(I) Case for the opinion of counsel: recites the terms of years created in no. 1148 to provide portions for William Vaughan's younger children, that there were only two children, William Vaughan and Frances; the latter had married Thomas Watkins Davies, that this was a 'stolen match' and therefore no settlement was ever made. Thomas Watkins Davies was induced to lend Mr Tanner, iron master, £3,000 with an agreement that Thomas Watkins Davies should receive 10% of the profits for the loan, that in Nov. 1797 Mr Tanner became bankrupt and there were fears because of Thomas Watkins Davies's connections with Mr Tanner that he might become involved in difficulties in that an attempt might be made to Thomas Watkins Davies as a partner of Mr Tanner to settle the latter's creditors even though nothing of that kind was ever attempted, that it was agreed that £4,000 should be settled on Thomas Watkins Davies's only child with £2,100 for his own use, that Michael Turner and John Turner, in whom the terms of years are vested, were willing to put the proposed agreement into effect provided they could do it safely, that it has been suggested that it would be prudent to ask for the direction of Chancery which would be the best plan in regard to the settlement. By what instruments the intentions of the parties can be best put into effect; whether the trustees can safely act in the execution of the trusts and whether William Vaughan can safely pay his sister's fortune without the direction of Chancery?. 1802, Nov. 23. (Ii) Opinion of counsel: the agreement between Thomas Watkins Davies and Tanner that Thomas Watkins Davies should receive a share of the profits makes him a partner despite any agreements to the contrary. The trustees having notice of the partnership and the bankruptcy will, if Thomas Watkins Davies shall become bankrupt, be answerable to the assignees for the money that they have or shall pay for Thomas Watkins Davies; the trustees should discharge their responsibility instituted for that purpose. No settlement having been made in Mrs Davis's favour the Court will order a competent settlement to be made for her benefit. 1802, Nov. 27. (Iii) Second Opinion of counsel: if the transaction is really as it now stands the trustees may safely execute the proposed settlement. The settlement should assign £2,100 to Mrs Davis and declare that they stand possessed of the residue upon the proposed trusts, but with a proviso directing that the £4,000 shall not vest absolutely in Mrs Davis's daughter and that Mrs Davis shall be absolutely entitled to the £4,000 should she survive her husband, and if she does not it may be lawful for her to dispose of the same in her will.