true construction of the will and codicils the testator did thereby bequeath an annuity of 100%. of sterling money of Great Britain to the said Edward Yates for his life, and upon his decease a perpetual annuity of 100l. of like sterling money, to or for the benefit of the plaintiff Emma Yates, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to have the sum of 3,333l. 6s. 8d. consols, being the sum of money the dividends of which would be equal to the said annuity, transferred by the defendants out of the assets of the testator into the name of the plaintiff Marianne Yates, as trustee for Emma Yates. Mr. Rolt and Mr. E. F. Smith, for the plaintiffs, contended that the annuity given by the testator ought to be paid in sterling money of Great Britain, and not in the Jamaica currency, on the principle that the execution of the codicils in this country at the time when the testator was domiciled here acted as a republication of the will, and that the will must be construed accordingly. The difference between sterling money and Jamaica currency was considerable in the island currency the 100%. was only equal to 71. 8s. 7d. sterling, and that was reduced 11l. 8s. 7d., being the amount of premium upon exchange, so that, in fact, the value of every 100l. in this country was only 60l. It was also contended that the testator had given a perpetual annuity to the plaintiff, and that a sum of money capable of producing an annuity of 1001. sterling ought to be paid over to the plaintiff. All the other legacies given by the testator were given in sterling money, and it was, therefore, reasonable to suppose that the testator meant this annuity also, which he had given to his son, to be paid in sterling money. The following cases were cited, as to the amount of the legacy depending on the domicile of the testator :— Price v. Dewhurst, 8 Sim. 279, 617; Anstruther v. Chalmer, 2 Sim. 1; s.c. The VICE CHANCELLOR.-As to the question, whether the legacy is to be paid in sterling money or in Jamaica currency, you observe that the testator at the time of making his will was resident in Jamaica, and he gives to his son one clear annuity of 100l. per annum, after which he gives an annuity of 100l. sterling to his sister Eliza, and an annuity of 50l. sterling to each of his other sisters, so that in one place he gives simply an annuity, and in another he gives an annuity, with the addition of the word "sterling." It appears to me, therefore, that on the face of the will, when he means to give sterling money he uses words to denote that meaning, and consequently, when he does not use those words he must be considered to mean Jamaica currency only. The remaining question, therefore, is that as to the duration of the annuity. Mr. Stuart and Mr. Hardy, for some of the defendants, contended, upon the question of duration, that the annuity was only given for the life of Edward Yates, and afterwards for the life of his daughter; and that there was no ground for holding that a sum of money, capable of producing a perpetual annuity was to be set apart for the infant. Mr. Bethell and Mr. Speed, appeared for other defendants in the suit. The following cases were cited as to the duration of the annuity: Tweedale v. Tweedale, 10 Sim. 453; s. c. 9 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) Chanc. 147. Heron v. Stokes, 2 Dr. & War. 89; s. c. 12 Cl. & F. 161. Blewitt v. Roberts, 10 Sim. 491; s. c. 10 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) Chanc. 342. Wordsworth v. Wood, 4 Myl. & Cr. 641; s. c. 9 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) Chanc. 29. Robinson v. Hunt, 4 Beav. 450. The VICE CHANCELLOR.-The question, whether the annuity is to be perpetual or not, must be determined by the words of the will; and upon the construction of these words it appears to me that the testator must be considered as having given a perpetual annuity, and that the representative of the child of E. Yates is entitled to so much of the personal estate as will produce the annuity left by the will. Settlement-Power of Tenant for Life to consent to Sale-Alienation of Life Estate. Under a marriage settlement certain property was conveyed to trustees for the benefit of the husband and wife for life, and afterwards for the children of the marriage; and powers of sale and exchange were given to the trustees, with consent of the husband and wife. The husband having alienated his life interest in the property, it was held, nevertheless, that his power of consenting to the sale by the trustees was not extinguished. The bill stated that by a settlement, dated in 1829, and made upon the marriage of Sir Howard Elphinstone and Elizabeth Curteis, it was agreed and declared that the trustees of the settlement, Richard Rothman and Herbert Curteis, should stand possessed of two sums of 10,000l. and 15,000l., secured to them by two bonds of the said Sir H. Elphinstone, and in the stocks, funds, and securities upon which the same should be invested, upon trust to pay the interest, dividends, and annual produce thereof to Sir H. Elphinstone or his assigns, for his life, for his and their absolute use and benefit, and after the decease of