He came on the Monday morning between eight and nine o'clock. He said, "since we met a circumstance has come to my knowledge which makes it very necessary that the case should be arranged." He said he had learnt that Mr. Swinfen had given orders to the nurse to deny the testator to Mrs. F. Swinfen when she called on the 7th of July. I have no recollection that he named the witness who would prove it. I was quite alive to the importance of the circumstance. I believe that he brought no paper with him. I remember saying that I would go to the Attorney-General and offer to take 1000l. a-year. Mr. Simpson certainly acquiesced in my suggestion. I spoke to the Attorney-General, and he said he was willing to do so, and I said "Then let us understand that that is the basis of an arrangement." Something was said about costs between attorney and client. I think the Attorney-General said that he should not like to be at the mercy of Simpson. 20007. was mentioned, and the Attorney-General said that sum was absurd. They talked of costs in Chancery, &c., but did not bring the amount up to 1500/. In the meantime the Attor ney-General was writing out the terms of the arrangement. The costs were reduced to 1250l. as a sort of compromise, and I said, "Do not let the arrangement be broken off for that sum," when the High Sheriff interfered and the arrangement went off, as the Attorney-General said that his client would not now consent to the arrangement. I was disappointed, and I said to the Attorney-General it was a great pity that he allowed any one to interfere with the arrangement. They all withdrew, and I went out, and found them talking together, and Colonel Dyett was there, and I said he had nothing to do with the case, and requested him to be good enough to withdraw. About this time, when the arrangement was being broken off, Mr. Simpson asked me to wait until his client came. I felt that if once the trial was allowed to proceed, all hope of an arrangement was at an end, and after all I had seen and heard I hoped an arrangement would take place. The AttorneyGeneral said, when he came back, that the then defendant would only agree to compromise on the footing of the annuity of 1000/. beginning at the preceding Michaelmas, they receiving the rent, instead of at Ladyday, which was fast approaching. We made a calculation what the difference would be, and we thought it would be not more than 3007.,

I

and I requested Mr. Simpson not to allow so beneficial an arrangement to fall to the ground for so trifling a sum. He would not decide upon it, and I said, "Well, I must take the responsibility upon myself." He said, "You must protect me against my client." I said I was quite willing to take it upon myself in conjunction with my friends. I then put my initials in the usual way to the arrangement. thought, under the circumstances, the arrangement was almost forced upon me. My engagements at Swansea did not for one moment enter into my mind. On leaving the court I met Mrs. Swinfen and Sir H.. Durrant. I have no recollection of what occurred. I never said it was by Sir H. Durrant's or Mrs. Swinfen's authority that the compromise was made, because that would be quite untrue.

Cross-examined. The judge did make some communication to me, and I did not communicate that to the AttorneyGeneral. I have not the least recollection of the words. The judge did inform me. I met him accidentally in the park, but he told me this is what happened:-"Are you going to Lord Hatherton's?" was the first question; and then he said, "I think Cockburn has damaged your female witnesses, at which you seemed annoyed." I said, "Did you think so?" I have not the slightest recollection of the judge saying anything about saving something from the wreck. What he said made a great impression upon me, and I acted upon it by stepping down and speaking to the Attorney-General. I did not communicate the answer after I had received the telegram from Mrs. Swinfen. I dined on Sunday at Lord Hatherton's. I did not dine at Miss Sparrow's on Saturday. I haven't the honor of Miss Sparrow's acquaintance. I don't know that I met Mr. Chetwynd. I don't know him. Sir C. Cresswell was at Lord Hatherton's. He did not speak about the cause in my hearing. Colonel Dyett was there. I did not see the Attorney-General on the Saturday. I do not recollect whether I told the Attorney-General that I was to receive an answer from my client. I did not begin to negotiate before I saw Mr. Simpson. I suggested 10007. a-year in the course of conversation. I did not think it a right thing, as it was a friendly communication, to tell my client of it. I think that I ought not to be called upon to express an opinion as to whether it was right of the judge to make such a communication. I will not undertake to swear pos

itively that Mr. Simpson did not give me a paper with terms upon it. I did not say that I would do the best I could to get an estate for life. I think Simpson said that Mrs. Swinfen would be there at eleven. She came a few minutes after the arrangement was made. He did not tell me that any compromise should be subject to Mrs. Swinfen's approval. He did not say that it should be suspended till her arrival. I have never said that Mrs. Swinfen had not a leg to stand on before the trial, for I was very anxious she should recover a verdict.

