Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1208

possession of the appellants, they were at liberty to keep the same; the respondent the Duke being present in Court, and consenting thereto. And as between the respondents, it was further ordered, that the respondent Pierce should transfer or assign to the respondent the Duke, or to whom he should appoint, the several stocks and annuities standing in his name; and account before the Master for what he had received on account of the annuities, or for the dividends upon the stocks, and pay the same to the re-[82]-spondent the Duke, at such time and place as the Master should appoint. And it was ordered, that the Master should tax the appellants and the respondent Pierce, their costs in the cross cause, to the time of the hearing, which were to be paid out of the Countess of Bridgewater's estate but the consideration of the future costs was reserved till after the Master's report.

The appellants, apprehending themselves aggrieved by this decree, appealed from it; and on their behalf it was argued (C. Wearg, W. Peere Williams), that the decree was founded upon a presumption, that the frame or table, and the drawers therein, was no part of the strong box; whereas it was in proof in the causes, that this frame or table and drawers were always looked upon as part of the strong box, and the whole as one piece of work, being fixed together by screws, so as not to be separated without first unlocking the strong box; that the same were so fixed together, from the time of making the said frame or table, which was about two years before the date of the Countess's will in 1711, and continued so till the time of her death; and that the Countess, when she had at any time occasion to mention the drawers in the said frame or table, always called them the drawers of her strong box. That it also appeared by the evidence of the respondent Pierce, who was examined as a witness, as well for the respondent, the Duke as the appellants, that the Countess, when in health, usually locked and unlocked this strong box and drawers herself; but, when confined to her bed, she trusted her women to unlock the same; and that the strong box and frame constantly stood in a corner of the bed-chamber, in view of the Countess, either when in bed, or confined to her chair by the fire. From whence it was reasonably to be presumed, that the notes or declarations of trust, and also the Bank and Exchequer notes, were deposited in the drawers of the said frame by the Countess herself; and that she, having both box and frame so fixed together constantly before her, must have it in her view and intention, by the devise of her strong box, to pass the frame, table, and drawers therein, to the appellant Lady Paget, as well as the said strong box. That if any doubt remained whether such was her intention, yet having devised all her chests and cabinets, and whatsoever was in them, to the appellant Lady Paget, the same ought to be taken as an extensive devise; and as the Duke's own witnesses had described this frame or table, with the drawers therein, to be a chest of drawers, or a nest of drawers; it was presumed to be, nevertheless, a chest, though it had drawers in it, and therefore did well pass to the appellant Lady Paget; and the rather because neither the said frame, table, or drawers therein, were otherwise disposed of by the will. That although the notes or declarations of trust might be looked upon as choses in action, yet it could not be doubted but that they might be bequeathed by express words; and the bequest of whatsoever was in her strong box, chests, and cabinets, was the same as if every particular and individual thing therein had been expressly bequeathed. That these notes or declarations of trust being deposited by the Countess with the Bank and Exchequer notes, and the will and devise [83] to the appellant Lady Paget being of the Countess's own penning, she evidently intended to pass all the said notes, and all her interest and property from thence arising, to the appellant; and this devise ought the rather to have such a construction in a Court of Equity, as it regarded only a personalty, and was in favour of a child for whom the Countess ever expressed the greatest affection.

On the other side it was contended (P. Yorke, C. Talbot), that the fixing of the strong box by screws to the frame or table did not make the same a part of the strong box; nor could what was in the drawers of the frame, he said to be in the strong box. That this frame or table, and the drawers therein, were not in the nature of a strong box, nor any way proper to keep things of value in, or such as are commonly kept in a strong box; the locks of the drawers being slight and ordinary, and the back part of the frame made of thin slit boards. That the Countess constantly distinguished the drawers in the frame from the strong box, by the appellation of the drawers under her strong box; and she accordingly made use of them for