The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-02-08 00:00:00

base been /moms to Jahn. Bat thit'irts only one of ;be charges
the other was respecting the child. The greater part of that, as
regarderi Franks, was false ; the facts were maa thus far, • small
piece of silver anti /ace (but no stocking) was taken by this little
girl (as statrri by Mr. K.) and put into her box, when she kept
her dolls. The parties went before the Magistrate, and after the
charge had been dismissed, the mother was again called in, and
cautioned to take care that the !Indiana did not beat her daughter
for this fault. These were new ail the filets which lie (the At ,:ey
General) could lay before their Lordships. He could show that
Mr. K.'. conduct was open to much more observation.
Mr. Hu itg EY chaerred, that all that was now taking place had
no reference to the libel complaiiied of by Mr. Kemick.
The LOIID CIIIEF JUSTICE 11104 here was t statement of what
had been published in the Niaossford News, in a letter relating to
one Franks. and throwing reflection% upon his citaratter, which
ee!...tinly, if written by Mr. Kenrick, seemed to require some
answer.
Mr. Or n x CY r.oll.nit!ed to their Lordships, that the letter dated
in September ST4 not a justification of the libel, on the part of the
defendant, pithlished in August.
I'he LORD Cittxr JUSTICE—The question is not whether
this 4 a justification or riot; but whether the party, instead of re-
ferring tha matter wholly to this Court, thinks lit to take it to a
certain stage in another manner. The question was, whether •
person so corducting Minster, can come into Court to ask our
inte•fmnce ?
The LOIRD CHIME JUSTICE, having consulted a few minutes
with the othirJuddes„ said—We are all of opinion, that a person
who means to apply to this Court is to rely on this Court wholly,
and is not, in the mean time, to adopt a course of vindication through
the medium of the public preys. and in that vindication to take an
*Door:unity of casting aspersions upon the characters( f other indi-
viduals. We therefore think the rule should be dismissed.
The ATTORNEY
dratted with costs.
The I,oaD Ciascr JUSTICE—No, the case has not been fully
heard.

Mr. SCAT LETT begged to point ant certain passages in one of
the affidavits. which would elplain away some of the proceedings
iu Mr. Kenrick's affidavit. as a reason why costs should be granted.
The COMMON SEHGEANT begged to be allowed to state some
conablerazions which made it imperious on the Court to grant costs
for the sake of public effect.
Tbc I‘OllH en es' .Imirricg said. the ease must then be fully
heard; '-tTne ground on which the Court refused costs was that the
libeladompkained of in the Mornieg Chrouirk went beyond the
caw df Franke.
'Me: lienwortest begged to say that the affidavits of Mr. Ken-
rick, in the application for this rule, went also aura the question
before the Court, and therefore coats ought to be allowed.
Mr. Avronar v-Oxirc.a at. (having spoken with his client)
sail, they waived the question of ousts.—Rule discharged.
DOE EX TiEH. —n. HUNT.
On a former day Mr. Henry Hunt obtained a rule, calling on the
lessor of the plaintiff to show cause why the proceedings in this
action of ejectment should not be set aside for irregularity, with
costs. The irregularity complained of was, that the plaintiff had
served the declaration on a person by the name of Ward. who was
only a servant of the defendant, whereas the law required that it
should be served on the tenant in possession.
Mr. Costr or now showed cause against the rule, and stated,
that his affidavits went to show that although the declaration was
net actually served on the defendant. yet he had knowledge of it in
sufficient time to enable him to appear and defend his title. The
affidavits also made it appear that Mr. Hunt had obtained panes-
sion in dereliction of the original contract made with the chief land-
lord of the premises, being No. 8. Pall-mall.
Mr. Hunt replied, that it was laid down in all the books that he
had been able to consult, that the service on any oilier person than
the tenant in possession was not good. The Learned Gentleman
had argued his case upon the principle that he (Mr. Hunt) was not
a legal tenant, but he did not say that he was not tenant defarro.
The COVIIT said, this was the first time that an application had
been made for a stay of proceedings in ejectment upon the ground
of irregularity, merely without any 'injury being shown to have
accrued to the party applying. But they would not say that he had
no right to do so. They therefore made the rule abolute, but with-
out coats.
:dr. Hunt—Very well, my Lord, I am perfectly satisfied.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, IVESTNINSTER, FEE. 7.

(Sittings its Banco.)
ECHOES V. CHAPMAN AND ANOTHER.
This was an action of assault and false imprisonment. brought
under the following circumstances :—The defendant Chapman
missed a horse from his field, and found it in the plaintiff's stables,
and believing it to have been stolen, ordered the other defendant, a
constable, to lake the plaintiff into custody. He nude a eigorous
resistance, but was eventually secured and conveyed before. a Police
Magistrate, where, upon examination, he was found perfectly free
from guilt, mud was discharged. lie then brought his action
against the defendants, who put in a special plea, that Chapman
having a horse taken from his field, and finding it in the plaintiff's
posscsaion, believed him to have stolen it, and in consequence he
was taken into custody. To this plea plaintiff demurred, and the
demurrer never came on to be argued.
The Cot:ay, lifier having heard the arguments of Mr. Sergeant
Varcitax for the demurrer, and Mr. Sergeant Causs on the
other side, were of opinion, that a plea to be good must be good
altogether, of bad altogether, and as the defendants were joined in
this action, it must defend both or neither. This plea did not
exonerate Chapman. it was therefore bad.
Judgment for plaintiff.

