48 
THE GARDENERS 
CHRONICLE. 
[JANn. 
It bleak beyond ques- 
fou that th n as Edward Weld, but that 
ere was a person who by description fally, pa tole the de- 
clared interitions of the testator. The principle that the cease 
might have recourse to déscription where the reat could n 
be S dentified by name, was so cledrly establishes 
quite unnecessary to advert to the cases in whic! 
The Court invariably acted on a satisfactory 1 ee on of 
the devisee, rather than declare the will to be void for uncer- 
tainty; and in the present case their Lordships had no doubt, 
from the description, that the plaintiff was the person intended 
by the testator as the second son of Mr. Weld. The Lord Chan- 
rong sense of the attention be- 
iy most 
eellor, but with costs out ot the ot tater 
NCE: CHANCELLOR’s Count.—([Before Sir J. Wigram.]—Jesson 
odgson.—The bill Was rou by the tector of the parish of 
Bane in the diocese of Lichfield and Goventty; against the Rev. 
John Hodgson; an occupier of lands within the parish, for the 
tithes of the tithable matters produced on the defendant’s lands. 
‘The bill stated, however, that as to most of thé tithable articles, 
the defendant insisted upon certain moduses, and te aces 
tiff was willing to accept payment according to mro- 
aie te us estion was thus reduced to thee mene te: ie tithe 
of hi of garden-stuff. The defendan upon a 
fhodus of a. for all hay grown on his farm, afc he alleged was 
he also insisted on a like modus for 
The evidence was entirely eoedinedtiaryg 
im for the gal 
doubt on the 
an issue. The ed 
that of requiring every ty to come prepared with the 
best evidence which his tee afforded, and not to allow a de- 
fect of evidence to be supplied _by giving him another oppor- 
tunity of proving his case There was very 
often much more inattention to the evidence which was ne¢es- 
to be duced in cases in this court than in cases at law ; 
the evidence in causes in equity was often much more defective 
tl je accounted for b; 
any deficiency in the mode of 
ie defendant in this case 
muent prove that hay iced on land not being an- 
ient meadow; that the hay so broduced had been in sufficient 
quanti ity to make it worth a d for tithe by the rector; and 
that the rector had either not demanded it, or had made the de- 
mand and been refused. That would have been some evidence 
of non-payment of tithe of Le not covered by th en y modus. 
No evidence of this kind had been given; and, t fore, had it 
not been for the eneeal claim to the tithe of hay ac the bill 
had made, without noticing any modus whatsoever, the Court 
would have made a decree without giving the defendant any fur- 
ground of 
eat law to try the title ofthe rector to the tithe of hay, and 
the will as to the werdentihes wouldbe dis et 
REROGATIVE ~.—Daw otherwise Dawes, agai inst de Féu- 
was a business ts granting nda tecreeiod of the 
, Baroness de Feuchéres, to her 
immediate relations in feiilant ‘The suit had been in the first 
by the bsp Repetos and by the Baron de 
d been divorced by 
the law of France. 
Theremarkable history of the deceased lady has been made known 
civil tribunals of France. 
was a domiciled paps of France, and had been divorced 
law of France, had therefore no 
or the ae kas her being a domiciled 
It was aulte 
clear that Richard Daw and ee Callaway were marrié 
the Isle of Wight in 1775, and had had nie children, of aren 
the deceased was one, though there was no baptismal register of 
The fact that tar hada aeubiter named Sophy was, 
however, proved by an extract from the books of the House of 
Industry, into which she sie introduced at the age of six years, 
and where she continued some time. Her identity was proved 
by the fact, amongst others, then she placed her mother in the 
Carmelite convent at Paris. Indeed, the only difficulty in the 
case had been created by the deceased herself, in Sade 
name ae be Dawes, and herself to be a wit m. she married 
the Baron de Feu: 
he a Sree ae her history wi 
any he (the learned Judge) had ever 
read. She ee aeuuniited with the D Bourbon, from 
whom she ‘obtained the large property w hich Had now to be dis- 
‘The facts and documents were so strong and so clear, 
france ; some st 
estates, almost all in 
ere the only portion secured to the Baron ni the marriage set- 
tement. 
