HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0862 and id is 1 raw text is: her solicitor or agent : and that the depositions of the other witnesses examined in
the cause on behalf of the Defendant W. Pincombe might be suppressed, ;n the
ground that no notice was given by W. Pincombe or on his behalf, to the Plaintiff or
to her solicitor or agent, of the [498] names, rank or occupations, ages or places of
abode of the witnesses.
The witnesses were examined under a commission in the country in August 1848.
Publication passed on the 4th of November in that year; and the notice of motion
was served on the 24th of the same month, for the 2d of December following. It
appeared from the affidavits that the Plaintiff's country solicitor was at the inn at
which the commission was executed during the time of its execution, and saw and
conversed with the witnesses.
Mr. Bethell and Mr. Terrell, in support of the motion, referred to Mulvany v
Dillon (1 Ball & Beatty, 409), Ellis v. Deane (3 Molloy, 48), Dan. Ch. Pract. 865;'
1 Newland's Ch. Pract. 267; Taylor v. Harrison (1 Myl. & Cr. 274), Dearman v. Wych
(4 Myl. & Cr. 550), and Young v. Smith (3 Madd. 196), and 1 Dan. Ch. Pract. 853.
Mr. Rolt and Mr. Follett, for the Defendant W. Pincombe, said that if witnesses
were examined in London, notice of their names and descriptions must be given to
the adverse party, under the 26th General Order of Oct. 1842 (Beav. Ord. 216) ; but
that, if they were examined in the country, such notice need not be given, unless the
adverse party had given notice of his intention to attend the execution of the com-
mission ; which the Plaintiff in this case had not only not done, but her solicitor had
stated to several persons that he did not mean to attend the execution of the com-
mission: that Sir John Leach had decided that it was not necessary to serve the
Plaintiff in a cause with an order allowing a Defendant to exa-[499]-mine a Co-defen-
dant ; and that in consequence of that decision the Secretary at the Rolls had struck
the words and hereof give notice forthwith out of the order, and had inserted the
words saving just exceptions in their place.
THE VICE-CHANCELLOR [Sir L. Shadwell]. It is not necessary for me to determine
the question that has been argued; for my opinion is that the circumstances of the
case forbid me to grant the motion.
It appears that the Plaintiffs solicitor attended at the place at which the
witnesses were examined whilst the examination was going on, and that he not only
saw but conversed with the witnesses. It appears also that the examination having
terminated on the 9th of August publication passed on the 4th of November; but no
notice of motion to suppress the depositions was given until the 24th.
My opinion is that after so long a delay it would be quite wrong for the Court
to interfere. Publication has passed, and the party moving has had an opportunity
of ascertaining the weight of the evidence ; and no attempt was made until twenty
days after publication to rectify the error.
Motion refused with costs.(1)
[500] JONES v. HALL. Jan. 26, 1849.
Vill. Construction. Joint-tenancy.
Testator gave all the property he possessed in the parish of K., consisting of houses,
lands, debts, ready money and other effects which he then possessed, or might possess
at the time of his decease, and also all his funds in the Bank of England or that of
the United States of America, to his reputed children, Anthony, James and Richard,
and their heirs, share and share alike, as soon as they should have attained twenty-
one: it being his will that, if one of them should die before he attained that age,
his share should vest in and belong to the survivors. James died under twenty-one,
leaving Anthony and Richard surviving.
Held, that the share of the testator's property, which James would have been entitled
to if he had attained twenty-one, vested in Anthony and Richards, as joint-tenants.
(1) Affirmed, 1 Hall & Twells, 250.
968
JONES V.. HALL'
16 SIM. 498.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0862&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)