PREROGATIVE COURT, MONDAY, FED. 7.
(11Pfure Sir lorisr lkircHim., Ent.)

ROLLS AND OTHERS V. ROLLS.
Dr. ADDAMS said, an allegation was O&M' to the Court for
the purpose of obtaining its opinion as to the effect of certain alter-
ations which the deceased had made in his will with pencil. The
deceased bad, long previous to his death, intimated his intention to
several persons of altering his will, and he did so alter it. The
Learned Counsel prayed, under these circumstances, for probate on
the will as altered by the deceased.
1)r. JENNER opposed the allegation. The will was of consider-
able length, bearing date in the year 1815, and was regularly and
formally executed. The deceased died suddenly in July, 1824,
having the will in his own possession until then, when it was found
that several pencil marks were on the face of it which seemed to
alter the original legacies. There was a legacy to John Rolls, his
nephew, of 500/., which, with a pencil, was altered to 1,0001. ; to
Samna Sara 501., which, by the same method, was increased to
100/. and to his widow the sum of 8.0001. which was increased to
9.0041.; these alterations were pleaded to be in the deceased's hand-
writing. Now in order to raise any question as to the validity of
those alterations, it became necewsaiy to plead certain collateral cir-
cumstance' to show the deceased's intentions to effect them ; it was
therefore pleaded, that the deceased had expressed great affection
for the persons whose legacies hail been augmented, and had de-
clared to his wife in December, 1823, his intention to alter his will.
and make a greater provision for his nephews and nieces ; and that
he then wrote something with his pencil. Those alterations, Dr.
Jenner contended, wire not the deceased's intentions completed ;
they must be taken scan intention to dosomething—but. not having
a fixed and determined mind, he did not conclude his testamentary
intentions. This was a regularly-attested will, and it was most
I unlikely that the deceased would have made those alterations with
an intention to give effect to them as they then stood. The be-
quest of B.OOW. to his wife occurred three times in the course of the
a ill, and yet the alteration to 0.000/. occurred only once. Looking
at the whole of the alterations, it was impossible the Court
mold give effect to those alterations. imperfect as they were, with the
(01 knowledge that the deceased lived seven months afterwards,
during which he might have formally fulfilled his intentions if he
bad been so inclined.

1)r. LUS!IIVGTON followed on the manse side, and contended
that the alterations were a mere deliberative act, and although they
might show that the deceased wished to make further provisions for
some of the parties, yet hehad not accomplished all his testamentary
intentions.

Dr. ADDAMS replied on behalf of the allegation propounding the
will with the alterations, and contended that it was evident the de.
ceased did wish to make some further disposition of his pro-
perty in favour of his relative+, and although he lived for seven
months afterwards, be was suddenly seized with death before he
had completed them.
De. JESSE ADAMS followed Dr. Addams.
Sir J. ?'tenor. said, the case first came before him in the shape
of a motion, praying for probate on the will, with the pencil marks,
but he had thought proper to put the party on the proof of the de-
ceased's intentions, and his opinion ?as not now altered---that the
deceased did not intend those alterations to be a complete and full
testamentary disposition of his property. On the face of the will
there were a variety of marks, which denoted more the appearance
of a person taking up his wia and making some memorandums
which occurred to him at the time, with an intention probably, at
some future time, of making more formal alterations, but what the
effect of his ultimate disposition might have been there was no ar-
riving at. Besides the alterations alluded to in the allegation,
Otte were several others which bore similar appearances, and many
words and names were underseured; as if they were inert meow+
random*. He would be doing a great injustice to the g octal prin-
ciples of the Court if he were to admit such an allegation under
those circumetencee, and he therefore declared probate of the will
in its original state, and decreed the costs to be defrayed out of the
estate.

The Lord Mayor of Dublin has been appointed a Justice
of the Peace for the County of Dublin.
On Saturday evening, as early as six o'clock, Mr. Crab-
tree, of Colston Bassett, Notengliamshire, was stopped by
two men, who threw a rope ovi r his horse's head, which
immediately slipped from the horse on to Mr. Crabtree,
and catching him round the neck, dragged him off, and
nearly strangled him. They then tied his hands and feet,
and robbed him of upwards of P 201., after which they
threw him into a ditch, where he was found by his ser-
vant.

On Sunday night last the Clonneheige schcol-house,
county iVestmeatii, was maliciously entered by some un-
known miscreants, the windows broken, and the books and
every other article in the school, consisting of several copies
of the New Testament, &c. were carried mit, and destroyed
oo the road.—lrisAlper.