ADVERTISEMENT-(Continued.)

This Estate has the advantage of an immense body of water power, and there are bleach greens, beetling and corn mills in the occupation of highly
respectable and wealthy manufacturers.

A great portion of the tenantry are engaged, or in some way connected with various branches of the linen trade, and are remarkable for their
industry and intelligence.

The several lots contain extensive tracts of arable, meadow and pasture land, with an abundance of bog to supply fuel for a century to come, lying
contiguous to several large rivers, streams and springs, the best description of roads, and within easy distances of the very best seaport and market
towns in Ireland, and possessing other numerous local advantages.

There is a daily communication with Belfast, Derry, Dublin, &c. by mail coach and other vehicles connected with railways.

The Maine and Braid Waters (which bound and intersect the estate, are rivers of considerable magnitude, forming a very striking feature in the
local advantages of the property.
The rents on this estate are punctually paid, and the best proof of their being moderate is, that when any of the tenants are desirous of disposing
of their good.will or interest, they can readily realise very large sums.

A very valuable Reversionary Interest attaches to this Estate, which may be safely anticipated on the termination of several of the existing leases
which are depending on old lives.

The tenants are highly respectable, and generally in comfortable circumstances, arising from their having acquired capital (independently of their
farming pursuits) by their connexion with the linen manufacture and other industrial resources.
Improvements are in few places in Ireland more aparent than on this Estate, which is principally to be attributed to the moderate rental and the
industrious hapits of the tenantry. On the property is a considerable quantity of trap-rock (locally called Blackstone), which is used in most towns in
the country, and is peculiarly adapted for building purposes.

THE KELLS ESTATE.

And in pursuance of the same order, and by the directions of the Commissioners, Mr. HYNDMAN will, on TUESDAY the 7th day of JANUARY
1851, at the same hour and place, set up for sale the unsold lots of the estate known as the KELLS ESTATE, in the following lots, viz :-

There is a railway station on this lot,
This Lot will be sold subject to the annual
head-rent of the entire Kells estate.

On this Lot there are several respectable farm
houses and offices. The road from Bally-
mena to Antrim passes through it.
The post town of Kells (where two fairs are
annually held), the bleach greens and beet.
ling mills in the occupation of William
Johnston, Esq. and also of William Millar,
Esq. as well as two capital residences and
demesnes beautifully laid out and planted
form part of this lot. There is also an ex
cellent corn mill on it.

This rent charge-of which this annual sum
of £34 5s. Sd. forms part-is payable out
of the Grange of Dundermott, extending
over 3003A. OR. 18P, statute measure.
These Lands are not the property of Peti.
tioner-he deriving the rent charge as lay
improprietor only. This rent charge is
punctually paid. A very considerable in-
crease of said rent-charge may take place
on the next revision.

The Kells Estate will be sold free of tithe rent-charge, the Petitioner being the lay Improprietor.
The Braid and Glenwhirry Estates are subject to a yearly rent charge or chief rent, of £5 of the late Irish currency, payable to Lord O'Neill
and his heirs, who are also entitled to the exclusive right of free chase and free warren, over this Estate, and to the mines and minerals thereon and
thereunder, with liberty, also to said Lord O'Neill and his heirs to fish, fowl, hunt, and hawk, upon the said Estate; and subject also to the tenants
of the said Estate doing suit and service to and at the Manor Court of Buckna, and paying the usual fines and fees of the said Manor,

The Glenwhirry Estate has been sold, subject to the said chief rent in exoneration of the Braid Estate.
Dated this 29th day of November 1050.

S. WOULFE FLANAGAN, Secretary.

The biddings will be submitted to the Commissioners, and on their approval of same the purchaser will be declared, and can obtain immediate
possession, with a Parliamentary title.
All further information may be had by applying to the Commissioners, at their Court Henrietta street; or to

PATRICK SCOTT, Attorney for the Petitioner, having the carriage of the order for sale, 15, Merchants-quay, Dublin;
MICHAEL BOURKE, Solicitor, Fermoy, County Cork;

ALFRED W. CLEVERLY, Esq; or

WILLIAM RAPHAEL Esq, Agent's Office, Ballymena, County Antrim; and

Messrs. JENKINSON, SWEETING, and JENKINSON, Solicitors, 29, Lombard.street, London.

NEW LAW BOOKS,

Just Published, price 12s. cloth, by Post, 12s. Ed.
THE PRACTICE of the INCUMRERED ESTATES

COURT in IRELAND from the Presentation of the Petition to the
Distribution of the Funds, embracing the General and Bye-Rules, the
Commissioners' Directions, and all Forms incidental to the practice of
the Court. Notes of all Important Decisions, with the Act, and approved
Precedents of Costs of all proceedings.