Rous Court. —Byng Vv. Lord Strafford.—Lord Pepetale ENG 
cided was, whether the plaintiff was Suled: to ‘the pee 
property in question (which amounted to epaae all 0002.) Se 
Byng for life, but without a to any ques! 
be raised with respect to his rig) the capital iauaolatelses 3 that 
question oe now been brought before the court, ee the result 
depended upon the construction of the will of the Earl of Straf- 
ford, dake 25th of October, 1774, and thirteen Date, the last 
of which was dated the 19th January, 1791, about two months 
before his death le of these instruments were inarti- 
ficially expressed ; but the w« ords ‘all my personal and landed 
were sufficiently large to include all, and 
were also extensive enough to dispose of all he had. ‘The tes- 
in appeared, however, to have thought that his Haein abeee 
take in succession ; and ee he devised to tess 
ofstrafford all his personal e: her life; and ail his he 
gardens, parks, and woods and all his Janded estates, 
and afterwards ali his landed and vey estates 5 nis 
eldest sister, Lady jes Conolly, for her might, there- 
fore, be inferred, sly he int bytes oh eive a tite estate, that he 
oe what vere nec he words ‘* for life” 
afterwards omitted 1 by the testator, who hen to 
aie’ eiestacn of George Byng, Esq., of Wrotham Park, and after- 
ocd or any later sons he might have by 
and se to the eldest son and sons 
dy 
his e Ann s. Byng), 
eacuensively of wie Earl of Buckinghamshire, by his (the testa- 
tor’s) niece Caroline j j but all those s oe rapide: to ase out. 
payments and legacies, which the ve. e then said 
he would have allhis debts paid; ari tthe aie legacies raat condi- 
tions of his will were not complied at th edwctie, ther he left all 
the advantages of it to thenext person in succession, subject, to 
those legacies, and so on, unless they were discharge#, Fhe 
plaintiff was the eldest son of the first legatee, and the will 
tained no words limiting the devise to him; and, therefore, he 
e interest in the I eee, be- 
i , because it 
; third, because ie was charged 
tator meant to give an estate tail, 
meant only to give Cte ah life. 
not alter the ys of t ‘0 personal estate, 1t was 
a elear rule t e first yet aie ase estate tail would have 
BO rite intent Sta as then said, that the estate was given 
upon 4 condition, and that it ought to be declared For the 
ptirpose, however, of supporting the eau of the testator, the 
court would disregard the gifts o weresaid to be incon- 
sistent with eachother. His Lordship then fonched uponthe whole 
el the points relied tpon in the argument, and after commenting 
on the intention Shea through the whole of the ¢ dli- 
cils, and observing they strengthened the sae he had 
come to, said he thought that Mr: Byng’sinterest was indefeas- 
ible, as neither the will nor codicils sprees any intention that 
he should have a ie ee aes ; he was of opinion, therefore, 
that Mr. Byng wi ‘o the fant absolutely, subject to 
any annuities or See tine might still be subsisting. The 
costs were a ve paid. out of the fund. 
Court s Bencn.—(Sittings in Banco.)—M‘Intosh 
en Warden and Scholars of New liad rah Lord 
Denman delivered judgment; ‘Phis wa: rected out 
of ciasicese to determine whether the” andes ot Oe manor 
park of Havering-atte Bower, in Essex, the freehold of which 
was in the defendants, Nia or not tithe free. The issue was tried 
izes for Essex, in 1841, before Mrs Sergeant 
ordict ie given for plaintiff. The question was 
whether these lands were discharged from payment of coe by 
a render of a buck and doe, or 5/. in lieu thereof, to the Vicar of 
Hornchurch. The defendants were the impropriators of the rec- 
tory df Hornchurch ; they appointed the minister, who was called 
the temporary vicars i 
within the limits of the Pari 
s argued that the testator 
“The court, however, cotld 
The plaintiff hel 
that this was a modus for the rectorial tithes, though 
position was paid to the vicar and not to the aston and honed 
the park, and not merely for that 
The defe: endants, on the other 
with a ayment for tithes ; and 
petits se tithes on the ground that the park was a royal park, and 
had been exempt from payments for tithes, and had so 
come exempt, a3 royal property, up to pee a recent pe- 
riod. And though they admitted that, Crown Jands in the hands 
of trustees were Bua still they said that ie circumstance 
onsidered Crown property, explained the 
demanded in respect of them 
until after the sale. 
