The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-04-29 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Arm!. 21

DUNNE V. ANDERSON.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN moved for a new trial in this cause, on
the 4rround that the Learned Judge before whom it was tried had
misdirected the Jury. The cause wits tried at the first sitting of
the present term, before Mr. Justice Best, and a verdict given by
the Jury for the defendant. The plaintiff, a Member of the Royal
College of Surgeons, had presented a petition to Parliament, the
object of which purported to be the destruction of quackery, and'
the subjecting of patent medicines to•the analysation of a Board.
The petitioner therein also stated that there were no quacks allowed
in Paris, and that any person attempting to practise in such a man-
ner was punishable under the Code Napoleon. The plaintiff had
forrn.d an establishment in Regent-street, called " The Athe.
naion," and there it wan presumed that such analysation of medi-
cines and examination of quacks should be undergone. The
defendant published a periodical publication, called The Cottage
Phyriehm; or Family herbal. In this publication the petition of
the plaintiffwax-remarked upon in language which, it was contended,
was a gross libel on the plaintiff. The article was headed, " The
Humbug Petition," and drew a comparison between the plaintiff'
and arme of the quacks described in bis petition as consisting of
carpennrs, tailors, pencil-makers, linen-drapers, Jews, and even
women. Mr. Se;geant Vaughan read the whole of the petition,
and also the part of the publicatien charged to be a libel, comment-
ing on the latter.
The CHIEF JUSTICE stated to the Court the substance of his
charge to the Jury—that if they thought there was any malice on
the part of the defendant, and that he intended to injure plaintiff in
his private character, or in his professional practice, undoubtedly
it was a libel. But if they thought it a fair criticism on the peti-
tion of the plaintiff to Parliament, in that case it was not. To their
jndgment he left it. Ile now had no hesitation in saying, that he
thought the petition ridiculous and absurd, and that it appeared in
the petition that Parliament were to be instructed how they should
act instead of leaving it to their wisdom.
Mr. Justice PARK saw nothing in the petition but what was most
' sensible. The Court were much indebted to his Lordship for the
information be had given them ; still lie thought there was a clear
ground for hearing the other side. lie was not prepared to say
' that this publication came within the well-known case of Sir John
Carr, neither could he so determine without bearing further. There
were many evils named in the petition, which it most desirable to
remedy. Ile therefore thought a rule to show cause should be
granted.
Mr. Justice Ilvintouon and Mr. Justice GASELEE concurred.
Rule granted.

PREROGATIVE COURT, THURSDAY, APRIL 28.
CLARKE AND BATLEY IN RE JOWLED.
Sir JOHN NICHOL L pronounced judgment in this suit, in which
the Court were called upon to pronounce its decision on three
papers marked A. B, and C, and propounded as the will of the
late Mr. Jowles. The paper A contained bequests of money in
the Four per Cents, to Mrs. Beckett and Mr. Cooke, and was regu.
lady signed and attested, but had been subsequently mutilated by
the cutting out, with a pair of scissors, the words containing the
amount of stock bequeathed to Mrs. Beckett, with whom it ap.
peered she had had some difference. The part containing the
amount bequeathed to Mr. Cooke was also similarly mutilated,
but above was substituted the words " dve hundred," in the hand-
writing of the deceased. In the middle of the instrument another
considerable part had been similarly cut out, and the Court there-
fore had no means of knowing what it originally contained. The
signature however remained perfect ; and the question for the Court
to decide was, whether these mutilations were made with an inten-
tion of cancelling the instrument, or merely with a view of altering
and rescinding certain parts of it. The Court, looking at the alte-
ration made in the bequest to Mrs. Beckett, was of opinion that
the testatrix meant the judgment thus altered to remain valid, and
that the scissors had been probably employed by her under the be.
lief that she could make the intended alterations more effectually
with them than by erasure. With respect to the papers II and C,
they were both dated subsequently to the paper A, and contained a
number of trifling legacies, and appeared to have been intended as
addenda to that instrument. This view of the case was further
strengthened by the tact, that the whole of the papers were found
folded together in her writing-desk, and enclosed in a blank enve-
lops. The Coin therefore pronounced for all three of the papers
propounded, and declared probate accordingly.
The great bulk of the property will descend to the heir-at-law, as
the part disposed of by the will thus established forme a very in.
considerable part of die whole.