By RICHARD CHARLES MACNEVIN, Solicitor.
JUST PUBLISHED, price 4s., by Post, 4s. 6d.

COURT OF CHANCERY (Ireland) REGULATION

ACT, 1850, with an Introduction, PRACTICAL COMMENTS
and Precedents,

Printed by THOMAS ISAAC WHITE, at his Printing Office, No. 45,
FLEET STREET, in the Parish of St. Andrew, and published at 15,
COLLEGE GREEN, in same Parish, by EDWARD JOHNSTON
MILLIKEN, residing at the same place, all being in the County of the
City of Dublin, Saturday, December 14, 1850.

Erish Jurist

DECEMBER 21, 1850.

The Names of the Gentlemen who favour THE IRISH JURIST with Reports in the several Courts of Law and Equity in Ireland, are as follows:

of each case have given an abstract of the point intended to be worked out by the decisions and notes. The old marginal notes are not sufficiently explicit to indicate the principle deducible from the cases; for example in, Fox v. Mackreth-a cause which was ten days at hearing-the marginal note is as follows: "Purchase by a trustee for sale. A trustee for the sale of estates for payment of debts, who purchased them himself, by taking an undue advantage of the confidence reposed in him by the plaintiff, and previous to the completion of the contract sold them at a highly advanced price, decreed to be a trustee as to the sums produced by the second sale for the original vendor."

This is not a well-expressed note, and, even admitting it to be a sufficient summary of the result of the case, there is no abstract or summary of the commentary, neither at the commencement of the case, nor the beginning of the work. A short statement of the points adverted to would, in our judgment, have been useful. In the instance to which we allude not merely are purchases from trustees considered, but those of all parties in confidential relations, as agents, stewards, guardians, executors, assignees of bankrupts, solicitors.

A little introductory precis would kindle the attention of the student, and facilitate the search of the practitioners. However familiar with the names of the selected cases they may be-and some are not-they may not know by intuition the incidental, though strictly logical, issues which may be laid be

