The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-05-20 00:00:00

APPEAL,

HOUSE OF LORD.4,-TutraspAr, MAT IL

•, SCILLY AND OTHERs v. SCEt.t.T AND OTHERS.
The respondents in this case are the representatives of the hue.
Airs. Catherine Scully, deceased, widow of James Scully, Esq r.
is alleged on the part of the respondents. that I Fenn Scully did. on
the 1711 i eptember, 1760, previous to his marriage *bit .Its. Ca -
etilleseTi,nein writlittlini,(fcthreneerata3inliessonis'iTeralioenxserthu
Tenanted that he 'rebid, by a deed executed by him in his lifetime,
gui !attested by his wittarscii, or by his lag will and testament,
therein
certain marriage
tniotanniedaseartmi.-
btasisei!h to her one mofefy of the foetutte nr Mora arc ko..Orld
thelealetled to :;but that i( these should be issue of said marrle!,,e at
Lis deceise, then she should receive but one third.
,)..ores Scully diid on the 11th of February, leaving issue
of the marriage, and having, previous to his dlbith, bequea-
thed to his wife an annuity of I,OOW. a year, ant Lir sh.; I'
moiety of his household furniture, plate, &c. Testrlor, af tie
time of hip death, seas posstmed of reel and personal property
to s considerable amount ; Denis and James kully, two cf the-ap-
pellants; tritned into the possession of it, and were the priatial
devisee under the ai11..•
On the lajth of November the original Bill in this cause wee neat
by the tote 31n. ('atherine Scully, preying for the specific perform-
ance of the marriage article., and to be decreed to one third part of
all the property, nal and personal, of the testator at her death. The
present fespolltleftts, on tier representatives, filed a bill of reriror,
to which the appellants answered, that they knew not whether the
alleged marriage articles were executed, and that they never saw
either them or a copy qf them.
TFIe e..lle,was heird before the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who
decreed favour of :he respondents' claim. The defendants in
the original wait tripcaled against this decisicu, and the arm came
on this dr.v for argument,
The Solicitor was proceeding to address tffeii Lordships fa
the appellants, when he was interrupted by
The LOAD pHANeE T. LOH , who said, that as the House was.
after that day. to adjourn for some rime, he thought it hutjust that
31r. O'Connell, who was on the same side with the Solintor.G.es
nen!, should be heart' lint, that he might not be detained till after
the adjannaMent
Mr. O'Co'iir. tr. accordingly ruccerled. The Learned Gen-
tlerralut said that the ri•ipor(dars had not produced the alleged mar-.
riage articles, but merely attempted to give sexindary evidence of
its existence. lie argued at considerable length that the decree of
the Irish Court of Chancery shned be resented on the following
grounds t Ist, that thirespendents had not established grounds for
admitting sceondirv'esiditice of the marriage articles, inasmuch as
they had rot peeved a sufficient segrh Am ant the loss of them.
2ndly, that supposing a sufficient rise made out for the introduction
of such evidence, tone was offered ; the only secondary evidence
being the production of what purported to be a memorial of the
marriage articles, but a! i h was inadmissible, inasmuch as the
provisions of the Statute tor regulating the registry of deeds or,
other papers in Ireland had not, in a single instance, been complied
with in the case of this memorial. 3dly, that it was highly impro-
bable Mr. Scully could ever have executel such an instrument as
the alleged marriage articles, the effect of which would be, as it
were, to register the possession of property, which, at that period.;
and under the operation of the penal laws then existing, he, as a
Papist, was liable to be deprived of on the ini.ormatioa of any Pro-
testant. 4thlyi, that even supposing the marriage articles to have
been executed, still that the subsequent conduct of Mrs. Catherine
*At, 4 such as to hind herself by his will ; that she consented
to thl"dispigition of the tehatot'itrooperty made in it the' at the
time she alas perfectly cognisant of her rights ; that she knew the
extent of testator's property, for that she was a shrewd, intel-
ligent, inquisitive woman, and he a person who was always boast-
ing of rtisiarge forteitie ; that . the testator two days before his
death, executed *radial this will, in which' he made several al-
. tendons with her perfect concurrence : and, Stilly, that even
thoughshe had consented before the testator's death, still that sbi
subsequently made her election ; that the will was read in her pre.
sense ; that she expreasig,hreell to several persons as
.perfectly ea.
defied with it ; that she eal6.d for and was paid 2uol. an part pay.
meat of her annuity, and subsequently signed the following declar.
arson confirm and abide by this will in every respect, and
acknowleAre to hare received IIOOL this day in part payment from
the residuary legatees accordingly," The Learned Gentleman fur-
ther submitted, that even supposing the contents of the said mar-
tinge articles had Seen conformable to the memorial given in evi-
dence, yet the lame ought not to be considered as affecting the
freehold Janda of the testator, inasmuch as the said covenant only
named his " fonune or /substance," which words did not themselves
import freehold property.
The Learned Gentleman's address occupied nearly two hours in
the delivery.
The further hearing of the case wad postponed till after the
Whitsuntide Recess.

The spare below the bar was crowded to eXCL9III: amongst the
persons present were many Itlerhbers of the House of Commons,
and several gentlemen of the Bar.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

tOrIFF OF KING'S BENCH, THURSDAY, Miy 19.

Sittings fee AlidAllesrx, bfore the LORD CIIIET JUSTICE, ef:rr
Easter Term.

When his Lordship entered the Court, no less than six causes
were struck out of the list, in consequence of the non-attendance of
the attorneys engaged in them.

