66 (i.) C. D.-Construction-Settlement-Bequest on same "Trusts-Accretion -Hotchpot.-Where, in a will bequeathing money upon and for the same trusts as those expressed in a marriage settlement, there was no context to shew that, by the use of the word "same," an accretion to the trust fund was intended, it was held, that a hotchpot clause in the settlement was not applicable.—In re North; Meates v. Bishop, 76 L.T.186. (ii.) C. D.-Construction-Whether Repairs and Outgoings Chargeable to Corpus or Income.-Trustees were directed to manage the testator's estate and to apply the income derived from leaseholds for the benefit of a tenant for life. Held, that "income derived" meant after payment by the life tenant of repairs and outgoings accrued since the death of the testator.-In re Redding; Thompson v. Redding, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 876; 76 L.T. 339. (iii.) C. D.-Construction-Charitable Purposes.--" Grants for or towards the purchase of advowsons or presentations" do not fall within charitable purposes. - In re Hunter; Hood v. Attorney-General, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 518; 76 L.T. 386. (iv.) C. D.-Construction-Gift of Realty and Personalty to Spinster and her Lawful Issue-Rule in Wild's Case-Personal Representative.-A testator gave real and personal property "for life to my ward E. " " and to any lawful issue she may have, such issue taking a vested interest in my said property upon attaining the age of 21 years." E. survived the testator, but died unmarried and intestate. Held, that the word "issue as used was a word of purchase and not of limitation; and that the heir-at-law of E. took the realty and her personal representative the personalty.--In re Wilmot; Wilmot v. Betterton, 76 L.T. 415. (v.) C. D.-Construction-Illegitimate Child.-A testator gave a specific legacy to a person described in the will as " my said wife's nephew J. W. R." and gave a moiety of residue to "all and every the nephew and niece and the nephews and nieces of my said wife." Held, that J. W. R., although he was illegitimate, was entitled his share in the residue. In re Parker; Parker v. Osborne, L.R. [1897] 76 L.T. 421. (vi.) C. D.-Construction-Tenant for Life and Remainderman-Rule in Howe v. Dartmouth.-A testator directed that the rents and profits of the residue of his freeholds and leaseholds should be paid to his wife for life, and after her decease he gave and devised the said residue to persons named, subject to payment of certain annuitants to whom he gave a power of distress. Held, that neither the direction as to rents and profits, nor the power of distress shewed any intention of the testator that the leaseholds should be enjoyed in specie, and that therefore the rule in Howe v. Lord Dartmouth (7 Ves. 137) applied.-In re Game; Game v. Young, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 881; 76 L.T. 450. (vii.) C. A.-Residuary Legatee-Fund to be taken as Part of Residue-Hotchpot Clause.--Where a will directed that a fund is to be taken by a residuary legatee as part of his share of residue, a hotchpot clause operates as a gift to the legatee of the testator's interest in the fundHumphreys v. Gadsden, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 325. INDEX. AKTIESELSKAB HELIOS V. EKMAN AND Allen v. Sinclair; in re Sinclair (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 921; 76 L.T. 452), 90, ii. Altair, the (L.R. [1897] P. 105; 76 L.T. 263), 109, iii. Andrews v. Denton (L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B. 37; 76 L.T. 423), 99, vi. Andrews v. Gas Meter Co., Ltd. (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 361; 76 L.T. 132), 94, v. Appleyard v. Vestry of Lambeth (76 L.T. 442), 101, iv. Arter v. The Vestry of Hammersmith (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 646; 76 L.T. 390), 101, vi. Attorney General, e. p.; in re V. Dodington (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 722; 76 L.T. 557), 107, vi. Attorney-General for Dominion of Canada v. A.