As to Investment.-Nothwithstanding the opinion of Lord Northington, in Harden v. Parsons, (1 Eden, 148), it is clear that trustess or executors will not be justified in lending the trust-money on personal security, Terry v. Terry, (Prec. Ch. 273): Adye v. Fuilleteau, (1 Cox, 24); Vigrass v. Binfield, (3 Madd. 62); Walker v. Symonds, (3 Swanst. 63); Darke v. Martin, (1 Beav. 525), although it be joint, Holmes v. Dring, (2 Cox, 1), or with sureties, Watts v. Girdlestone, (6 Beav.188), unless they have an express authority to do so, Forbes v. Ross, (2 Bro. C. C. 430; S. C., 2 Cox, 113); mere general expressions, leaving the nature of the investment apparently discretionary, not being sufficient, Pocock v. Reddington, (5 Ves. 794); Wilkes v. Steward, (G. Coop. 6); Mills v, Osborne, (7 Sim. 30); and trustees authorised to lend money on personal security will not be allowed to lend to one of themselves. Forbes v. Russ. 7); Stickney v. Sewell, (1 My. & Cr. 814), or to a Ross, (2 Bro. C.C. 430; 2 Cox, 113); —v. Walker, (5 relation for the purpose of accommodating him, Langston v. Ollivant (G. Coop. 33); Stichney v. Sewell, (1 My. & Cr. 15); Cock v. Goodfellow, (10 Mod. 489); Fitzgerald v. Pringle, (2 Moll. 534.) And the terms upon which money is authorised to be lent upon personal security must be strictly complied with. Thus, if a power is given to trustees to lend the trust-money to the husband, on his bond, with the consent of his wife in writing, the trustees will be liable, if they lend to the husband without the security of a bond, or without having previously obtained the wife's written consent: Cocker v. Quayle, (1 Russ. & My. 535); her subsequent consent, though in writing, will not exonerate them: Bateman v. Davis, (3 Madd. 98.) In the absence of any express authority to invest, although some judges have thought that an executor or trustee would be justified in an investment upon good real securities, Brown v. Litton, (1 P. Wms. 141); Knight v. Earl of Plymouth, (1 Dick. 126); Pocock v. Reddington, (5 Ves. 800), the current of decisions appears This, however, may be a mere hypercriticism, Cox, 182); Norbury v. Norbury, (4 Madd. 191); Widto be against such an investment, Ex parte Calthorpe, (1 taking the work as a whole it has been exceedingly dowson v. Duck, (2 Mer. 494); Ex parte Johnson, (1 carefully and accurately prepared. It cannot be Moll. 128); Ex parte Ridgeway, (1 Hog. 309); Ex parte said to be a complete selection of leading cases in Ellice, (Jac. 234); à fortiori if an investment in the funds Equity-indeed these are so numerous that no two be directed, Pride v. Fooks, (2 Beav. 430.) volumes could contain them—for instance, except express authority, in investing money in any other stock or Trustees or exccutors will not be justified, without an Le Neve v. Le Neve can be so considered, there is funds than Government or Bank Annuities; for example, as not a single case on the registration of deeds, a very observed by Lord Hardwicke, "Neither South Sea Stock important subject, at least in this country. The nor Bank Stock are considered as good security, because writers appear to have confined themselves more to they depend upon the management of the governor and dithe inherent than the statutable jurisdiction of the rectors, and are subject to losses; for instance, it is in the court; yet the choice of subjects has not been inju⚫ stock while they keep within the terms of their charter. power of the South Sea Company to trade away their whole dicious, and they have all been discussed very suc- But South Sea Annuities and Bank Annuities are of a diffecinctly, and with considerable precision of language. rent consideration; the directors have nothing to do with They have taken considerable pains in giving the the principal, and are only to pay the dividends and interest principal cases accurately, by collating the different till such time as the government pay off the capital; and it contemporaneous reporters, and supplying the de- is not in their power to bring any loss upon them, and they ficiencies of the one by dovetailing in the necessary therefore are only and properly good securities:" Trafford v. Boehm, (3 Atk. 444); and see Howe v. Earl of Dartmatter from another, and they have done this with- mouth, (ante, p. 235); Mills v. Mills, (7 Sim. 501). And out obscurity, or blending inaptly differences of style. as the Court has selected for its own purposes the £3 per It is, we think, a positive advantage to be enabled Cents. Consolidated Bank Annuities, trustees or executors to impress upon the memory the leading case upon would act wisely in always adopting the same, as it is clear each subject, that-once known is to the law student that they could not, upon a proper investment in the £3 per what the source of a river is to the geographer-in that fund: Peat v. Crane, (2 Dick. 499, n.); Cloagh v. Cents., be liable for any loss occasioned by the fluctuations when discovered, the latter can follow with certainty Bond, (3 My. & Cr. 496.) It would indeed appear from its course, its deviations, and its end,-so, too, the Hancom v. Allen, (as reported in 2 Dick. 498,) that truslawyer, when the fountain of knowledge has been tees would be held liable for any fluctuation in the value of opened up, can pursue it through the track which any government funds in which they invested, instead of the the great men of his profession have traced for his £3 per Cent. Consolidated Bank Annuities; but that case, guidance and advantage.

fore them.

As a specimen of the style and industry of the Authors, we extract the following observations ranged under the leading cases of Townley v. Sherborne, (Bridg. 25,) and Brice v. Stokes, (11 Ves. 319,) as to the duties and liabilities of trustees. (Vol. ii. p. 646.)

which, however, is no authority for such a proposition, was afterwards reversed in the House of Lords, (see 7 Bro. P.C. 375, Toml. edit.); and it is by no means probable that the Court would act with such harshness.

Where trustees or executors are authorised to advance

money upon mortgage, if they act with ordinary prudence, they will only advance two-thirds of the value of pro

perty even of a permanent value-as freehold land; but the same rule does not apply to property in houses and buildings, which fluctuates in value, and is always deteriorating, upon which still less ought to be advanced, especially where they are used in trade, and whose value depends upon the accidental absence of competition in trade; see Stickney v. Sewell, (1 My. & Cr. 9); in which case it was also held, that trustees are not justified in lending money upon mortgage to one of themselves.

Trustees authorised to advance money upon landed securities in England, Wales, or Great Britain, may, under 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 29, unless expressly restricted, advance money upon land securities in Ireland, with the consent of the person whose consent may be required. And if infants unborn, or insane persons, are interested, the loan must be made under the direction of the Court, obtained in a cause or upon petition in a summary way.

