MBT Shoes of the word "rente f the enumeration of particulars of income, &c, all of which had been leU material in favour of a claim to enjoy in specie. Tai present case, he thought, was clearly governed by Pi* ering v. Pickering. Though he followed that ease, he did not consider the Lord Chancellor to have thereby decided, that, upon a question of conversion, a gift to a tenant for life is not a gift of residue merely brass it contains an enumeration of particulars; or that* direction to divide after the death of the tenant for lift, in terms applicable to the property in its unconverted state, is at all conclusive upon the question of conversion.The additional circumstance however in this case, that the leaseholds were not to be converted, rendered it impossible to decide in favour of conversion, without opposing the decision of the Lord Chancellor and LorJ Langdale in Pickering v. Pickering. The execnt'fl however would have to account for the sums of 5W^. and 50/., which they had improperly invested hi s perishable security.COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-Trinity Tml Reg. V. Inhabitants  Tory Burch Outlet Of Crondaxl.-June 10.Examinations, upon which an Order of Removal W made, shewed an Application for Relief by a Pa&t residing in E. to the relieving Officer of a Union, & the relieving Officer brought that Application before tx Board of Guardians, and Relief had been ordert^j that Board on account of C, one of the Parishes of W Union, and given by the relieving Officer aceordtM & such Order:-Held, that there was legal Evidem i

the A uthority of the Parish for such Relief, from •*■ the Sessions might infer that the Pauper wot «*'« in Christian Louboutin Shoes C. On appeal at the Midsummer quarter sessions for tin county of Surrey in 1845, against an order of two justices for the removal of Martha Crouclier, wido*i and her eight children, from the parish of Elstead u the above county, to the parish of Crondall in tM county of Hants, the sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on a case. The examinations material to the present case, of which cop* were sent with the order of removal, as those up"0 which the order of removal was made, were as TM^*'r The said Martha Crouclier upon her oath said,-' was married to my said late husband at the parish chunaiof Crondall, in the county of Hants, in January, A. D. 1826, and I Tory Burch Shoes and my said husband constantly resided at Crookham in the parish of Crondall aforesaid, from the time of our marriage until the latter part of the year A. D. 1837, and there rented a house and garden at the yearly rent of at least 11., and at the same time also rented part of a field also in the said parish of Crondall, by the year, at the yearly rent of, I believe, 3/. \0s." [The examination then stated an occupation of the said premises for one whole year.] "During the time I and my said husband lived at Crookham aforesaid, we were several times relieved during the