-G. of Ontario; ditto of Quebec v. ditto of Ontario (L.R. [1897] A.C. 199), 22, 58, i. Attorney-General v. Fairley (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 698; 76 L.T. 526), 107, iii. Attorney-General v. The Newcastle Breweries, Ltd. v. Mayor, &c., of Tynemouth (76 L.T. 566), 100, iv. Attorney-General v. Tod-Heatley and Brownrigg (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 560 ; 76 L.T. 174), 102, vi. BADISCHE ANILIN UND SODA FABRIK V. HENRY JOHNSON & Co. AND THE BASLE CHEMICAL WORKS, BINDSCHEDLER (76 L.T. 21 and 434), 103, i. Bald v. Bald; in re Bald (76 L.T. 462), 108, ii. Baring, the Hon. John, v. Commis sioners of Inland Revenue (76 L.T. 563), 107, iv. Barman and Greenwood, e. p. ; in re Jubb (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 641; 76 L.T. 329), 91, i. Barry Railway Co. and Lord Wimborne and the Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874, in re (76 L.T. 489), 111, iv. Bashall v. Bashall (76 L.T. 165), 98, vii. Battams and Hutchinson, in re (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 699; 76 L.T. 385), 105, v. Belize Estate and Produce Co. v. Quilter (L.R. [1897] A.C. 367; 76 L.T. 361), 93, iii. Bell v. Balls (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 663; Bentinck v. Bentinck; in re Bentinck (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 673; 76 L.T. 284), 90, i. Birrell v. Greenhough; in re Crossley (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 928; 76 L.T. 419), 93, ii. Bishop v. Bishop (and Jenkins v. Jenkins) (L.R. [1897] P. 138; 76 L.T. 409), 22, 62, ii.; 98, iii. Blaker v. Seager and Others (76 L.T. 392), 99, iii. Bloomenthal v. Ford (L.R. [1897] A.C. 156; 76 L.T. 205), 95, i. Bonsor v. Bonsor (L.R. [1897] P. 77; 76 L.T. 168), 98, v. Brewers and Maltsters Association of Ontario v. Attorney-General for Ontario (L.R. [1897] A.C. 231; 76 L.T. 61), 22, 57, v. Broomfield v. Williams (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 602; 76 L.T. 243), 96, viii. Brown v. Stephenson; e. p. Stevenson (76 L.T. 328), 91, iv. Cambrian, the (76 L.T. 504), 109, v. Carney v. Plimmer (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 634; 76 L.T. 374), 98, i. Carter and Kenderdine's Contract; in re (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 776; 76 L.T. 476), 111, v. Chaffers, in re Alexander; e. p. Attorney-General (76 L.T. 351), 111, vi. Chastey and Another v. Ackland (L.R. [1897] A.C. 155; 76 L.T. 430), 97, i. Christmas v. Jones; in re Jones (76 L.T. 454), 89, iii. Clarke v. London and County Bank (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 552; 76 L.T. 293), 92, vii. Coates (J. & P.) v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 778; 76 L.T. 561), 107, v. Coke V. French (76 L.T. 163), 103, vi. Colmer; in re James, Ltd. (76 L.T. 323), 95, v. Conroy v. Peacock (L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B 6; 76 L.T. 465), 105, vii. Consort Deep Level Gold Mines, Ltd., in re; e. p. Stark (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 575; 76 L.T. 300), 95, iv. Continental Oxygen Co., Ltd., in re; Elias v. Continental Oxygen Co., Ltd. (76 L.T. 229), 95, ii. Coolgardie Consolidated Gold Mines, Ltd.; in re (76 L.T. 269), 94, i. County Council of Worcestershire v. Assessment Committee of Worcestershire (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 480; 76 L.T. 138), 106, v. Crathie, the (L.R. [1897] P. 178; 76 L.T. 534), 109, vi. Crayford, Overseers