111:VA8 V. lIAIT
This was an action of assault and battery. The plaintiff is a
schoolmaster at, and also churchwarden, of the parish of Ilendon,
in the county of Middlesex, and to- defendant is a farmer in the
name parish. The plaintiff; in his capacity Of churchwarden. hal
the collecting of the Churn date for that parish, and the defendant,
amongst others, pas chargeable with that rate. Some dispute, is
appears, had A.iiien between the plaintiff and the defendant regard-
ing the payment of the rate, and on the 2d November last, the
defendant, who is a man the age of sixty-tire, but of robust
habits, called at the plaintiff's house, and asked to see him, Tim
plaintiff came down to him, when, as it appeared by the plaintiff'switnesses, witnesses, the defendant immediately commenced abusing him,
by saying to him-" how dare you ark me for money that don't be-
long to you, and be d—d to you ? your'e a ti—d pretty fellow for
a churchwarden—and who the h-11 made you one?—where you
pay a shilling rate, I pay a pound." The defendant, it was re-
presented, then took the plaintiftby the collar, commenced shaking
him, and said before he had done with him he would shake hitn Jct)
watch-Tabbands; he afterwards struck him, first on the right else k,
and then on the left ; the plaintiff then asked if that was paying
the church rate ? the def.indant rep.ie", " y .u're a thief, and
can prove it." Me then dragged the plauniu to the carriage gate-
way ; afterwards knOcked him down, and his hand was cut by fan-
ing on the gravel. This was proved partly by two of the plaintiffs
servants, and the remainder by a person named Jordan, who vii
a casual pauper. The surgeon who had dressed the plaintiff's hand
was also called, but he could not recollect whether it was the right
hand Or the left.

Mr. SC AR LtiT T addressed the Jury for the defendant, contend.
ing that the what story was much exaggerated—that as the sue.
goon could not recollect whether it was the right or the left hand,
the Jury had a right to presume it was the left hand ; and as the
chief duty of the plaintiff, as a schoolmaster, wax administering
flagellation, his right hand was quite sufficient for that purpose,
and therefore that his scholars had escaped punishment by the cos.
duct of the defendant. _

The Loki eII/T; JUSTICE Summed up the evidence, and
the Jury found for the plaintiff, Damages 2V.
CONSPIRACY.
THE LINO, ON TIIE PROSECUTION OF JOSIAH TAYLOR, N.

110I.LINO5ERR1r AND °TUNIC
This wat an indictment against the defendants, Charles 8010
lingbury, Thomas Howley, and John Smith, charging them with
having combined to extort and obtain money from one Josiah Tay..
tor, under a threat of indicting lalni for the offence of keeping a
common gaming house.
It will be remembered that several indictments had been prefer-
red against Taylor by the present defendants, but on none of them
was he brought to trial. A sabsequent indictment having been pre..
(erred against him by the same parties, Taylor pleaded his acquittal
on the former ones, to which the prosecutes demurred, and on arga..
meet upon the demurrer, the Court gave judgment against Taylor,
at the same time giving him leave to plead over to the merits, but this
be declined doing. Judgment was therefore signed against him,
and he was brought up list Hilary Term to receive the judgment
of the Court, which was, that be should be imprisoned one year,
and should pay a fine of 5,0001. to the King.
Mr. SCARLETT stated the Case to the Jury. The offence
charged against the defendants was ore of a most serious nature,
and of considerable moral turpitude, inasmuch as it was one iss
which they hail availed themselves of the crimes of others to then,
own personal advantage. No man contemplated the vice of gam.
Ing with greater honor than he himself did, but wherever men vio.
lated the laws of the country—in the manner that Mr. Taylor, for
instance, certainly had done—it was the duty of every moral MAD
and good subject to bring the offender to punishment, anti not to
shield him front the consequences which ought to follow his offences.
The defendants, however, instead of performing this duty,
had endeavoured to pervert the laws of their country, by making
those laws the meses of putting money into their own pockets.
The defendant, 11 ollingbuty, was an attorney of this Court ;
Borvey was the son of an auctioneer. residing in Frith.street,
Soho ; of the defendant, Smith, he could not apcak so favourably.
for he was a person who had for some time past been living on his
nteans—though those means were, he believed, not very obvious,
or paters were somewhat too much so.--[The witnesses were all
ordered to withdraw. J—lle should now briefly state the fact, of the
Can to the Jury, by which he thought he should vary clearly make
it appear that the parties were all connected in the procee.linga taken
those proceedings was to extort money from him. The commence-
ment of this case would appear by the evidence of Mr. %Vest macot
who was invited by the tlefenthint, Hollnigbury, to dine with him
by them against dlr. Taylor, and that their object in adopting
at his chambers, on which occasion the other two defendants were
present. There a eonvereition took place relative to the means of
premises, and it was distincly
avowed by the ilefentheas that their intention was to indict Taylor,
for that •• he was a rich man, and could bleed well ' Thls
tion was communicated to 31r. Taylor by a lettsw hwen Honing.
thistunanto,tbbewusitaittoioe
purport.aonbstaw
an be
iiirnntgtweraliciottenTwiolutthos
bury, in which he stated he hail been employed to commence two
gaining access to .Jr. Taylor's
criminal prosavutions aTsifst him, and requested he would in`otm
hint the name of his professional adviser. This letter was dated tho
December, it he again
ifiwentrohtionte chat the in.
o no f thethese

I