the said Sir H. Elphinstone, upon trust to pay the interest, dividends, and annual produce thereof unto his wife for life; and after the decease of the survivor of them, upon the trusts thereinafter declared, for the benefit of the children of the marriage. And the said Sir H. Elphinstone further covenanted with the trustees that he would, after the said sum of 10,000l. should have been received, further and collaterally secure to the satisfaction of the trustees the said sum of 15,000l. by a mortgage of his estates; and it was agreed that the said sums of 10,000l. and 15,000l. should be laid out and invested by the trustees in or upon the public stocks or funds of Great Britain, or on government or real securities, and it should be lawful for the trustees to vary and transpose all or any of the said stocks, funds, or securities, but every such investment, variation, and transposition, if made during the lives of the said Sir H. Elphinstone and Elizabeth his wife, or the life of the survivor of them, should be made with their, his, or her consent, to be signified in writing. And it was also agreed that it should be lawful for the trustees, at the request, in writing, of the said Sir H. Elphinstone and Elizabeth his wife, to call in and convert into money the said trust monies, stocks, funds, and securities, and to invest the same in the purchase of any messuages, lands, tenements, or hereditaments, to be situate in England or Wales; and such messuages, lands, tenements, and other hereditaments so to be purchased, should be conveyed to the said trustees, and by them re-sold, with the consent of the said Sir H. Elphinstone and his wife, as occasion should require, and the monies to be produced by such sale should be held upon the trusts of the settlement. And in the said indenture was contained a power for the trustees, at such request as aforesaid, to exchange any of the hereditaments so to be purchased, and the estates so to be exchanged should be subject to the same trusts as those which should be sold; and the said indenture also contained a power for the said Sir H. Elphinstone and Elizabeth his wife, during their joint lives, and after the decease of either of them for the survivor, and after the decease of the survivor for the executors or administrators of such survivor, to nominate, substitute, or appoint any person or persons to be a trustee or trustees in the place or stead of any trustee or trustees who should die or should be desirous of being discharged or become incapable of acting in the trusts of the settlement. The bill then stated that Sir H. Elphinstone, in consideration of the bond for 10,000l. being cancelled, conveyed to the trustees, by a deed dated in October 1835 certain freehold property belonging to him at Hastings; that the said Sir H. Elphinstone, by various mortgage deeds, dated in 1835, 1838, and 1841, had conveyed his life estate in the property comprised in his marriage settlement, and the freehold estate conveyed to the trustees of his settlement, to different persons, as a security for various sums of money advanced to him; and that by an indenture dated in November 1846, the said Sir H. Elphinstone had conveyed his life estate in the whole of the said property, subject to the aforesaid mortgages, to Edward Curteis, in consideration of a further sum of 3,000l., to hold the same unto the said Edward Curteis, his executors, administrators and assigns, with a declaration that the said Edward Curteis should stand seised of the said premises, without further notice to or authority from the said Sir H. Elphinstone, to sell the same and stand possessed of the monies arising from such sale, upon trust to pay off the several incumbrances affecting the said property, and to pay the surplus to the said Sir H. Elphinstone, his executors, administrators, and assigns, as part of his personal estate. That by an indenture dated the 29th of March 1847, all the life estate and interest of the said Sir H. Elphinstone of and in the said two several sums of 10,000l. and 15,000l., secured by bond as therein mentioned and settled by the said indenture of September 1829, and of and in all the monies, stocks, funds, and securities, messuages, lands, tenements, and hereditaments, in which the same were, or at any time thereafter might be converted and charged, were assigned to the said Edward Curteis, his executors, administrators, and assigns, absolutely for the consideration therein mentioned. That by indentures of lease, appointment and release, dated in January 1836, the said Sir H. Elphinstone and Elizabeth his wife nominated, substituted and appointed Henry Warburton to be a trustee jointly with the said Herbert Curteis of the said marriage settlement in the place or stead of Richard Rothman, who was desirous of being discharged from the trusts thereof. That subsequently a contract was entered into for the sale of a part of the settled property by the trustees of the settlement with the consent of the said Sir NEW SERIES, XVIII.