In the Goods of Wells.

32. The same doctrine is stated in 1 Steph. Com. Introd. sect. 4, p. 100, in these words, that the colonies are not bound by an act of Parliament, unless particularly named. But the authority which is perhaps the most in point is In the Goods of Foy, 2 Curt. 328, where probate of the unattested will and codicil of an officer in the East India Company's service, made at the Cape of Good Hope in March, 1838, was allowed to pass here, probate of those papers having been granted at the cape.

SIR H. JENNER FUST. The facts stated show an intention of permanent residence, and satisfy me as to the domicil of the testator. Then does the Statute of Wills apply to the colonies, or are all of them excepted? I should, perhaps, have had some hesitation in deciding that question on motion; but as the affidavits, stating the law of the Mauritius, are made by persons holding high official appointments there, and who must be presumed to be acquainted with the law of that island, I will follow the grant, and allow probate of these papers.

S. W. of his will appointed E. W. sole executor and residuary legatee. E. W. proved the will in the Prerogative Court, and administered the whole of the beneficial estate of S. W. E. W. died, leaving the whole of his estate within a local jurisdiction, having made a will, but appointed no executor or residuary legatee, administration with which will annexed was granted by the local authority to the next of kin. Certain stock stood in the name of S. W. as surviving trustee, which was not transferred by E. W. Administration granted to the administrators of E. W. as administrators de bonis non with the will annexed of S. W.

THIS case was moved on the 11th February in the present year, when the motion was rejected. See 15 Jur. p. 160, 1 Eng. Rep. 632.

Jenner now renewed the motion. The will of E. W., having been properly proved in a local jurisdiction, cannot be transmitted to this court, and the persons to whom administration with that will annexed was granted cannot by its authority become E. W.'s personal representatives. It is true, the parties interested in the fund might join in nominating some person to take administration to S. W., limited to the fund in question; but that course is inconvenient in many respects, and expensive, the parties interested being numerous, and some of them resident in distant countries.

1 15 Jur. 362.

In the Goods of Wells.

[He then referred to several cases, from the year 1840, taken from the registrar's book, in which administration had been granted to the representative of the surviving trustee of a fund, and submitted that such was the course of practice, and more convenient than a grant to the nominee of the parties beneficially entitled to the fund.]

SIR H. JENNER FUST. I shall always be very unwilling to alter the practice which prevails, and, I presume, must have been found convenient, in the office, although I may not see the reason for that practice. I shall therefore make this grant in accordance with what the cases referred to show to be the ordinary practice.

INDEX TO VOL. II.

Chancery.

ADVOWSON.
See TRUST, 5.

AFFIDAVIT

See PRACTICE, 1.

AGENTS.

See PRODUCTION OF PAPERS, 3.

ALTERATIONS.

See WILL, 9.

ANNUITY.

See WILL, 6.

ANSWER.

See PLEADING, 1, 5.

CASES APPROVED, &c.

Ashpitel v. Sercombe, 19 Law J. Rep. (N. s.) Exch. 82, approved, 77.

CHARITABLE TRUST.

See TRUST.

CHILDREN.

See WILL, 5.

CODICIL.
See WILL, 4.

CONTRIBUTORY.

1. Deposit.] A person who agrees to take shares in a projected company, whica
becomes abortive, and to pay a preliminary deposit on them, is not thereby rendered
a contributory even with respect to the deposit. Capper's Case, 77.

2. Void Sale of Shares.] A shareholder in a joint-stock company sold his shares to a
trustee on behalf of the company, taking, pursuant to a resolution of the company,

Chancery.

a loan note, at a certain rate of interest, at five years' date. A regular certificate
of transfer was given, and entry made of the substituted shareholder's name:
Held, that (in accordance with the decision in Morgan's Case of the late lord chancel-
lor) the vender of the shares was still a contributory, without qualification. Lawes,
ex parte, 106.

See SHAREHolder.

COSTS.

1. Railway Co.] The costs of the heir at law of a lunatic, attending the master upon
a reference regarding the taking of a portion of the lunatic's land by a railway
company, ordered to be paid by the company. Walker, in re, 91.

2. Foreclosure Suit.] In a foreclosure suit, brought by mortgagees against, amongst
other parties, the assignees of a tenant for life who had executed the mortgage
deed, the assignees, by their answer, stated, that before and since the filing of the
bill they had offered to the plaintiffs to disclaim by deed, and they disclaimed by
their answer:-

Held, that the assignees were entitled to their costs. Lock v. Lomas, 95.

