Hide Articles List

19 articles on this Page

^foMJOjRTUNE,1

11l'. ) XXVII.—"KIND IS…

DOMLGRANT.

----- --._--------._-----THE…

------THE MANSEL ESTATES.

News
Cite
Share

THE MANSEL ESTATES. In the Appeal Court of the Supreme Court of Judicature, on Saturdayâbefore Lords Justices Baggallay, Cotton, and Liudleyâthe case re MansellâRhodes v. Jenkins was concluded. Lord Justice Lindley, in delivering judgment in this appeal, said it was an appeal of Mr Charles Norton, a defendant in the action, from an order made by Lord Justice Fry calling upon him to pay the costs of a motion, the object of which was to compel him to bring into court a sum of £6,000 that ha had obtained from the two other trustees of the will of the testator in payment of his costs. After giving a brief history of the case, which we have previously published, his lordship said that had ha tried the case in the first instance, he should not have given Mr Norton any costs, but having regard to the charges that were made agaist him by the tenant for life, which very seriously affected him, and which were unfounded, he should not have made him pay the costs. The question, however, as to misconduct or no mis- conduct was ainatter entirely within the discretion of the judge, and therefore he thought the appeal must fail. With regard to the costs of the appeal, having regard to the circumstances, to the fact that the appeal was brought not so much against the order to pay costs as upon the unfounded charges made against the character of the appel- lant, it appeared to him that the appellant ought not to pay the costs, and that they ought to come out of the estate. Lord Justice Cotton agreed with Lord Justice Lindley that the appeal failed, and that Lord Justice Fry had perfect jurisdiction to make the order that he did. Lord Justice Baggallay said he took a different view to his biother judges, but he felt that no good would be done by entering into the details. In his opinion, the proper order to be made was simply to discharge the order from the court below, giving no costs to either party, but giving to the plaintiff the costs that had been already mentioned. His reason for thinking the order should be to simply discharge the order of the court below was because he thought that though Mr Norton had been guilty of considerable indis- cretion in the course he had pursued, he did not think the misconduct was such as would justify his being called upon to pay the whole of the costs. Further than that, he thought that the conduct of Sir Richard Man- sel, as well as the conduct of Mr Norton, had been the cause of what had happened. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, the costs of the appeal to come out of the estate.

-----------jTHE NOHTii WALES…

Y GOLOFN GYM11EIG .

e AT EIN GOHEBWYR. *

. CYNGHOR I FERCHED IEUAINGC.

ENGLYNION

Y PEIRIANT GWAIR.

YR IAITH GYMRAEG.

JACOB YN BKTHEL,

LLONGYFARCHIAD

--.-TANBELENIAD ALEXANDRIA,

THE CHILDREN'S HOUR

__---"-----_-THE FATAL ACCIDENT…

-------------"--THE SWANSEA…

[No title]