case GIBBLETT against read in chancery easter term Geo see Moseley v Rendell l  r Q b a share in a newspaper shall be consider as the personal property of the  proprietor and the profit of print the same subsequent to his death be  distribute accord this bill be bring by all the child of the late James read  printer of the saint James evening post against his widow and executrix the  plaintiff claim under the will and custom of London modern report and the  single question be whether or no nineteen share out of twenty of the profit of  print that paper subsequent to the testator death be part of the say testator  personal estate and as such to be account for by the defendant Hardwicke Lord  chancellor it be a very clear case and though it may be difficult to define  the various nature of property yet it may notwithstanding be transmissable to  representative and I be of opinion that this be so and if the bill modern  report er p have be by creditor there will have be no dispute James read the  father appear to have purchase his several share in this paper from several  sharer or partner it be prove that share in the print of newspaper be valuable  and that the representative of some of these sharer have take they as part of  the personal estate of the partner and that the testator read purchase of such  representative all thing of this sort ought to be take accord to the know  nature of the deal and the method of the party consider these matter and carry  they on lintot have a one twenty share of this paper and the defendant  continue it for six month after her husband death and account with lintot  there be many case where no part of the profit of a testator have be employ or  make use of in carry on the business and yet the executor have be Accountable  for the profit of the business as the testator personal estate the case put of  physical secret or nostrum where every thing be carry on by the material  purchase after the testator death and yet the nostrum be part of the personal  estate of the testater this have be resemble to the case of a shoemaker and in  that case suppose the deal have be extensive and carry on in partnership and  with the father stock the son who be executor will be Accountable suppose the  house be a house of great trade be must account for the value of what be call  the goodwill of it can not the defendant have sell these share do not walker  representative sell they can not the husband have give they by will and if he  have will she not have be Accountable as to the argument that other may have  print it as well as James read or the defendant so in the case of tip if  anybody have think of his nostrum as he have no patent any discoverer may have  sell it but what be strong here be its have be in partnership and be so there  be a sort of secret in the business and a certain expense in procure  intelligence and it will be a deceit and a fraud on the party if this court do  not consider thing on the same foot as purchaser of a thing of this sort do I  be clear therefore of opinion that mrs read must be Accountable for the profit  of this paper and the only question be how for I go on this foot that it be a  valuable thing at the testator death she may have sell it and ought to have  sell it and then all the loss to which it be say those matter be liable will  have be prevent and the best method seem to I for the master to set a value on  those share at the testator death and the modern report defendant to account  with the plaintiff for the principal with interest for the same at five per  cent from the testator death