on putting up an interest of the legacy for or towards establish- estate lo auction in lots was, that the titleing or promoting any almshouses or such per- deeds should be given up to the purchaser of manent establishment for the relief or assist- the largest lot : Held, that it referred only ance of the decayed or other poor persons of to the lots consisting of land and not to the the town as the trustees might think ad. ground-rents, and that the plaintiff, as the visable to establish or promote, and he desired purchaser of the largest lot in acreage, was them to commence building such almshouses entitled to have the deeds. as soon as they conveniently could after his It appeared,

from this special case for the decease. This hill was filed by the infant re- opinion of the Court, that upon an estate in the siduary legatees claiming the legacy as void Isle of Wight being put up for sale by auction, under the Mortmajn Act.

in lots, the 8th condition provided, that the Rolt and Durt for the plaintiff; Pitman for purchaser of the largest lot should have the the execntors; W. D. Lewis for the Mayor, custody of the title-deeds, entering into the &c., of Rye ; Wickens for the Attorney-Ge- usual covenant for their production to the other neral.

purchasers. The Vice-Chancellor said, that the true con- Moxon for the plaintiff; Pearson for the de struction of the will was that the trustees were fendant. to invest the fund until they could find a suit- The Vice-Chancellor said, that the condition able plot of ground on which to build alms- did not apply to the ground-rents, of which houses, when they were to build the same, and some of the Tots consisted, and that the plainthe trust was therefore within the operation of tiff, who was the purchaser of the lot largest in the Statute and was void.

acreage, was entitled to the deeds."

manner.

« EelmineJätka »