3. Upon Appeal Motion.] The costs of defendants, who succeeded upon appeal mo-
tion, were not mentioned in the judgment pronounced upon the motion, but the
order delivered out gave costs against the plaintiff:-

Held, that the costs ought not to have been given against the plaintiff; but they were
made costs in the cause. Evans v. Protheroe, 83.

1. Pleading,] A bill for discovery in aid of a plea, pleaded by the plaintiff in equity
to an action by a trustee upon a covenant entered into by the plaintiff in equity for
the payment of an annuity to the plaintiff at law, upon trust for one C. N., stated
that the deed of covenant was valid on the face of it, but that the consideration for
it was a prospective illicit cohabitation subsequently had between the plaintiff and
the said C. N., which had been since discontinued, and that discovery of the true
consideration was necessary for his defence at law. Demurrer for want of equity
by the plaintiff at law overruled, no discovery being sought which could by possi-
bility subject him to pains and penalties. Benyon v. Nettlefold, 113.

2. Demurrer.] Although, where a bill is for discovery and relief, it may be demur-
rable, yet, where it is for discovery only, in aid of a defence at law, it will not be
demurrable, unless the discovery would infringe upon some known rule. Ib.

EVIDENCE.

Unstamped Receipt.] Two issues were directed out of the court of chancery: one,
whether E. R. had agreed to sell three tenements, adjoining the river T., to J. R.;
the other was whether the purchase money had been paid. At the trial, an inade-
quately stamped receipt for 21., from J. R., "being the amount of purchase for
three tenements sold by me adjoining the river T.," and signed by E. R., was
received in evidence, and the jury found for the plaintiff on both issues. Upon a
motion for a new trial on both issues, Wigram, V. C., thought that the document had
Deen properly received in evidence upon the first issue, on the authority of Matheson

Chancery.

v. Ross, 13 Jur. 307, and refused a new trial upon that issue, but granted a new trial
on the second :-

Held, by Lord Cottenham, C., directing a new trial on both issues, that the document
had been improperly received in evidence upon the first issue, "the fact of payment
being one of the means by which the affirmative of that issue might be proved,"
and not collateral to the issue, as in Matheson v. Ross. Evans v. Protheroe, 83.

FAMILY.

See WILL, 10.

FORECLOSURE.

See COSTS, 2. MORTGAGE.

FOREIGN PENALTIES.
See PRODUCTION OF PAPERS, 3.

ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN.
See WILL, 5.

INDICTMENT.

See INJUNCTION, 3.

INFANTS.

See Newbury v. Marten, 106.

INJUNCTION.

1. Breach of-Motion to commit.] Parties claiming to be equitable mortgagees in
possession of certain freehold houses, commenced pulling down the wall of one
of them. The party claiming to have the legal estate thereupon filed his bill
against the equitable mortgagees, and obtained, ex parte, an injunction to restrain
them from pulling down, destroying, or damaging the houses or buildings, and from
removing or carrying away the bricks or materials thereof, and from doing or com-
mitting any waste, injury, or spoil, to, in, or upon the premises, or any part thereof.
The plaintiff afterwards put workmen into the houses, who excluded the defendants
by shutting the doors and windows. The defendants thereupon obtained an entry
by breaking a window in one of the houses, broke the lock of one of the doors, and
ejected the plaintiff's workmen :-

Held, that, under the circumstances, no breach of the injunction had been committed.
Loder v. Arnold, 87.

2. Costs.] Held, also, that the defendant was entitled to costs, although he had been
guilty of personal violence in obtaining possession. Ib.

3. Indictment.] The agents of the receiver in a cause, acting under leave of the
court, took forcible possession of a house occupied by a servant of one of the de-
fendants. An order was made restraining that defendant from prosecuting an indict-
ment against the agents. Turner v. Turner, 130.

4. Application to Parliament.] The shareholders of the South Devon Railway Company
consisted of two classes, viz., the proprietors of whole shares, and the proprietors
of half or guarantied shares, and the directors introduced two bills into Parliament
to vary the rights and privileges of the respective classes: :-

Held, on motion for an injunction by an owner of whole shares, who alleged that the
proposed alteration would be injurious to the owners of whole shares, that, having
regard to the public character of the company, the proposed scheme could not be
considered as such a breach of trust or duty to the company as would induce the
court to restrain the directors from using the name and seal and credit of the com-
pany in introducing and prosecuting the bill, they entering into a similar undertaking
to that imposed on the defendants in Parker v. The Dunn Navigation Company.
But an injunction was granted to restrain the application of the funds of the com-
pany in prosecuting the bill in Parliament, so far as it proposed to affect the privi-
leges attached to the half shares. And the question as to the payment of the