Hide Articles List

23 articles on this Page

.----.---_.---THE RECENT SCHOOL…

LOCAL LAW CASE.

News
Cite
Share

LOCAL LAW CASE. STANLEY V. LORD ORANMORE. By tliis t!on, which came on Saturday before Mr. Jusuce Kay, sitting in the Chancery Division of tho High Court of Justice, it was proposed to enter into an arrangement, with the sanction of the eoutt, !.oJ' the side of H portion of the Oriel Estate in Pembrokeshire, in order to pay off the mortgages on (lie Landshipping Estate, in the same county, the propertv of Ctii)t;iiii Edward Stanley and James Douglas Trtlbnr Sranluy, a lunatic. There was also a petition. The property in question belongs in moieties to Captain Edward Stanley and Mr. illnes Douglas Stanley, Lord Or«nmore and Mr. Belcher being trustees. The Oriel Estate consists of 2,641 acres, and the Landshipping Estate of 2,134 acres, the first bein;_f mortgaged in £ 21,000 and the latter in £ 2,500. The father, James Talbot Stanley, is the committee in the Itinteyof his hion,Ju. Douglas, whose estate is settled. It was proposed by the petition to seil the (rreenhill property, and pay off the encumbrances on the Landshipping Estate, and convey it in trust free from encumbrances to the defendant, and make provision for the payment of costs. It was stated that the Master in Lunacy had approved of the scheme, and that Lord Justice Lindiey had directed the parties to carry it out. All parties were represented by counsel.âHis Lord- ship approved of tiie petition, and jfave the necea- sary directions. WIN BY V. CARPIFF, &c., TRAMWAYS ¡ COMPANY. T'I¡;:¡ action was in the paper for hearing on Tuesday (before Mr. Justice Pearson) in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice. Upon the case being called on, .\11". Napier Higgins, Q.C., said he appeared for the defendant company in this case, but he understood the plaintiff had not expected it to be in the paper so soon, and had not instructed counsel. He had no objection to 1 be case standing over. Mr. Justice Pearson said ututor those circumstances the action weuld ttaml over until next sittings. THOMAS V. WILLIAMS. In tJra Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice on Tuesday (before Vice-Chancellor Bacon) (his action came on for hearing. The plaintiffs were Miss Elizabeth C'adwallader Thomas, illro. Catherine Sant, and (feorge Sant, Iter son, and the defendants were Mr. Henry Thomas Williams and Mr. Edward Tuberviiie Liewciiiii. The object of. the suit was to restrain the defendants as' trustae and tenant for lif,3 respectively from I celling certain properties at Hendresythan, Glamor- Vinshire, held under the will of Mr. Hy. Llewellin, edio died in 1836. The property has been in the pos- -e^-sion of Mr. K. T. Lit welliri for 40 years. He is now 80 yean of ase, and has no children, the next renant for lii'e beinsr Miss E. C. Thomas, and the :>tlwr plaintiffs following. The plaintiffs naked that a new trustee should be appointed, one of the 31-i^inal trustees having died for a declaration by the court thijr, a contemplated salo of the property would be an improper exc:rCi6tJ of the powers <:iven by the wiU, and for 1111 injunction to restrain t I i-tle. It-appeared that among the provisions .)f too will was one to t.he effect that if a sale tiie proceeds should be re-invsted in rmd, and ths defendants urged that the propertv was not improving, and it would be advantageous tosell and purchase fivsh land. The plaintiffs, on [he other hand, contended that there was a large undeveloped coal field under" the estate, and that .t would, therefore, be the height of folly to dispose if it, especialiv as the proposed Harry Dock Rail- way would furnish great for working the â¢o;il. It was also stated by them tnat, before the iimmenceinent, of the action, the defendants had ri'ated their determination of invealing the pro- ceeds of tho intended sele in Consols.âTlifl case was lot concluded when the court rose. JAMES V. YOUNG. AJI nppeal from the decision of Mr. Justice Pearson W4-4 lic,ii-d 3,eiter,liv (bafore Mr. Justice otion and Mr. Justice Lindley, sitting in the al Courts of Justice). In tho court below his lordship refused to order the defendant to put in farther and better answers to certain interroga- tories svi^h regard to tiie working of the Rising Son and Engine Gale in the Poorest of Dean, hence the appeal. ilil-. U!.o"?noi, Woods appeared for 11. appellant, and Mr. Renshaw for the respondent. Lord Justice Cotton, in delivering judgment, said v v. as material for tiie purposes of the action that he defendant should know whether the gale was A O.-ked prior to 1846, when t'ii plaintiff applied to the eavtlier for ihe holding. The plaintiff's case wa*5 that the grant had been forfeited tho prior owner ceasing to work it; for five years prior to 1846, when he applied to the gaveiler in the usual form. The '⢠'.v-filler made no award until 1877, when he let i">*e iloferiilant in possession, and the substance of NN,,t:i to oust the defendant. Alter referring to the custom of the district with r, sard to gale"awards, his Lordship said the Court was of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to iiivehis interrogatories answered so fai as they *ff?vivd to the working of the gale prior to 1346. He wcis not, however, entitled to answers as to the mi 'iuit of coal won from the colliery by the defen- â /i«nV"«rce 1881, when he commenced working. The defend* must arswer interrogatories as to the working of the gale, and the appeal on that poiirt oust be sustained. Order accordingly. Costs to 00 costs in the action.

FOOTBALL.

AREnA YRON RACES AND SHOW…

ABERYSTWITH COLLEGE ATHLETIC…

LOCAL MILITARY INTELLIGENCE.

[No title]

1 I THE WAGES DISPUTE IN DEAN…

NEW LOG AI < COMPANY.

ANTMIACITE DISTRICT MINERS'I…

THE LIVERPOOL TIN-PLATE MARKET.

CORN AVERAGES. 1

[No title]

! CARDIFF CHAMBER OF I ICOMMERCE.

--r' fhe following appeared…

THE I ASSASSINATION CONSPIRACY.…

ATTEMPT TO WRECK A MAIL' TRAIN.i

SUNDAY DRINKING AT CARDIFF.

BANKRUPTS, LIQUIDATIONS, &C.!

Family Notices

[No title]

THE WEEK'S MARKETS. 1

Advertising