of, and District Council of, v. D. & C. Rutter (L.R. [1897] Q.B. 650; 76 L.T. 392), 106, vi. DE HAYN V. GARLAND; in re DE LINDEN; in re SPURRIER'S SETTLEMENT (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 453; 76 L.T. 180), 100, vi. De Linden, in re; in re Spurrier; De Hayn v. Garland (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 453; 76 L.T. 180), 100, vi. Derbyshire v. Montagu; in re Montagu (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 685 and 2 Ch. 8; 76 L.T. 289 and 485), 108, iv. Devonshire (Duke of) v. Stokes (76 L.T. 424), 102, i. Dodd v. Churton (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 562; 76 L.T. 438), 96, i. Donnisthorpe's Claim and the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 671; 76 L.T. 371), 104, vi. Duff v. Hawker; in re Hawker's Settled Estates (76 L.T. 286), 108, iii. Duncan v. Dowding and Others (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 575; 76 L.T. 294), 99, vii. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co., Ltd. v. New Seddon Pneumatic Tyre and Self-Closing Tube Co., Ltd. (76 L.T. 405), 102, vii. Dunn v. Macdonald (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 555; 76 L.T. 444), 105, ix. Durrant v. the Branksome Urban District Council (76 L.T. 486), 106, i. EARL COWLEY, in re ESTATE DUTY PAYABLE ON THE DEATH OF THE SECOND (76 L.T. 567), 107, ii. Edison General Electric Co. v. Westminster and Vancouver Tramway Co. (L.R. [1897] A.C. 193), 22, 58, ii. Elias v. Continental Oxygen Co. (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 511; 76 L.T. 229), 95, ii. FARRELL V. FARRELL (76 L.T. 167), 98, vi. Fenner and Lord, in re an Arbitration between (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 667; 76 L.T. 376), 104, vii. Finlay v. Darling (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 719; 76 L.T. 461), 108, v. Finlay v. Mexican Investment Corporation (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 517; 76 L.T. 257), 99, ii. Firth v. Staines (L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B. 70; 76 L.T. 496), 101, v. Floyd v. J. Lyons & Co., Ltd. (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 633; 76 L.T. 251), 99, iv. Forrest v. Todd (76 L.T. 500), 105, viii. GALLARD, in re; e. p. GALLARD (L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B. 8; 76 L.T. 327), 91, iii. Game v. Young; in re Game (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 881; 76 L.T. 450), 112, vi. Goldstein v. Vaughan (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 549; 76 L.T. 262), 97, iii. Goodlock v. Cousins (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 558; 76 L.T. 313), 96, v. Graham v. Sutton & Co. (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 716; 76 L.T. 369), 105, iii. Grosvenor and West End Railway Terminus Hotel Co., Ltd., in re (76 L.T. 337), 95, vi. HAMINI AND OTHERS V. TILLEKERATNE (L.R. [1897] A.C. 277; 76 L.T. 210), 93, vi. Harris v. Sleep (76 L.T. 458), 105, vi. Hawke v. Dunn (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 579; 76 L.T. 355), 97, vii. Hawker's Settled Estates, in re; Duff v. Hawker (76 L.T. 286), 108, iii. Hawley, in re; e. p. Ridgway (76 L.T. 501), 91, vi. Hayward v. Hayward; in re Hayward (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 905; 76 L.T. 383), 91, v. Hill (Viscount) v. Bullock (L.R. [1897] 2 Ch. 55; 76 L.T. 417), 97, iv. Hodgkins v. Sinclair (76 L.T. 452), 90, ii. Hood v. Attorney-General; in re Hunter (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 518; 76 L.T. 386), 112, iii. Hood - Barrs V. Crossman and Prichard (L.R.