-CHANC. H. Elphinstone and Elizabeth his wife, and of the said Edward Curteis the alienee of the life interest of the said Sir H. Elphinstone; but doubts having arisen as to whether a valid title could be made to the purchaser of such property, the bill was filed by arrangement between the parties for specific performance of the contract. The defendant (the purchaser) admitted by his answer that the principal and only point at issue between him and the vendors was, whether the power of consenting to the sale in question as required by the marriage settlement of Sir H. Elphinstone and Elizabeth his wife, was not a personal power and confidence vested in him Sir H. Elphinstone appendant to his life interest under the said settlement, and in law and equity extinguished and destroyed and no longer validly exercisable by him by reason of the alienation of such his life interest, now by law validly transferable to or validly exercisable by the alienee of such life interest. Mr. Bethell and Mr. Blunt appeared for the plaintiffs, and contended that Sir H. Elphinstone had full power to consent to the sale notwithstanding his having parted with his life estate in the property. The money comprised in the settlement was laid out by the trustees in the purchase of lands under the powers contained therein, and the legal estate was conveyed to them; so in reality this was a mere equitable question. It had been considered at one time that a mortgage amounted to such an extinction of the power that it disabled the donee of the power from concurring in the execution; but it had since been held contrà by Lord Mansfield in the case of Ren v. Bulkeley (1). The alienation effected by Sir H. Elphinstone was not the alienation of the person in whom the power of sale was vested. He had only a check upon the sale-a mere power to consent, and there was no authority for saying that his power had been exhausted. The following authorities were also cited in support of this argument : Badham v. Mee, 1 Myl. & K. 32; s. c. 2 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) Chanc. 4; 7 Bing. 695; 9 Law J. Rep. C.P. 213. Davies v. Bush, M'Cle. & Y. 58. (1) Doug. 279. 2 S Tyrrell v. Marsh, 3 Bing. 31; s. c. 3 1 Sugden on Powers, 63. Mr. J. Parker and Mr. Rogers, contrà, contended that Sir H. Elphinstone by alienating his life estate under the settlement, had become an entire stranger to the settlement, and had lost his power of consenting to the sale; and that no sale effected by the trustees could be valid without such consent. The power of consenting was a personal power vested in Sir H. Elphinstone, which was untransferable, but appendant to and exercisable by him only, and no consent by an alienee of his could have any effect. There had been no direct decision upon this point, but Sir Edward Sugden in his book upon Powers, had commented upon all the cases, vol. 1. pp. 62, 71, 73, 520. The VICE CHANCELLOR.-This appears to me to be a plain question. As to the legal estate, there is no doubt; and with respect to that species of power which Sir H. Elphinstone had to give his consent to a sale, it seems to me that such power as he had was not destroyed by the alienation of his life interest. It is shewn upon the face of the settlement that the property purchased under the powers therein contained was to retain its convertible character, and that could only be done by the consent of Sir H. Elphinstone. Under these circumstances, having regard to the language used in the several deeds, I think that Sir H. Elphinstone still has the power and right of giving a valid consent to the execution of the trust for sale, and that the contract ought to be specifically performed. An information, filed by the Attorney General against the corporation of London, alleged that the Crown was seised of the bed and soil of all navigable rivers in the kingdom, and of the Thames in particular, and of the banks and shores thereof between high and low water mark, and that the corporation claimed to be conservators by prescription or some grant from the Crown, but that the corporation thereby did not take any interest in the bed and soil of the river, and that they now claimed to be seised of the bed and soil of the river; and asked that they might set forth their title, and charged that they had divers deeds, papers, &c. in their possession relating to the matter in question. The corporation, by their answer, stated that they were a corporation by prescription; that they were seised in fee of the bed and soil of the river, &c.; they admitted they were conservators, and that the office was exercised by the mayor, and after stating that, as owners, they had granted some modern licences to embank, they said they had divers deeds, &c., but that they were evidence of their title, and that they did not shew any title in the Crown, and, therefore, that they ought not to produce them. The Master allowed exceptions to the answer for insufficiency ; and, upon exception by the defendants to the Master's report,-Held, that the office of conservator or bailiff of the river Thames must have been, and must be held to have been, derived from the Crown, and held under the Crown, by its own grant, or commission, or by act of parliament; that all authority, out of which it was granted, must be considered as reserved by the