Sir Cresswell Cresswell. I presided at the trial of Swinfen v. Swinfen in 1856. I remember the proceedings on Saturday. I recollect something taking place between myself and Lord Chelmsford. He had been sitting opposite to me all day, and when the court was up I beckoned him over and asked him if he was going to dine with Lord Hatherton; and I added that "Cockburn's examination had rather damaged his lady witnesses."

Cross-examined by Kennedy.-I thought that two important witnesses had been damaged by cross-examination. The first of this case I heard one day when sitting in my private room at Westminster. A gentleman came from the defendant's attorneys and said he was desired to show me the second count of the declaration. I thanked him for his courtesy, and said I could hold no further communication with him. I don't remember whether anything was said about the length of time Swinfen v. Swinfen was likely to last. I don't remember whether there was a heavy list at Stafford. I can't say that I talked about the cause at Lord Hatherton's. I took a walk with Colonel Dyett after church on Sunday. It is extremely probable that I expressed an adverse opinion to Mrs. Swinfen if I said anything at all.

Lord Chief Justice Cockburn. I was counsel for the defendant in Swinfen v. Swinfen. I cross-examined Mrs. Rowley and Mrs. Leechman. There were letters that had been written by them relative to young Mr. Swinfen's death. I cross-examined Mrs. Leechman as to whether the testator knew of the death of his son. I think all Sir Frederick Thesiger said was, "Do you not think that this is a case for settlement?" And I said, "Yes," as my impression was, after reading my papers, and considering the position of all the parties in the case, that it was a very fit and proper case for an amicable arrangement. I don't remember

whether anything passed between myself and Sir F. Thesiger before Monday. Something did pass - terms were discussed on the following day. It so happened that the terms he offered on Monday were the terms that presented themselves to my mind, and I should not have consented to those terms unless I had thought they were the terms that ought to have been proposed. I had a very good case, in my own opinion. Mrs. Leechman said that she had some difficulty in persuading the testator that his son was dead. He thought his son's wife was dead. Then, I confess, I thought my case was pretty safe.

Mr. Alexander, Mr. Whitmore, and Mr. J. Gray, were examined, and gave a similar account of the interview. Kennedy replied upon the whole case.

The LORD CHIEF BARON then summed up, in the course of which his Lordship said to the jury that he was of opinion upon the second count that no evidence had been laid before them to which the defendant could be called upon to make any answer. Sir Cresswell Cresswell had been called, and after hearing his evidence there did not appear to be any evidence; therefore upon that count the defendant would be entitled to a verdict. He must be permitted to say that he did not think it was decent to put the second count in the declaration on the record, and that any apology could be no sort of satisfaction either to the judge whose feelings had been outraged, or to decorum or public decency, which had been attacked by putting on the record such a count without a tittle of evidence being adduced in support of it. His Lordship went carefully through the case, and eventually a verdict was found for the defendant on both counts.

A bill of exceptions was tendered by Mr. Denman to the learned judge's ruling before the verdict was given.

RECENT ENGLISH CASES.

Court of Appeal in Chancery.

Re COURT'S ESTATE.

Will-Right of pre-emption of land-Money substituted for land.

A testator gave his widow a life estate in certain land, and gave one of his sons a right to purchase the land for £450 within six months after the death of the widow: During the life of the widow, a railway company purchased the land, under the compulsory powers conferred by Act of Parliament, for £700, which was paid into court. Held, (reversing the decision of Stuart, V. C.), that the son was entitled, on the widow's decease, to the difference between the £700 and the £450.

KING v. CLEAVELAND.

Will-Legal personal representatives.

A testator bequeathed a sum of money in stock, to trustees, to pay the interest and dividends to A. and B. for life, and, after the decease of the survivor of them, to pay and apply the principal to and among the testator's nephews and nieces, children of the said A. and B., then living, or their legal personal representatives, share and share alike. Held, that legal personal representatives meant the next of kin, and not the administrator, and that therefore the husband of a niece who had died without issue, was not entitled to the niece's share as administrator.

THOMPSON v. WEBSTER.

Fraudulent conveyance

Intention - 13 Eliz., c. 5.

A. being much embarrassed, but not insolvent, applied to his mother for a loan, which she consented to advance if he would settle certain lands for the benefit of his children; to this condition A. reluctantly submitted, and settled the estate in trust for himself for life, with remainder to his