[1897] A.C. 172; 76 L.T. 297), 104, iv. Hood-Barrs v. Heriot (second appeal) (L.R. [1897] A.C. 177; 76 L.T. 299), 104, v. Hopcraft v. Hopcraft (76 L.T. 341), 111, i. Hornsey District Council v. Smith (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 843; 76 L.T. 431), 102, v. Huddersfield Corporation v. Ravensthorpe Urban District Council (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 652; 76 L.T. 377), 100, iii. Humphreys v. Gadsden; in re Cosier (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 325; 76 L.T. 31), 112, vii. JENKINS, in the goods of; JENKINS V. JENKINS (76 L.T. 164), 103, vii. Jenks v. Clifden (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 694; 76 L.T. 382), 89, i. John O'Scot, the (L.R. [1897] P. 64; 76 L.T. 222), 109, i. Joseph v. Joseph and Burnhill (76 L.T. 236), 104, ii. Judkins v. Judkins (76 L.T. 169 and 409), 22, 62, ii. KENNEDY V. DE TRAFFORD (L.R. [1897] A.C. 180; 76 L.T. 427), 102, iv. Koosen v. Rose (76 L.T. 145), 103, iv. LAMOND V. RICHARD (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 541; 76 L.T. 141), 22, 65, ii. ; 99, i. Larocque v. Beauchemin and Others (L.R. [1897] A.C. 358; 76 L.T. 473), 93, iv. Lazarus v. Artistic Photographic Co., Ltd. (76 L.T. 457), 97, ii. Lewis v. Powell (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 678; 76 L.T. 282), 104, iii. Lilley, Frederick G., in the goods of (76 L.T. 164), 103, v. Liverpool General Brokers' Associa tion, Ltd., v. Commercial Press Telegram Bureaux (L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B. 1; 76 L.T. 292), 96, iv. Lord Advocate v. Robertson (76 L.T. 125), 108, i. London and County Banking Co. v. Goddard (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 642; 76 L.T. 277), 102, iii. M. v. M. (otherwise A.) (76 L.T. 172), 98, viii. Macmillan v. Australasian Territories, Ltd., and Others (76 L.T. 182), 103, viii. Madeley v. Ross, Sleeman & Co. (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 505; 76 L.T. 321), 94, ii. Magnolia Metal Co.'s Trade Marks, in re (76 L.T. 190), 110, iv. Manders v. Manders (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 474), 98, iv. Marlborough (Duke of) v. Queen Anne's Bounty (Governors of), in re (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 712; 76 L.T. 388), 108, vi. Master in Equity of Supreme Court of Victoria v. Pearson (L.R. [1897] A.C. 214), 22, 58, iii. Mayflower, the Log of the (76 L.T. 295), 106, vii. McCall and Co., Ltd., v. Houlder and Co. (76 L.T. 469), 109, vii. McInany v. Hildrith (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 600; 76 L.T. 463), 97, vi. Meates v. Bishop; in re North (76 L.T. 186), 112, i. Minna Craig Steamship Co. V. Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, London, and China (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 460; 76 L.T. 310), 22, 44, ii.; 97, v. Montague, in re; e. p. Ward V. London and South Western Bank (76 L.T. 203), 91, ii. Morter, in re; e. p. Nicholls (76 L.T. 532), 92, iv. Mountfield v. Ward (76 L.T. 202), 22, 67, i. NEW MOSS COLLIERY Co. v. MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD AND LINCOLN-SHIRE RAILWAY (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 725; 76 L.T. 231), 93, i. New, Prance, and Garrard, Trustee of, v. Hunting and Others (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 607; 76 L.T. 196), 90, v. Nicholson v. Rhodesia Trading Co., Ltd. (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 434; 76 L.T 147), 94, vi. North, in re; Meates v. Bishop (76 L.T. 186), 112, i. PARKER V. OSBORNE; in re PARKER (76 L.T. 421), 112, v. Pearce v. Gardner (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 688; 76 L.T. 441), 96, ii. Peebles v. Oswaldtwistle Urban District Council (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 625; 76 L.T. 315), 106, ii. Phillips, in re; e. p. Thomas and Co. (76 L.T. 