1835. ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. The HABER DASHERS' Company. ROLLS. June 17. ance of the Attorney before the R. COOPER applied to the Court to vary the The attendminutes of the decree by which it had been referred to the Master to settle a scheme for the admi- General nistration of the charity, so far as related to a direction, Master, upon that the Attorney-General should attend the inquiry a reference to settle a before the Master. That direction had been introduced scheme for the administration by the Registrar in conformity with a rule laid down by of a charity, the late Master of the Rolls, that the Attorney-General may be disshould attend before the Master in every case of pensed with In in certain A direction for such attendance in a charity fund did not much case where the exceed 1100/. reference for the settlement of a scheme for the admi- cases. necessary. for The MASTER of the ROLLS*, after conferring with the Registrar, said, he was of opinion that in this case the attendance of the Attorney General was not necessary, and that the direction for his attendance might therefore be struck out of the minutes. Sir C. Pepys. was struck out of the minutes of the decree. THE BARKER v. WARDLE.* HE bill was filed by simple contract creditors to have the testator's estate administered and their debts paid. Under the decree specialty creditors came in and proved debts to an amount exceeding the value of the assets received. The cause having come on for further directions, Mr. Barber, for the specialty creditors, objected to the Plaintiffs being allowed their costs, and he referred to Young v, Everest. (a) Mr. Pemberton and Mr. Turner, for the Plaintiffs, asked for their costs as between solicitor and client. Young v. Everest had been overruled by Larkins v. Paxton. (b) The MASTER of the ROLLS+ directed, that the Plaintiffs should have their costs as between solicitor and client out of the fund in Court, Ex relatione Mr. Turner. (a) 1 Russ & Mylne, 426: so Rowlands v. Tucker, Ibid. €35.; and see Chissum v. Dewes, 5 Russ. 29. + Sir C. Pepys. (b) p. 320. suprà; and see Tootal v. Spicer, 4 Sim. 510. LEES. NUTTALL. 1834. 1834. Feb. 19, 20. IN N this case, which is reported, upon the hearing If an agent, at the Rolls, in 1 Russell and Mylne, 53, an appeal purchase an employed to was brought by the Defendant, Nuttall, against the estate, decree, so far as it affected him: the other Defendant, Walker, did not appeal. Mr. Bethell, for the Appellant, insisted upon his right to begin, on the ground that the appeal was only partial. The LORD CHANCELLOR, however, decided that it was to be considered as substantially an appeal from the whole decree, and that the Plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to begin. Mr. Pepys and Mr. K. Parker were accordingly heard for the Plaintiff; the Attorney-General, Mr. Wakefield, and Mr. Bethell, for the Appellant. The LORD CHANCELLOR considered the case made by the bill to be fully established by the evidence, and affirmed the decision of the Court below. becomes the purchaser for himself, he is to be considered as a trustee for his principal. Affirmed on appeal, 1835. 1835. June 29. Before the Lords Commissioners. In the Matter of the DE CLIFFORD Estates. THIS matter having again come before the Court (a) on a petition to confirm the Master's report finding that George G. Blackwell was a trustee within the meaning of the act, and approving of a person to convey the estates to the petitioners, LORD COMMISSIONER SHADWELL, after reading and considering the petition, made the order as prayed. (a) See p. 624. supra. AN INDEX ΤΟ THE PRINCIPAL MATTERS. ACCESS. Access is such access as affords an See NEW TRIAL. ACCOUNT. VOL. II. |