If trustees are bound by the terms of their trust to invest money in the public funds, and, instead of doing so, retain the money in their hands, the cestui qui trust may elect to charge them either with the amount of the money, or with the amount of the stock which they might have purchased with the money: Shepherd v. Mouls, (4 Hare, 303.

tees were directed to invest monies either in the funds or in the purchase of lands, there would, at a subsequent time, be no better reason for saying that the trustees ought to have made the investment in the funds, than that they ought to have purchased land. Unless some reason can be shown why the trustees should at any given moment have chosen one kind of investment rather than another, it seems impossible to say there has been a default by the trustees in not having made a particular investment, or what has been the definite loss to the trust-funds from the omission so to do. In this case I see no greater reason for saying that the trustees were bound to invest the trust-monies on government security, unless a real security had presented itself, than for saying that they were bound to invest the same money in real estate, unless a security in stock had been offered at a given price. The breach of trust is in having made no proper investment-not in having omitted to choose the one rather than the other." That was the opinion of Sir John Leach in the case of Marsh v. Hunter, (6 Madd. 295); Lord Gifford, in the case of Hockley v. Bantock, (1 Russ. 141,) decided otherwise. In the latter of these cases, however, the former was not cited; and, judging from the hesitation with which the Court made the order, it appears probable that, had Marsh v. Hunter; been cited the decision would have been different. In Watts v. Girdlestone, (6 Beav. 188,) the same question came before Lord Langdale, whose decision was in accordance with that in Hockley v. Bantock, My own strong impression, for the reasons which I have stated, is in favour of the view taken in Marsh v. Hunter. I cannot see upon what principle the Court is to charge the trustees with an accidental improvement in value of one of several securities, where they are not bound, in the execution of the trust, to select that particular security rather than another.......... The case is very different from that of

And if trustees are directed to invest trust money on government or real securities, and they do neither, it has been held, both by Lord Gifford, M. R., and Lord Langdale, | M. R., that they are answerable at the option of the cestui que trust, either for the amount of the money which was to be invested, or for such amount of Bank £3 per Cent Annuities as might have been purchased with the sum at the time when it ought to have been invested according to the trust: Hockley v. Bantock, (1 Russ. 141); Kellaway v. Johnson, (5 Beav. 319); Watts v. Girdlestone, (6 Beav. 188), and see O'Brien v. O'Brien, (1 Moll. 533); Row-giving the cestui que trust the option of electing between ley v. Adams, (7 Beav. 419.)

Under similar circumstances, however, in Marsh v. Hunter, (6 Madd. 295), Sir John Leach, V. C., on the contrary, held the trustees answerable, not for the amount of stock which might have been purchased, but for the principal money lost. "For," observed his Honor, "if real security had been taken, the principal money only would have been forthcoming to the trust, and the want of real security is all that is imputable to the trustees." This decision has been followed by Sir James Wigram, V. C., in Shepherd v. Mouls, (4 Hare, 500.) "The discretion," observes his Honor, "given to the trustees to select an investment among several securities, makes it impossible to ascertain the amount of the loss (if any) which has arisen to the trust-fund from the omission to invest, except, perhaps, in the possible case (which has not occurred here) of a particular security having been offered to the trustees, in conformity with the terms of the trust. Suppose the trus

the interest and the profit which a trustee may have made. In the one case the Court pursues the actual consequeuces of the breach of trust; in the other, by going beyond the recovery of the trust-monies and interest, the Court must proceed on grounds purely hypothetical. And see Rees v. Williams, (1 De G. & S. 314.) Lord Langdale, however, in Ames v. Parkinson, (7 Beav. 379,) still retained the opinion he expressed in Watts v. Girdlestone, and in one branch of the case, acted upon it; but in another his Lordship took a distinction between non-investment by a trustee and an investment upon an insufficient security; and he held, that if a trustee, having the option of investment on mortgage or government securities, improperly takes an insufficient mortgage security, having exercised that discretion, though improperly, he will be answerable for the money lost, and not for the stock it might have produced. See also Matthews v. Brise, (6 Beav. 239); Ousley v. Anstruther, (10 Beav. 459.)

Encumbered Estates Court.

PETITIONS PRESENTED FROM DECEMBER 12 TO 18, INCLUSIVE.-1448.

In 1 vol. 12mo, price 9s. boards,
DAVIDSON'S CONCISE PRECEDENTS.-Third Edition.-Concise
Precedents in Conveyancing, adapted to the Act to amend the Law of
Real Property, 8 & 9 Vict. c. 106; with practical Notes and Observations
on the Act, and on the Act for the Cesser of Attendant Terms. By CHAR-
LES DAVIDSON. Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister.at Law, and late
Fellow of Christ's College, Cambridge.

In 1 Vol. roval 8vo price 10s 6d. boards,
DAVIDSON'S COMMON FORMS and RECITALS.-Common Forms

PURSUANT to the Order in Conveyancing, including Recitals; with Notes. By C. DAVIDSON, Esq.

Vol. 2, completing the work, by O. D. TUDOR, Esq., can be pur. paying Legacy Duty, obtaining a Return of Probate duty, &c. This Work chased separately price l. 108. cloth.