531), 92, iii. Plant v. Bourne (76 L.T. 349), 111, iii. Pomeroy v. Tanner, No. 2, in re (76 L.T. 149), 110, ii. Pratt v. South Eastern Railway Co. (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 718; 76 L.T. 465), 106, iii. Priestley v. Ellis (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 489; 76 L.T. 187), 108, vii. Pritchett v. Poole (76 L.T. 472), 96, vi. RAATZ, in re; e. p. CARLHIAN (76 L.T. 330), 105, i. Raatz, in re; e. p. Raatz (L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B. 80; 76 L.T. 503), 91, viii. Ratata, the (L.R. [1897] P. 118; 76 L.T. 224), 109, ii. Reg. v. Charity Commissioners for England and Wales (76 L.T. 199), 22, 68, ii. Reg. v. Clerk of Assize of Oxford Circuit (76 L.T. 260), 22, 62, i. Reg. v. Commissioners of Lunacy (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 630; 76 L.T. 353), 100, v. Reg. v. Lewisham Union (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 498; 76 L.T. 324), 104, ix. Reg. v. London County Council (76 L.T. 472), 101, i. Reg. v. London (Justices of) (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 433), 106, iv. Reg. v. Pelly and Another (L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B. 33; 76 L.T. 467), 100, i. Reg. v. Turner (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 445; 76 L.T. 556), 96, vii. Ridgway, e. p.; in re Hawley (76 L.T. 501), 91, vi. Roberts, in re; Knight v. Roberts (76 L.T. 479), 89, ii. Rumney and Smith's (76 L.T. 343), 111, ii. Contract SALISBURY GOLD MINING Co. V. HATHORN AND OTHERS (L.R. [1897] A.C. 268; 76 L.T. 212), 93, vii. Saunders v. Gore; in re Saunders (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 888; 76 L.T. 345), 107, vii. Saunders v. Saunders (L.R. [1897] Seaward v. Paterson (L.R. [1897] South African Territories v. Wallington (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 692; 76 L.T. 520), 96, iii. Southport (Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of) v. Birkdale Urban District Council (76 L.T. 318), 104, viii. Sprigg v. Sigcau (L.R. [1897] A.C. 238; 76 L.T. 127), 93, v. Stileman-Gibbard v. Wilkinson and Others (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 749; 76 L.T. 90), 22, 63, i. St. Olave's Union v. Canterbury Union (L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 682; 76 L.T. 88 and 517), 103, ii. Swabey, in re; e. p. Swabey (76 L.T. 534), 92, v. TADCASTER TOWER BREWERY Co. v. WILSON (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 705; 76 L.T. 459), 110, iii. Tate v. Latham & Sons (76 L.T. 336), 101, iii. Thomas v. Foster; in re Foster (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 484; 76 L.T. 228), 107, i. Thompson v. Redding; in re Redding (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 876; 76 L.T. 339), 112, ii. Toleman, in re; Westwood v. Booker (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 866; 76 L.T. 381), 105, iv. Trevor v. Hutchins (76 L.T. 183), 100, ii. WALKER V. WALKER AND LAWSON (76 L.T. 235), 104, i. Ward v. London and South Western Bank; in re Montague (76 L.T. 203), 91, ii. Welton v. Saffery (L.R. [1897] A.C. 299; 76 L.T. 505), 94, iv. Western Counties Steam Bakeries and Milling Co., Ltd., in re; e. p. Parsons and Robjent (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 617; 76 L.T. 239), 22, 60, vi.; 95, iii. White v. Southend Hotel Co., Ltd. (L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 767; 76 L.T. 273), 99, v. Wiesener v. Rackow (76 L.T. 448), 90, iii. Wilding v. Sanderson (76 L.T. 346), 102, ii. Wilkinson and Wife v. Downson (L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B. 57; 76 L.T. 493), 100, vii. Williams v. Goose (L.R. [1897]1 Q.B. 471; 76 L.T. 143), 103, iii. Williams v. Grant (76 L.T. 150), 101, ii. |