The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-02-07 00:00:00

_NEW CAUSER.

Walker ;nd-To;t3Thee
• Williams
Felton • Mills

COU
CAUSE

RT OF EXCHEW
I TO BE HEARD Ili!!
DSVieS V Evans
iVatkine v Smith
Ripley v Stockley
Hawley v Caner
Mayor v Nixon
Tarpley v Lionel

lIIITORT. THE WITOI.E COCRT.
Brown v Woolsey—For judsrnent.

HOME CIRCUIT.

Before Mr. Baron ALEXANDER and Mr. flame 01J/LAY.
Hertford.hire—Wcdnestlay, March 1, at Hertford.
—Moraay, March fa. at Chelmsford.
:•lirrev—Nlonday, March 13, at Kingston-upon-Thames.
• v.ccx---Monday. March O. at Horsham.
Ir.:a—Monday, March 27, at Maidstone.

LA w INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Monxtr, Fig. 6.

It was erroneously understood that Lord Gifford would have sat
this day for the bsed Chancellor ; that was not the fact. His Ho-
nour took his seat at tan o'clock on the left hand of the Lord Chan-
ce:lies chair, and disposed of several cause petitions set down for
hearing in the Rolls Court ; the business of the l'pper Court con-
sent:a:ly remains in *tutu pro.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, MoxosT, FEB. 6.

ANATIIIITHZI V. CUALMENS.

Thy SOLICITOa:GiliEiAL11;11te1111;;Ii11;;Iluse had stood on
the paper an •rder to obtain • certificate from the register of the
Ecclesiastical Court of the grounds of its declaim. This had now
been planned, and the answer was. that the letters of adnainis-
tr.a.on had been granted to Mrs. Chalmers upon the representation
:La hirAlexander .instruther died during the life of the testatrix ;
.t it was not granted with exclusion of persons entitled to share
wth her. If any doubt had arisen the register would base felt it
1..6 duty to submit it to the Judges for their judicial decision. The
paint. therefore. was so far from being ame f•diceta, that it had
octet been brought into the view of the Court. The conveyance
an which Sir Alexander Anstruther claimed would, in this coun-
try. properly be termed a will ; but in Scotland it was, in fact,
a geed, which would operate, notwithstanding the previous death
of the donee, for the benefit of his heirs and executors.

Various eitract s were read by Mr. Ourtraws, who followed on
the same side, to show that such was actually the law in Scotland,
a-d arguments were nud to show, that in cases of wills and oon.
tracts made in foreign countries, it is customary to interpret them
sec Itlng to the law of that country where they were made. If an
indorsement haJ been made to the deed, in which the testatrix
should have said, iptissintit trminds, I mean this deed to be in.
Wyatt' according to Scotch law, there is no doubt respecting the
tfeets.on which the Cnutt would In that cave have come tot and
since every reason of inference and construction tended to show that
she must have meant that it should be so understood, the Court
was bound to come to a similar conclusion.

Mr. KNIGHT, In reply, urged the impropriety of considering
the ante instrument at one time as a will, and at another as a deed.
Wren if it were to be considered as • deed of gift, it must be con.
shined as incomplete at the death of the donor, since a great part of
the property being stock, it is determined by Act of Parliament
that no transfer of such property can take pine but in the bank
books. Suppose a person blops cou.siiii is obliged to make his will
in Szotisod, and to employ a Scotch lawyer, must his will be inter.
petted according to the technicalities of Scotch law, although the
tektator gave his directions under the impression that they would be
interpreted according to the English practice ?
The VicE.Citapcem.ort—This is an instrument by which
Miss Anstruther undertakes to dispose of her property, and to ap.
point reenters. I perfectly agree with the definition of Lord
idersloicke respecting the interpretation of deeds by foreign law.
The Court is bound to gin the terms that sense which they had in
the minds of the mattes. If there were any terms not understood,
the proper course would be to refer it to the Master. That is not
necessary in this case. But the principle that terms used in foreign
countries hare the same effect as in the commies where they era end
is here misunderstood and misplaced. By the principles of Scotch
law the gift would not lapse by the death of the donee in the life of
the donor ; by. the English law it would lapse ; and therefore the
question is, not a hat is the meaning of the term, but which law is
to prevail. This lady being domiciled in London, it necessarily
follows that the principle of English law must prevail, and that the
gift is therefore lapsed.
Bill dism 'std.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, 110111)1T, Fs,. C.

CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
TUE XING io. mincr, NEN NLIT, AND OTISERS.
. .

la the course of last Trinity Term the Attorney-General ob-
tamed a Rule, calling on the defendants, two of whom were Alder-
Mee, and the rest of the Overseers of the borough of Fogey, in
Cunveall, !3 show cause why a criminal information should not be
exhibited against them, for having associated together in effecting
the appointment of overseers, the making of poors' rates, sad the
passing of the overseer's accounts in a partial and illegal manner,
and horn corrupt motives. The application was made on the
affidavit, of .Jr. Austin, • gentleman possessing extensive pro.
perty in the h,,rough, and of the Reverend Mr. Kemp, Vicar of
Fow es . end a Magistrate of the county. These gentlemen alleged
canoes improper acts having been done by the defendants, with a
view to promote the intereets of a certain political any in the
borough, who were opposed to Lord Calthorpe and Mr. --------,
the present members for that place. The charges extended over a
4:I ~ og ren yeses, the first being alleged to have taken place
on the eve 4 the Genera Election in the year 1818. i
is morning Mr. SCARLETT and Mr. C. F. WILLIAMS were
heard at great length on beholf of the Aldermen, and Mr.
Eanuct:a st and Mr. ROZEINT FCARLETT on behalf of the
overseen. egairst the Rule. The atlidants read by the Learned
Counsel were very voluminous, to which the parties denied all
egerupt motives in theseveral transactions referred to, and went on
to elate that Mr. Austin being • man of extensive property in the
borough, sought to obtain an entire control over the corporation
by, Taunus arbitrary acts; that he was the agent of the present
ImeMbers for that borough ; and that he hail been heard to declare
he would spend his hot shilling to overturn and get rid of the
charter. and that he would destroy the corporation if it cost him
his two arms. As to the Rev. Mr. Kemp, he was represented by
the affidavits to be entirely subservient to Mr. Austin's permits,
and that be Mid been heard to say he would fight up to his knees in
blood to get rid of the charter of the borough.
The A TTORHEY-GEWCIAL was heard in support of the vile,
whenehe Court postponed the further arguments on the maw side
to a future day. .

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. 31 ONDAY, FEB. 6.

STEVCWS V. :61ERTOIC.
V' - moved fur

thy an
one of
ry
two that
!Atoned
o to the
persons, who
' town on
had not
totog to
having
Imittad
at four
~ whose
ay such
last fact
'so until
would

!bey appeared in Court. so strong a resemblance between them,
..oat he thought it possible the miter boil might have made a mis-
titre, and have concluded that he had seen the porter, when in fact
iSt 'tad seen the defendant.
She LORD CRlErJuvrica thought a rule reisi ought to be
granted. His Lordship approved the inquiry which had taken place
at the college, for it was evident this man had either been guilty of
contempt of Court, had grossly perjured himself, or had neglected
the mist reposed in him by hi employers. The imposition which
hod been practised on the Court, as &papered on the face of the
atidavits, was of a serious character. anti deserved investigation.
Air. Justice PARR was of a different opinion. No man was
more anxious than his Lordship to set an inquiry on toot wherever
it was likely to promote the ends of justice; but the Court ought
to pause before it did that which might effect an individuals ruin.
His Lordaliipslid not quite approve—Although it might bare bean
done with the into, praiseworthy motives—of persons going to a
distance. as had been the case here, for the purpose of sifting out
evidence. The individual in question was so placed, theeNither
he must confess he had neglected his duty to his employers re led
committed perjury. This was setting the criminal justice in force in
a manner which his Lordship could not approve. It was worthy, too,
of observation, theta motions founded on evidence so obtained were
countenanced, the i'4urt would, in a very short time, be inundated
with trifling business.
Mr. Justice BCRROVOIt concurred with Mr. Justice PARE,
and Mr Justice Gass:LEE with thelsonn CHIEF JUSTICE.
The Lost) CHIEF JUSTICE.—The opinion of the Court being
equally divided, brother Vaughan, you cannot take a rule.

I
.." I tterseent Vey often moved lot a rule to show cause why an less yo
1010,,,„ce or bail papuld nut be set aside, en the ground that one or mortar
thts bail, a porter to the East India Clnipany at Hafleshy'', Vol. into co
likw, hails/lely sworn a few days since during his justituaiton that 'mike
sea present during the lime bail was put in. The losatned he had
thgthITIIII said that the plaintiff's attorney had gone down to the The
eo*ge and obtained the affidavits of tour differe.nt persons, who prise t
kwore, that to the heat of their belief the bail was not in town on der the
tether of the days allowed fix the putting in of bail ; that he had not many
•
•lied permission to leave the college for the purpose of going to warren
• # town ; that they had examined bun as to the fact of his having denied
tvms present on the occasion alluded to, and that he had admitted upon I
I ll was not then present. One of the atlbleviss stated that four parole
n'elodk was the dinner hoar at the college, and that this man, whose could
prticular duty it wan to be in attendance, was not upon say such pfive
('-cation shan't. Tie Learned ticntletran said that this last fact at alm
wee conclusive, a theetune for putting in bail was from two until tittered
fmr o'clock, and the distance from the college to Loudon would format
rot bate permitted Ids return in titwe. Bench
The Loan (later it:salute inquired whether the bail who was the Co
Capyrtner with the porter in question had not sworn positively, to eitei
when they appeared to justify, that this porter accompanied him. but wt
• Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN slid that the defendant was the brother would
4..tn.:porter, and be (Mr. Sergeant Vaughan) had Mired, whoa there
•
Ilhometeg.-