WOOD, V.C., Dec. 18, 1865. In re RAWLING'S SETTLED ESTATES. 14 W. R. 218; L. R. 1 Eq. 286; 13 L. T. 626. 19 & 20 Vict. c. 120, & 21 & 22 Vict. c. 77, were repealed by the Settled Estates Act, 1877 (40 & 41 Vict. c. 18). Lease of settled estates-Surrender of old lease-19 & 20 Vict. c. 120, 88. 2, 5—21 & 22 Vict. c. 77, 8. 5. SETTLED LAND.-The Court will authorise the grant of a new lease upon the surrender of an old one, if the best rent which, under all the circumstances of the case, can be obtained is reserved. This was a petition under the Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Acts, and under the Property and Trustees Relief Amendment Act, praying for the opinion of the Court as to the management of the trust property, and also for its sanction to an agreement made under the following circumstances: The settled property had been leased in the year 1860 for a term of twenty-one years. This term had become vested in a Mr. Jameson, and Mr. Jameson had agreed with the trustees of the settlement that the lease should be surrendered and a new repairing lease for sixty years granted to him, provided the sanction of the Court could be obtained to the arrangement. The rent payable on the old lease was 140l. per annum. That proposed for the new lease was 2251. The 5th section of the later Act (21 & 22 Vict. c. 77) and the 5th section of the earlier Act (19 & 20 Vict. c. 120), taken together, expressly confer the power of surrendering any lease, and of granting new leases of the same hereditaments, and there was evidence of the sufficiency of the rent of 2251.; but, inasmuch as the surrender of the old lease must form part of the consideration for the grant of the new one, it was doubted whether the section requiring the best rent to be reserved would be satisfied. Bovill appeared for the petitioners. James, Q.C., and Bagshawe, and Giffard, Q.C., and Kekewich, for other parties. WOOD, V.C., said that the true construction of the Acts was that the best rent which could be obtained under all the circumstances of the case should be reserved. He therefore gave his sanction to the agreement. KINDERSLEY, V.C., Dec. 23, 1865. HEWITT v. WHITE. 14 W. R. 220; 13 L. T. 787; 12 Jur. N.S. 46. Practice-Costs of written bills. COSTS.-Where, on the hearing of a cause, all matters, including the costs, were disposed of, but the costs of three written bills overlooked by inadvertence, a motion that, on the taxation of the costs, these omitted costs might be allowed, was granted on the authority of a case before ViceChancellor Wood, and on the terms of the applicant paying the costs of the motion. Ellis moved in this case that on the taxation of costs the plaintiff might E. R. A. [1866]-VOL. 2 74 |