Court Of Chancery, Saturd...
LAW AVRkPOZ?T. rn this caSe, which was partly heard ou.Priday,' the LOR: CIIA2NCELLOL said hehad rcad the petition ofthe plaintiff' prayinig fora reheating of the- cause, on the ground that he had discovered certain facts, respecting the third manriage of the father, through whom the partieS litigant claimedf, in 178'2. 'lis Lordship said that the petitioner complained also of the effect of the verdict, on tie trial of an l?nue at common law for the purpose of aseertaiping the defendant'slegitilhwacy. The jury had found ies favour of the de. fendant, and the petition objected to tbat finding. The petitioner complained also of the decreese made by tbe Court In 18 0, 1817, and 1818, and soughtto annul orto revoke themn, enthe ground that the petition on which they wrere made had neyer been signed by the Clancellor. This, after the lapse of so long a time, and the several decisions made by the Cosurt, his Lordship conld not grant, because the whole object6on was one of technicat informality, and nothiing mnore. His Lordship then went on to sitate thc course of the plead- ings, and alluding to one of the affidavits, directed that it should be re-sworn. and shown to Mr. Heald, theplhsintiff's counsel. MIIr.F HEALD wished itto be understood, that when, upon a former oecasion, he had stated his belief that the aiffidavit now mentioned was a fabrication, he had not meant mnerely to give bis iwn opinion, but to express P conviction formed upon direct proof. That proof was contained in documents of unquastionable authenticity. He regretted that in tanmily disputes like the present it had been foand necessary to cast any imputations upon the memory of persons who stood in the same degree of relationship to allthe parties, This circumstance made the cause a very disagreeable one. The Lomn CHANCELLOit.-" A most prinfidl one, indeed; and when you come to read the affidavit, rUr. He ald, you will sree an issue between two brothers that will mnake your heart anele." His Lordship promised to give judgment on Monday. BATFIrELI) AND WIC1sOLSO,1T. slr. HEALD mentioned this case, vhich involves the right of pub. lishing The Architceturat Dictiontary, with a view of procuring the decisioni of the Court. The LORD C11ANCELLoR said he would give judgment on Monday. WATHIEN AND St17TU. This was an appeal from the Vice-Chancellor. A testator. cove- nanted in a marriage settlement to leave to 1l ra. Eliza Smith a sum of 1,0001., payablesix months after his death. i-e afterwards made a will, in which,among other legacies, he left 1,0001. to Mrs. Smith, without any btatement that it was in satisfaction of the covenant, or dIstinguishing it in any matner from the other bequests, and direct- ing it to be paid within tbree months after his decease. The execu- tor paid this sum, and held it to be in discharge of the testator's co. venant. Mrs. Smith contended, that itwas a volutstary legasy,and filed a bill to compel payment of the other 1,0001. under the coutract. When the cause came on to be heard, the Vice-Chancellor decited that the legacy must be taken in satisfaction of the covenant. Thtat decision had been appealed fromn: and having been novw argued by Mr. Tres. love for the execnsor, and by hlr. ShadwseITor Mrs. Smith, the Lord Chancellor affirmed the former decision, and dismissed the appeal. Tihe rest of the day was occupied in hearing bankrupt petitions ol nio public interest. COUR'T OF CHANCERY. SATuabFS. JULY -4. anjymmw Awn GnnteRtiw.