presented by the defendants was the stronger of the Bits in point 
of probabilit vit in a grant of the park by King James 
ince Charles and paisy suecessors, Kings of "england pad 
then the parliamentary survey, which showed thal at ti 
the lands were tithe-free a4 consideration of agin premises 
therein mentioned. It was wie stated that, ‘the parson 
their season, a buck and doe, 
vicarage put in b; 
contended to be Iases and which were produced to show that 
The court would not say more o 
the summing up rede juste’ 
done to their importance in the case; and the court 
evidence. The  antnce as ce the payment of this conapoattion 
to the vicar of Hornchurch alone, as for 
that park was se situated at Ten arel alone, but in that in 
other parishes, though insufficient and weak 
Ecaneionthy left to the jury, and without the pro- 
per explanations that ought to have accompanied it. ‘The dif- 
ficulty connected with it did not seem to have presented itself to 
ses faces of the learned judge. He directed the jury to the effect 
the circumstance me immater! ial, ee that the jurors might 
Mit though ae vast might not be entitled to tithes from the 
r 
| Sy: he had at one period been fenubwed with thee | Aiea ahi 
an early period this modus or composition for them ha 
been established. Butthough that might be the fact, it was one 
which yet remained to be proved. The court was not satisfied 
that as yet this had been done. The rule for a new trial must 
aNerelere be absolute, 
Gaon s in Banco.)—The Queen v. Sir M. A, Shee and Others.— 
fhe question in this case was, whet! her the defendants, the pre- 
teu and directors of the Royal Sey at liable to be 
rated to the relief of the poor of the parish of St. M 
hem at the National Gallery, at 
e case was argued some time ace and the 
j Denman 
S 
the peculiar nature, 
were us There could be no doub' 
specially cements the defendants Hae liability to ues the pre- 
mises wh’ the: would presumptively be the subject of 
assessmi cits i fat would be the case independently of the 
ocal act governing t ei eee , that act eae 
tained words which Seu era r description of P 
perty that appeared to be Grontdedt fa the eeatuce of Pe aieth, et 
reliance had been pieced on that circumstance ; but the case had 
been considered in argument as one which was to be aeurdee: by 
the general statute, “The principles on which the rate was made 
had beget a ee wi sufficient distinctness—the difficulty de- 
pende os on their popicanen to the particular 
Tircurostances of a net case. In the case of the King 
lieutenant-colonel in the Artillery had been rated in resp 
his occupation of property which hetonged to the Crown, and 
upon argument this court had been that he had been 
account of the benede oiial ie personally de- 
rived from the occupation of that property. ‘he mere fact oe the 
there were a beneficial occupatio 
“of f premises as the mere e servant ofthe Crown, ‘and inno inno other cha- 
no br pevescial el paras resulting to himself from 
rin sucha case as 
hereafter arise, but did not affect the present case. 
of the occupation of Crown property by private individuals, who 
held only at the pleasure of the Crown, had come before the 
court in the case of the Hampton Court Palace; and the court 
had held the liability to exist, inasmuch as there was a beneficial 
occupation of private individuals. The distinction between that 
case and the present appeared to be this: Here there was no be- 
neficial occupation in the shape of actual residence; there such 
If, therefore, the occupation here 
an occupation of public property for public purposes, an 
out private benefit, ee case must be treated as falling within the 
pence of exempti Now, what e abe of this. 
It — a siciety. instituted by Geo. IIT, i 
arts of painting ane 
n part of the Toya} pal 
of So inePuet House, but had since sets petndyna to the seaereet 
now in question, sie w 
Crown. The onthe society aes were appointed & 
sovereign, or oie ted by the members of the society, subject to 
the approval of the teres The tPeSeHteD who received the 
profits was appointed by the Crown, and his receipts were sub- 
jected to the audit of the keeper of the rivy Purse, pie is the 
ordinary profits now enjoyed by the society should fail, ante 
fall unless supported by the Crown. The society Loar Been placed 
in nda insert by the Crown; it had nO iret ; 
at an: ment resume possession. Under these clroninataucess 
therefore, the defendants might well be SenetereN the agents of 
he Crown for the oe brated of objects which were of a pul ublic 
a national kind, a urt was therefore of opinion that 
no private a eavetion ould: be proved, and consequently that. 
the rate could not be eae — Order accordingly. 
‘SPORTING. 
TATTERSALL’S, Tuurspay.—DERBY.—6 to 1 agst. Scott's 
lot (taken); 12 to 1 agst. Mr. plpmelociis oA British Yeoman 
(taken and after ae Brew 18 to Colonel Peel’s 
ae ak ken) 5 Has 1 agst. Lord Sinton" 3 anette hs 
30 to Mr. s alee (take 35 to 2); 1000 to 30 agst, 
Colonel, iach ‘Ss Rann Aiea 3 40 tol aes Sir G. Heatheatete 
Sirikol (take 45 to 1); as to Y agst. Sir G. atheote’s Amorino 
(taken to 60/.) pion to . Griffiths’s rNewenute (taken) 5 
peatly to 20 est. owe 3” Ppenenstaue (taken) ; 1000 to 20agst. 