Crown; that the office of conservator was fiduciary, and that the defendants could not refuse the discovery, and the exceptions were disallowed. Quære-Has the Crown any right to discovery beyond that between subject and subject? This information was filed, ex officio, by Her Majesty's Attorney General against the corporation of London, William Cubitt, Sir Thomas Turton, John Oliver Hanson, William George Prescott, Sir Courtenay Boyle, John Peter Rasch, John Cornelius Park, and H. A, Merewether. The information stated in effect that, by the royal prerogative, the ground and soil of the coasts and shores of the sea round this kingdom, and the ground and soil of every port, haven, and arm of the sea, creek, pool, and navigable river thereof, into which the sea ebbs and flows, and also the shore lying between high water mark and low water mark, at ordinary tides, belonged to Her Majesty, and that Her Majesty had a right of empire or government over the navigable rivers of this kingdom. That Her Majesty and her progenitors, time out of mind, was, and had been seised, in right of the Crown of England, of and in the port and haven of London, and of the river Thames, the same being an arm of the sea, into which the sea had always flowed and reflowed; and that the same river was also, and from time immemorial had been, an ancient, royal, and navigable river, and king's highway for all persons, with their ships, vessels, boats, and craft to pass, repass, and navigate at their free will and pleasure, and to moor their vessels in convenient parts of the river, not impeding the navigation. After this statement the information alleged that the mayor or the corporation of the city of London had, for at very long period, either by prescription, or under some grant from the Crown, held and exercised the office of bailiff or conservator of the river Thames, the office being exercised by the mayor for the time being, or his sufficient deputies from time to time, for ever, in, upon, or about the same water of the Thames, from a short distance above the bridge of Staines, to the bridge of London, and from thence to a certain place called Yenland otherwise Yentleat, or Yantleet, towards the sea, and in the port of London, and that the duty of the mayor, bailiff, or conservator was to see to the navigation of the river Thames, and to prevent the erection of obstructions and nuisances in the river, and also to regulate the fishing thereof; and that the mayor did not, in virtue of such office, take or acquire any estate or interest in the ground and soil of the bed or shores between high and low water mark but that the corporation had of late claimed, and now claimed to be entitled not only to exercise by the mayor, or his sufficient deputies, the office of bailiff or conservator of the river Thames, but had also claimed and now claimed to be seised of, or otherwise well entitled to the freehold of the ground, bed, or soil of the river, and of the shores thereof between high and low water mark, within the said limits, in which the mayor exercised the office of bailiff or conservator, and had assumed to exercise such acts of ownership over the soil as were beyond the power and authority of the bailiff and conservator, and such as implied that the mayor, commonalty, and citizens were, or claimed to be, seised of the freehold of the ground and soil of the river between high and low water mark, and they had lately taken upon themselves to make grants to parties possessed of wharves or lands on the banks of the river, or to such other persons as they thought fit, giving them licence to embank the strand and soil of the river, and build thereon between high and low water mark. The information then stated that by an indenture, dated the 3rd of May 1843, and made between the corporation of the one part, and William Cubitt of the other part, the corporation, for a consideration, granted to William Cubitt a licence to embank so much of the strand or soil of the river as lay between the high and low water mark of the river situate on the north side of the river and in front of foreground in the Isle of Dogs, then in the occupation of W. Cubitt, and that W. Cubitt was preparing to execute the embankment according to the terms of the indenture. And that by an indenture, dated the 20th of April 1843, and made between the corporation of the one part, and Sir Thomas Turton, John Oliver Hanson, William George Prescott, Sir Courtenay Boyle, and John Peter Rasch of the other part, the corporation, for the consideration therein mentioned, granted to Sir Thomas Turton, and the other persons named of the second part, a licence to embank so much of the strand or soil of the river as lay between the high and low water mark thereof, on the west side of the river, in front of Durrand's Wharf, in Rotherhithe, then in the possession of the said parties; and that the same parties had already commenced the erection of the embankment upon the ground or soil of the river between high and low water mark, and threatened to complete the same. The information alleged that such embankment would be detrimental to the river Thames, and a nuisance and injury to |