Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

17 articles on this Page


-----------I PETTY SESSIONS,…

[No title]



[No title]






Family Notices






DISPUTED RIGHT TO A WELSH ESTATE. We have recently had another instance afforded us of the evanescent character of all that appears to be permanent territorial acquisition, so far as the life of the supposed owner and his heirs presump- tive are concerned. Last wf§k we had another remarkable illustration afforded the public, as shown by the report of a Chancery case, in which the plain- tiff is a young man who ha^hnly lately attained his majority, and he bad to rn his own livelihood since his early youth by d' t of honest labour. By a happy stroke of good-fortune, for right is not al- ways might, he has now cquired a competency for life in the shape of as g little estate situated near Llangyby, in this county, The successful litigant is the elder step son af Mr. Ellis, who was formerly a schoolmaster in th/s town, and who has since carried on business as a pjhblican, &c. The proceedings for tbe recovery of tljis /stale were ably conducted by Mr. Atwood, solicitor, and a few years previously by the late Mr. VautiAn but that gentleman's death, just before the asafzes, at which the cause would otherwise have/been heard, deterred the present suit until it has, length, come to a successful issue, so far as the interests of the plaintiff are concerned. In addition to is estate which may now be worth some 2,000Z, th e are other farms which are placed in a somewhat nalagous position, and if the pre- sent holders ecline to yifld them up, with the papers therto belonging, prompt measures wiil be taken to enforce the now formidable claims of tbe heir-at-law presumptive. The farms which wilt next be the subject of judicial investigation, so that there is yet every probability of young Morgan, the plaintiff, yet becoming a still more substantial lan- ded proprietor, on his accession to the remainder ot what he and his friends claim to be his inalienable partrimony, according to the circumstances under which the property had been bequeathed. It is well known that a large quantity of property and numerous family estates of great value are unques- tionably in the hands of persons who have no legal claim whatsoever to them, their main advantage being, that possession is nine points of law On the other hand, the rightful owners have generally neither the wit, money, friends, nor courage to con- test the ownership. Comparatively but few persons are so fortunate as young Morgan. The Chancery suit of Miss Rosanna Dupin Fray for the recovery of some estates in Montgomeryshire and Salop has been dragging along its weary length for years, but does not yet appear to have been definitely con- cluded, as that somewhat cantankerous lady has expressed her intention of appealing against the re- cent decision of the chief clerk in the Rolls' Court. The following is a summary of the case of Mr. Morgan, which was decided last week, as already stated, and which must prove interesting to many of our readers London, Thursday 21st. In the Rolls Court, to-day, Lord Romilly gave judgment in the case of Thomas Morgan, (of Aber- ystwyth,) v. Rees Morgan. His Lordship explained that the plaintiff was at present a waiter in Cheap- side, London. Some time since a farmer named Rees Morgan was in possession of an estate, called Penlan, about 117 acres in extent, situate in the Parish of Llangyby, near Lampeter, in the county of Cardigan. He had two sons, both of whom were heirs expec- tant, but whom he survived, dying only in the year One of the sons, Thomas, in the year 1820, sold his interest in the estate to a solicitor named Harries, residing at Carmarthen. Thomas died in 1825, leaving a widow and a son named David, and the latter thereupon became entitled under the limi- tations of a settlement to the equitable estate in remainder expectant on the death of his grandfather. Upon the decease of the original possessor, Harries, as was alleged by the plaintiff, improperly claimed the estate, and entered into the receipt of the rents and profits, the estate being then in the occupation of Jane Morgan. He made several attempts to sell the property by private contract, and in 1847 he suc- ceeded in inducing the defendant to purchase it for 1,315/ which was considerably less than the proper value, one of the conditions of the sale being that David Morgan, the plaintiff's father, shonld confirm the sale, which he, being an ignorant and poor man, did. In 1860, David Morgan died, leaving the plain- tiff, his eldest son, the heir-at-law. The latter now Alleged that, inasmuch as Harries only purchased a life interest, he was a trespasser upon the estate, and plaintiff prayed that he might be decreed to account for the rents and profits. After alluding at length to the transfer of the pro- perty from one possessor to another, and to the mortgages that had been effected illegally, his lord- ship said it was clear that David Morgan, the father of the plaintiff, had ignorantly disposed of his own birth-right for a nominal sum; but neither David Morgan, the elder, nor Thomas Morgan, the elder deceased, nor David Morgan, the younger, the fa- ther of the plaintiff, executed any disinheriting deed, or suffered any recovery, or levied any fine so as to bar the estate tail which was vested in them. The principal defence which is set up is that the 23rd section of the statute of limitations prevents him from seeing that the section quoted bears a very different effect. I am of opinion that the clause has no application in the present case. It provides for cases where the tenant in tail in remainder has ex- ecuted an assurance which would have barred all persons entitled in remainder if he had, at that time, been tenant in tail in possession, and accord- ingly it bars all persons interested in remainder, at the end of 20 years from the first time at which the tenant in tail or some person claiming under him in tail, would have been entitled to possession of the estate tail. But precedents showed that this section had no application to this case. The conveyance by David Morgan, tbe. fatber of the plaintiff, was not enrolled, and had no such effect. David Mor- gan never believed that he was conveying the said estate from himself or his issue to his uncle, and that the conveyance of the reversion by Thomas Morgan, during the life of his father, had no opera- tion at all in depriving plaintiff or his father of the estate in remainder. After replying at length to the various ingenious points that bad been raised on behalf of the defendant, His Lordship thought that under all the circum- stances plaintiff was entitled to a decree, and ordered therefore that the defendant should deliver up pos- session and account for the rents and profits of the estate in question since the filing of the bill. No order was made as to costs. Sir R. Baggallay, Q.C., and Mr Woodhouse were counsel for the plaintiff; and Mr Jessel, Q.C., M.P., and Mr Bevill for the defendant.

[No title]