The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-01-16 00:00:00

LAW NOTICES.

-
COURT OF CHANCERY.
Tine? gist. PREVIOUS TO lIILART Trnm.
Notice was gtven on '...aturduy that the Lotd Chancellor would
not Sit on hloutiay ( this day )•
COURT O KING'S BENCH.

MIDDLESEX CAL7S/11 TO NE TRIED RT SPECIAL JURIES
THIS DAY AT WESTMINSTER.
Holliday v Sigel. the elder. Brett r Fisher.
L d I
Baxter, the uri Portsmouth. Jones v the Bid of Egmapt.
Doe, on the demise of the Bishop I Phillip. r Abbott.
of Lorton, • Marshall. Borman r Pickering.
Brett v 'hales Butt v Lord Napier and nem
There will be no Common Juries to-thy.
MIDDLESEX SPECIAL JURY CAUSES APPOINTED TOR THIS
WEEK.
TUESDAY. 17th Or JANUARY.
Nugre • Garth.
WEDNESDAY. Mitt JANUARY.
The King r Lister, by o der. I Remateta of Tuesday, if any.
Same v Haddon, by ceder.
THERSDAY.IIO,h JANUARY.
The King r Revell, first by order.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, 84.Taanar, JAI. 14.

GIANT D. BOLLARD MID °TWINS.
This was an action by the Clerk of the Comniiiisioners foe Paving
and Lighting the parish of St. Pancras, to recover a .ram of
Sea lie., money had and received by the aesignres of Messrs.
Marsh ad Co.
The ATTORWIIT-Gr.SXR•L and Mr. TINDAL tOMILICIA3 the
plaintiff's case; and Mr. SCALLETT and Mr. CUITTY ths de-
fendants.
By a local Aet for paving and lighting the perish of St. Pancras,
the Commissioners therein named appointed the plaintiff their
clerk, and the late Henry Fauntleroy their treasurer. In the latter
character Mr. Fauntletoy received the money in question, which
he had never paid over before the bankruptcy of himself and part-
ners. By a clause in the local Act, the Commissioners are em-
powered, notwithstanding the bankruptcy or desth of their treasnrer,
to recover money of choirs in his hands at the time of his bank-
' raptly of death. as against assignees or executors respectively, in
preference to all other creditora.
Several objections arose is the cause, first as to the plaintiff's
appointment as clerk to the Commissioners; and, second, as to
Mr. Fauntleroy's appointment as treasurer : and it being cog-
Rested to the Court that these, or nearly similar points remained
sub judice in two other cases, he acceded to the proposition that
the frets in this should also be turned into a special case.

A verdict for 3051. was therefore taken, subject to a use.
Butt. v. DE MEILHEIM.
Thia was an action by the endorser against the acceptor of a bill
of exchange for-4751.. dated Slat of Member, 1924, drawn by
31easrs. li aydon and Planehe, to the order of &lir. Robson, payable
three months after date. _ .

The plaintiff was an attorney, ,;and received the bill in question
from Mr. Robson, on account for professional buainess. The hand-
writing of the several parties were proved.
Mr. GURNEY, for the defendant, endeavoured to show that
the bill in question had been accepted by the oefendant, in Mr.
Robson's favour, for some time.bargains at the Sto:k Exchange •
but the ph:intiff being an innocent endorsee, and without notice, the
Jury found a verdict in his favour.
Damages, 593 J.
antnaTzix V. TOSS AND ANOTHER.
. . . . .

This was an action for an alleged libel, In publi.hing the plain-
tiff's name in a list published by the Society fur the Protection
of Trade. The case was appointed to be tried by a Special J nry,
but upon calling the else on, only one special juryman attended
and as neither party chose to pray a talea, the case was struck out
of the paper.

DOC. dens. ID:LIMEY v. WILFORD.

This was an ejectment for twenty acres of land and some pre.
mists situate In Chelsea. The lessor of the plaintiff claimed the
property in question, as heir-at-law of the late Ueneral Wilford.
The defendant was the General's widow, to whom, by hie will,
made a few years before his death, he gave all his real and personal
property, the latter amounting to about seventy thousand pounds.
The proprty which was the subject or this action had been pur-
chased, from time to time, in small portion, after the will was ex-
ecuted; and the Ueneral had levied a tine thereof to the use of his
will. It was contended, on the part of the plaintiff', that the effect
of this tine was to render the testator's will null and void as to the
devise of his freehold estate, and therefore he brought this eject-
ment. The question between the parties, and upon which the
whole ease turned, was, whether the fine operated, or was intended
by the testator to operate upon the whole of his real estate, or only
upon those small portions which he had added after the making of
his will. _ _ .

A wrest deal of contrary evidence was produced on etch side,
and atter a considerable portion of the day had been occupied—
The LORD CittEr JeSTICE left it as a question of tact for the
Jury to say, whether, upon the evidence adduced, the fine was in-
tended to apply to the whole of the testator's real estate, or only to
the part purchased after the date of the will. It they thought it
applied to the whole they ought to find for the plaintiff ; but if
otherwise they ought to find for the defendant.
The Jury found for the defendant.
The Court rose at three o'clock, the causes appointed in theday's
list having teen disposed of.