‘oombe’s WaWeeiwny. Caen 1000 to 10 agst. Lord Excter’s 
Festi Colt (taken). OAKS.—500 ies 25 agst, Colonel Cradock’s 
Peggy (taken and afterwards offered 
MARK LANE, naa JAN. yoloThe little English Wheat 
left over, and fresh up since Monday, was difficult of sale, evem 
at a det cline from that day; of Foreign there was a very slender 
Stren saree of buyers, and scarcely any business was transacted, 
prices Bonded was 
Ba moue buyers. Some pai 
for which the same rates are di 
tinue at Monday’s Snomptions. 
the ee of last market day 
TISH, PER IMPERIAL QUARTIER. & 8. 
Wheat, Eisex, Kent, and Suffolk White ato ot Red 404060 
The Oat Trade is very dull, at 
Norfolic, Lincolnshire and Yor —to— White —to— 
Malting “tau dating 25030 Grind. 19 to 97 
Oats, ‘ing colnshire and Yorkshire... + Polan ds 191023 Feed 14to se 
orehumberland and Seotch «5. + Feed —to— Potato 15 to 24 
— Tn . . . + + Feed to id Potatol4to 22 
Rye m2 —to— 
Beans, Mazagan, old ‘and s new < 32 10 23° “Wick 24to 20 Haxzow 26 to 30 
= pigeon: Helin Winds. 26 to 24 Longpod 26 to 
Peas, Whi 1 Gotoae Maple 37 c Grey 96 toa7 
WEEKLY IMPERIAL AVERAGES, 
Wheat. | Barley. | 
Dadi 2 9 se os 8c 27 
Ot poe srt ea 26 
aor ey ag | 26 
2 ea aia Ae 26 
Jan. is is #55 26 
earerig ented faa) | 26 
weeks’ Aggregate Aver.| 47 2| 26 
Duties + «| 30 0! 10 
puncte IN THE RIVER LAST W) 
ST WEEK, 
ure ht.| Barl. | Malt Oats. | 
lela eo + 5506 she — Bris. | 4223 | 6420 | 4578 | 3704 
ris 10 ” 5 | = 7 
Foreign . 540 4, 50 {| 1912 | 515 | ais 
ne ARRIVALS THIS WEE: 
* heat Barley Oats Flour 
English . + BTA 220 8160 3150 
rish . 726 = 
ite ae Feats, wines -merchant—J. Tat 
BE. Clarke, Acle, ssi, 
incaln's h nithe, 
Humphrey, Slapham-road,, aeaiee ta 
S ieee street, Bruise ck saguare, lodging-house Je 
ie, Richibueto, Brunsy anid, Linskill, Beialmgcon, 
sc Go habia - No 
ft. D. Dunn, Wale 
an 
Kirkehenton, Yorks 
2 vdae, Dawley green, Salop, it 
Lee x-spinners — YF Woo (at Bishops street ‘Without, 
woollen: niet Hunt, Ki Me ston-upon-Hull, hos: 
SEQ) ESTHATIONSW. ble, Lasawade, candle fees 
‘Bruce, Glasgow, rag-merchant—J. M-K 
janan, Auchentosham 
BIRTH in the 13th, at the Br h Museum, laky Madden, of as 
(iO kee story, West ‘Tytherley, on aia! Saehy the 
son—In South Audley-street, on the 15th diay chogdien 
Worlehouse, o of adanghter—At Maristow, Devon: on the 13th fs ae 1 3 
Bir Ralph Lopes, Bart, MP 1 i 
Mai 
re eh 12 pee one Ca 
ropi¢, the lady of ey. Sydney Turner, 
the bak inxs -» at Merry wood-hall, near Brat, rele 
of. cr? 
RYED. —On the 20th Oct: 
xt sellers 'y ,son of the 
te at M 
A 
Eliza, » daughte er of Lie 
rut, Charles 
Bengal Givil Sask e 
ie e 20th, 
iain 8 eree Wight Ho 
sia Teabella, cue ds or i 
» Mary's, Tsling 
f Fenchureh-s resi 0 Mi i ane “youngest vA 
Robinson, Bsa. 0 e 17th i 
‘On the 1th Hadinlee we 
44th Hejiment), ag, —On the sth 
ee the i: vi ad oh Reads M.A., rector of s Ste 
ad to the forces in thi agaeland-<On ihe) i 
Tattersall of Groner place—On th 
p Purser, R.N.—On inet igs, on board ia E 
First Fintona ant W. 1 na 
the 13 
the 5th 
Bast Fi 
pbtinted by Me 
of We 
he 
FaivorSatusaeys Tanvary 21, 10s. 
