Page images
PDF
EPUB

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.
nistration of a charity. The Attorney-General attended
by counsel, and, where the charity fund was small, the
expense of the inquiry was considerably and unneces-
sarily increased by a rigid adherence to this rule.
the present case the fund, which had been given
the benefit of poor freemen of the Haberdashers' Com-
pany, did not much exceed 11007. The practice of the
Vice-Chancellor was, not to require the attendance of
of the Attorney-General, except when it was absolutely

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.

[blocks in formation]

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
opportunity of sexual intercourse;
and where there is evidence of
such access between a husband
and wife within a period capable
of raising the legal presumption
as to the legitimacy of an after-
born child, the Court will not
direct an issue upon evidence
shewing the continued adulterous
intercourse of the wife with an-
other man, and the improbability
of the husband being the father,
but will declare the legitimacy of
the child. Bury v. Phillpot.
Page 349

See NEW TRIAL.

ACCOUNT.
See CORPORATION.

VOL. II.

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »