The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-12-08 00:00:00

F

IN nE rARLY.•SAVIRrPT•

Pail bairn— .. -
• ' CAVAES.
el•Tety.OTATTrit T. Byrnes v. Kemp Jones v. 'Remnant
ENO or Lonadalo 3loreeloy v. Rushton Jerningham v. Her.
Brook we FAMES, kali/vett r. White. but
goolearlsanv.Risoctes hJaae 1 Kerrod v. Lawless
Dooits v. Georges 1111. kins 4. Miles
ROLLS COURT.
Tele Mister of the Itobe she this evening at sit, but not to-
morrow ravesing.
, ii ....• --- .
:. -- •• • COURT OF RING'S BENCH.
3.wwilsole caress To. lIT ?ejts ;iv cnalstoo JCR'[' 111"
MOIININO AT IFIAL-T.TAIT suss.
Nil e. Illorasell. %Vests° vs Philpott -Lumley v. flellyev
them Iv. Fogey , NVright v. Kin; .Enony v. Houlditch
Feed v. Hurses Clements v. King Leeder v. BidcleU
Pope v. Monk I WVigke v. Rood Williams v. Bryant;
:isnewler• v. }lrian Wells v. Pocock Lynch v. Kimpton
H Antrim v. Forbes Moore v. Langdon Turner v. Ellis
Givrdirer v. Purism Artie v. Jones Ctpel v. Guy
Bradrerd v. Gibson Bothwell v. Bougbey Bradbury v. Illoom•
Tlyinv v. Chanson Vete v. Nott Held
Robson v. Finlbeley Sudbury v. C. Lock Haddon v. Cuddon
Faillev v. Hyper Sane v. W. Lock Benson v. Dean
Montrio,l v. JelTerys Pocock v. lirlonte Brett v. Cundell
Chow v. Williams Mole, v. Walker

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
xximitsti CAUSES TO BC WED DT COMMON =EMS Tan

MOIPININO AT TEN.
Pon, Maedougal Iv. oung Fake v. Parsons
Liornms v. Sargrant Cunnew v.3leux and dray,Eq. v.Rickards
Dsyles and others v. others Freeman v. Bttndley
Burton Edwards*. Freeland Forpn v. Chisholm
L0.47,101f SPILCIAL JURY TO OW THE mOl,
LOWING DAYS
Saturchy, December 10.
Strong v. Jack I Strong v. Dale I WYatt v.Cocks& ant.
Monday, December 12.
Trfnity House v. Martin v. Pitcairn I Fiume v. Bollard
Clark Threlfall v. Webster
Tuesday, December 13.
Snow and others v. I
King,. Butterworth Endervey and others
I Peacock and others and acodier v. Grind

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
ITTTING AT GRAY'S-INN-HALL, TPIIIINtNG, AT TM
Petition per order—Bowyer It. Bright.
LAI, INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CIIANCF:RY, WrorionAr, DEC. 7.

A. few days since a petition was presented to the Court, on the
pas of Mary Fowler, who bad hecn committed to prison by certain
rjotwilifseioners of Ilankrupts, for refusing to answer goes:toils put
toter by them, touching the name and residence of her fellow-
syrant After some disetralon, his Lordship was then pleased to
calw her dischafge, and directed that the respondents be permitted
ru file affidavits in answer to the allegations contained in her pe-
t. t too.
Tante affidavit,' have been since filed, ar.d the Court was occupied
tbsentise of this day in hearing arguments on them.
Ahem. Heald and Montague were heard for the petitioner, and
Neese,. Horne and Winn for the respondents.
Whilst 31r. Clam was addressing the Court, his Lordship inter-
n-41nd Wm, intimating that the argument might he resumed to-
rsorrcw. His Lordship at the same time remarked, that it was a
great hardship on him to be employed for three dads in the week
3 Wearing discussions on writs of habeas corpus, whilst there
w•sett twelve other Judges in town to whom application might have
been made.

VICL.CLIANCELLOWS COURT, WEDNESDAY, D&c. 7.

JAMES HoszpvuLi TONNES AND THE REV. RICHARD
CIIARLCA TVFTON SCOTT AGAINST COLLARD, HORN,

TARDY, WRITE, 51111'11, COXON, AND PasEND.
This was a hill, or, more properly speaking, a aeries of 'even
bills, filed by the reverend plaintiff; rector of the parish of Monk-
toe, Monkten-marsh. in the Isle of Thanet, and the other plaintiff;
vitro is lessee of the tithes of the parish, against the defenants,
fainters and (tempters of lands in that place. The bills called on
the defendants for an account of the ntheable matters and things
VI their possession, within the precincts of the pafah of Itlonkton.
Mr. lie•nn, with whim yea Mr. Rot:PELL. appeared for the
li latotiffs; and Mr. Beni fur the defendant Collard.
Mr. litany observed this was a hill for an account of tithe-
sae matters. In the possessiou of the defendants. In this and the
other cases on the pater the same persons were plaintiffs, but there
wpa fix or mem different defer.dants, who, it would seem, had all
forret el a joint purse, hut put in distinct answers.
0/,. HART —lt could not-be otherwise, as there are seven bills
filed bj' the plaintiffs, a matter of which we have the most cause to
oanfain.
r..ll.otcpent. suggested that a decree on one cf them would be
r eel to decide all.
, r. IJEALD coutinuel. It was not disputed by the defendant
that he hrbi tiduable property, and that the plaintiffs were entitled
to anaccoont. The only bone of contention between the parties
wee as to the time when the account should commence, the defend-
ant em eting that he was only bound to render an account of tithe-
*Nothings for the hil, years immediately preceding the period of
tiling the bill, and the plaintiffs contenting they were empowered
to claim for more than double that period. In fact the bill called
far sl account from the year 11109, when a correspondence on the
sehjest and negotiations had taken place between the parties. At
tEat time the defendant agreed to a compromise. It was agreed on
both sides that a fair and equitable arrangement should take place.
bit no particular sum was mentioned at that time, and the plaintiffs
couid not consent to accept those which were afterwards proposed.
Under those circumstances, It was the object of the plaintiffs to
/eve It sent to the Master to determine the amount to which they
were entitled, and the time from which the account should be
takpar.
31r. HART said his client's defence consisted is their interprets..
lion of the statute of limitations as applicable to tithes. By the
bid Oeo. 111. see. 5, it was enacted that no action could be brought
for the recovery of any penalty for not setting out tithes, unless the
suit was inatituted for tithes falling due within six years of the time
of filing the bill. That was the defence as to time, and he humbly
sitSmitted, Melee* the Court took upon it to repent! the Act of Par.
]lament which was conclusive on the sul.ject, it could not direct
ah account fur a longer period of time tt•an that specified by the
sente. •
-Adv. ligat.D.--In this instance a romisc wep made, and an ad.
zeieelon of the right of the plaintiffs to recovet in 1809. In his
opirdon, that circumstance took the case out of the meaning of the ,
ante. Besides, although the suit could not be commenced at a
htteg.pericel than six years after the tithes became payable, yet it ,
did hot fellow that the Court could not award an account extending
hack to a much more distant period.
Mr. Bonen Lt. followed on the same side, and argued that it I
would be extremely unfair to permit the defendant, after negotiating
fp 4 or 14 years, to step in uow and set up io defence a statute of
lotions.
Vlcs-Cuattcet.Lon—l sat OE opinion that no Court, now
4.
that 141/1 Act of Parliament is in force, car make a decree for more
thank sears tithe previous to the filing of the biil. The bill having
hewn fled in 1842, the plaintiffs can only claim an account for the 6
years immediately preceding.
Ale. Rot TELL asked what order the Court would make as to
tiec meta of the suit /
Mr. Bente submitted that his client should Lot be saddled with
Mins .31 the Court determined otherwise, it would operate as an
elfethfraeernerst to Chancery Soliciters to multi's:, suits of this na.
soar. It-would be only for one of (hem, el aOOBl as he discovered a
the 'who lived nn last tertoa with his neighhours, to step is, take
a We of the tithes, and then file 60 bills ageism the .landholders
of the parish. Supeoaing such a proceeding, the lessee, though he
arces.,,ed hot five shillings against each defendant, might get 1001.
ottani nom every one of them, and in that manwr remunerate him.
solemply for whatever lease (however improvident in appearance)
he might itbiek fit to take. In the present proceeding, it was not
the cerevery of the tithe that was sought so much as pining the
eieff of the wait. A Solidi°, finding a parson who wan in debt,
a demise of tba tithes, and then filed seven bills against seven
nu, for the purpose of putting money into her own pocket in
' of costa.
- e ter-C.tranch trma--The question of coats will in a great
depend upon Me Report of the Master as to the nature of
the-;remotion effaced by the defending. fie offered a certain
.4z 9,7„...The gustation is, was that a fair and just compenra.
l,
The decree of the (;ourt is, that an account of the titheable
poiferly he token for the sik years previous to filing the bill, re.
gm creators of toms for the event of the Mater's [tenon,
'llllV.tt understood the same decree would apply to the remaining
.pie; calci.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WEsTatzsarsa,
Wzriatesair, Vac 7.
Cetipirs kji;rs ete LORD CltlEir JOITICE and a
Corrimon Jury.
. . . .
•• UNIISP: T. POTTS.
The stiathlLT is the lindlind of the Peck Ham, Turnhaisi.green,
mai bfeitel,s this action to tienver • sum of Sit. for dinners, liquors,
&c. t...i i .h.cd to the dereadant, from the year 18:i; to the year

articles vete famished to the defendant, two
vtweta were called ; and to take this cti•e Ottt of
alone, an etelmiatioo of the debt by the ohilip
en evidence. 'ti
plaintitf--Daut ages 251.
110BINSON a. WAIVD.
brought to recover 201., being the amount of •
accepted by the defendant, zed hadomed to the

pliintift The plaintiff had been roi Of-his pocket-book, which
Of-
his
this hill. and in consequence'. be triadrapphcation to the
defendant to pay the money, width be refused to do, and the pre-'
sent scum was brought to recover the smount of it. -
Wm. Cooper—l am the first indorsee of this bill. " I indorsed it
to the plaintiff for vain!. It had then two months to run. I re-
member a conversation between Robinson and Ward on the sub-
' Oft of the loss of this bill, but do not remember the particulars
of it.

Charles Rayner—l recollect a conversation between Robinson
and Ward about this bill. %Vern said he would not settle it with.
out a bond of indemnity.
141 r. Hutrhins—l inn the plaintiffs attorney. I waited on the
defendant with it hone of indemnity. The defendant said he would
show it to Mr. Brownlow. hie solicitor.
Charles Harper—l am managing rink to the plaintiff's attorney.
I wrote a letter to the defendant. and aho lad an terview with
him on the 30th of April. Ile ref used whet. to aceert the bond or
renew the bill.

This wan the plaintiff's case. •
Mr. Scant.ETT, for the defendant, said that the plaintiff, on
' his own showing, was nut of Court. This was an action of amity.
sit, and the plaintiff had proved no undertaking on the pert of the
defendant to pay. Neither could any undertaking he presumed,
because all that the defendant undertook was. to pay this bill when
it should become due and be presented. This was what he had
undertaken to do: this was an undertaking which he might yet
discharge. No express undertaking, therefore, being proved—nu
• implied undertaking being capable of being presumed, from the
very nature of the circumstances the Learned Counsel submitted
that the plaintiff most be norsulfed.
The LORD Curtin Jesvice was of the same opiuion ; and the
plaintiff was accordingly nonsulted.

MATHEW t. bkIAWE. AND °TITERS.
This was an action on a bill of exchange. The plaintiff is an at-
torney, the defendants are Messrs. Shawe and Askew, engravers, In
Lombard-street, and Itlr. Rowland, a person who had been for a
time in partnership with them, and who was in vr....lity a plaintiff
rather than defendant. . .

The bill in question vita for Mi., payable in dace months ; it
was drawn on the 14th September, 1824. bx a person of the name
of Parr, and accepted by the defendants. That'll, by some means
or other, which were not explained by him, found is way into the
hands of a Mr. Gordon. Gordon, after some fruitless attempts to
get it disetmead, and glad to get .rid of it on any terms, as his
name did not appear on it, sod consequently he was not liable,
sold it out and out to the phthititc for 10s. in the pound. The
partnership between Mr. Rowland and 'Messrs. Shawe and Askew
was dissolved on the 21st of September. a tcie days after the thaw.
ing of 'ha bill, in consequence of some baud uletit transactions. in
which Misers. Shave anti Evans suspected Me. Howland to be im-
plicated. This bill in particular bad been the subject of an loves.
ligation before the lied -Mayor, in which the endorsement of the
names of I:rals and Askew was charged as a forgery. This charge
was afterwards withdrawn, and the only qoestion which was now
to be tried was, whether the partnership had been Unsolved preTiOUIS
to this endorsement. _ _

Mr. GlurtNEY,IlVhO was for the defendants, called a person of the
narpe of Trivutner, a bill-broker, to whom this bill had been offered
fur the purpose of being discounted, who said, that from a letter
which had come into Iris hands within the last few days, lie had
reason to believe, that when the bill was first offered to him, it had
only the endorsement of Rowland, and that if the names of askew
and hawe had been on it, he should not have hesitated to discount
it, and that the endorsement of these gentlemen did not appear on
the bill till after the partnership was dissolved.
On cross.examination, however, by ►ir. SCART.T.TT, he ad•
mitted that when:he was examined before the Lord Mayor on the
charge of forgery, he had not mentioned these circumstances.
The Loan CHIEF. JUITICC summed up at considerable
length.
The Jury immediately returned a vettlict for the defendants.
The Loan Cwrir JurricE, as soon as this verdict was de.
livered, stood up and said, that he had refrained from making any
observations till the Jury had returned their verdict. Now, how-
ever, that the case was disposed of, he could not let it go out of this
Court without expressing in the strongest manner the disapproba.
tion he felt at the conduct of any attorney who could buy a bill
under suspicious circumstances, for the purpose of bringing an
action upon it.

PREROGATIVE COURT, WrDnrsnAy, DEC. 7.

Et/STICIC t. BAWDY.
Upon this case. of the facts of which our readers are in full pos-
session, being called for judgment,
Sir JOHN NtcHold. inquired whether the Counsel could fur.
nish him with any information as to the precise amount and descrip-
tion of the property left by the deceased ?
JENNER. answered that he understood the real property
affected by the will amounted to 990/. per annum. The personal
property was estimated at 3,0001., but the debts amounted to 20001.,
so that only 1,0001. would remain to be distributed.
Sir J. NIC lIOLL—And that sum would be subject to the costs
of the suit, if the Court thought proper to decree costs.
Dr. Lusursuarow—if my Learned Friend includes the duchy
lands in his estimate, he over-estimates the property, for the duchy
lands could not pass under the will.
Sir J. NICHOLL—Then I am to understand that the real pro.
perty may be estimated at about 7801. per annum, the duchy lands
being about 20111. per onntim. flow many claimants are there?
Dr. JWarstee replied that there were seven families; one brother
and three listen surviving, and the children of the sisters of the
damaged.

Sir J. htcdoLx..-Then the personal property, if distributed,
would scarcely exced 1001. to each claimant. Speaking under the
influence of this information, I wish the observations I ant about
to make to be taken us suggestions to the parties. It must be per-
ceived that almost all the property affected by the will was real
property. and that the personal property distributable was very
small. Under those circumstances, the decision of the Court was
of little consequence. If the will of 1807 was declared to be invalid,
Alin Bowden may bring her action in a Court of Law for the real
property. flo the other hued, if the Court declared the will to be
valid, the heir-st.law may bring his action for the nil property.
The Court was at a loss to know why the welted not been brought
before a competent jurisdiction before this time. The Court must
hold tie unfinished papers, and, in fact, all.the instruments dated
in 1822, inoperative, unless as evidence respecting the intention of
the testator. The question was. therefore, whether the Court
should hold the will of 1807, remaining unrevoked for 14 years, to
he valid ;or that the deceased died intestate. The question was
one of no inconsiderable difficulty, as there was no legal presump-
tion either way. The heirs at law say, there is a general presump-
tion in favour of the next of kin, unless you produce a valid will.
Yes—reply the executors, but here is a valid will formally executed.
Yes--rejoin the next of kin, but here is a subsequent will, revok-
lag the will of Ism. Bite that, say the executors, is no will, for
it was destroyed during Mr. Enstick's life. Such was the state of
the case, and if it was to he decided in a Court of Law, there was
high Rothe/fit), for holding the uncancelled will to be valid. Lord
Mansfield, if not the deepest black-letter lawyer, was certainly pos-
sessed of a strong mind and acute understanding. In the case of
" Rolfe," as reported by Cooper, his Lordship premed to hold it as
a settled point, that if the deceased executed balls dozen wills, and
that any one of those wills remained uncancelled, that should be
held the will of the deceased. The intention of the deceased was
insisted upon, but should the Court direct its attention to the Inten-
tion of the deceased to revoke the will of 1807, or to revive it, on
whom should the oars probandi lie P Suppose the deceased did rot
intend to revive the will of 11107, or to die intestate, but intended
to make a new will, the Court could not confirm his intention, foe
the Court could not make a new will. The Court was inclined to
think that the deceased determined to make a new will, though he
could not carry that intention into effect. The question, as respected
intention, now was, whether the deceased considered dist he was
testate or intestate. These observations were thrown out for the
purpose of suggetting whether an arrangement could not be made
between the panics, and whether that was not the best mode of
meeting the intentions of the deceased. In order to give the parties
an opportunity of making a crunprornise, the Court would allow
the case to stand over to the next Term ; and if' an atragement could
not be made, the Court would then deliver its judgment under the
comfortable assurance that if that judgment should be wrong, it
may be set tight by another Court.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, IVEDNESDAY, DEC. 7

.Robert JOH:state, late of Carlisle, bookseller, was brought up
for final hearing and judgment.
It appear d, by the insolvent's testimony, at his original hearing
on the 17th ult., when Ile was opposed by Mr. Heath for several
creditors, 'hat in Auguft, 1822, be marrted a lady with a fortune
01'0001., but it was secured to her before the marriage took place,
and was vested In trustees. who had since that time vested it in the
Lance and other coasting vessels belonging to Maryport. It fur-
ther appeared that, in March last, an fiction wits entered against
the insolvent, to which he pleaded, and afterwards, vit., in May,
diseased of the major part of his stock. which realised upwards it
3001. The Court, being anxious to know in what manner the pro-
ceeds of such sale were despond of, the insolvent attempted to ex-
plain, but he tailed to do so, hence the Court adjourned the use,
to enable him to give further evidence.
The day the insolvent put in other statements; sod, after they
were read,
Mr. Commissioner Law rcespitulated the evidence which had
been adduced. and obNerved. ',lst the insoltent lied incurred the
liability of r remand, hi consequence of putting in a plea to an
action, which he had no ground for ting. Besides, the Court was
tar from being sittiofied as to the correctness of the statement
(amended as it was) which the insolvent had that day filed, with
regard to the sale of his pmpefty. The judgment of the Court was.
that the insolvent be remanded or four 'slender months from the
date of his petition, to be confined within the walls of the prison.

DEATH Or MRS. CARTER.--It will he recollected that
Mn. Elisabeth Carter, of Rochester-row, Westminster,
who hail been committed for cutting and stalehing her hus-
band, James Carter, with a carving knife, was discharged
from prison at his anxious request on the 9,4 th ult., he de-
claring that be bore no towards her. Ever since
her liberation a visible change has been observed in her
manner. She dreaded her husband's reurrnhu home, and
is said to have prayed that she might never to witness
it. On Tuesday night, about twelve o'clock she expired,
and without an apparent cause from illness. • Yesterday
morning her husband was brought from the Westminster
Infirmary to behold her corpse. the contemplation of which
agitated him very much. Re was afterwards conce:ed
back to the hospital.

William Ellis and ',ober: Cutts were charged on three several
indictments for stealing three horses, the property of persons re-
siding at Mahlon. On the arraignment the prisoners pleaded
guilty to all the indictments, and persisted in their 'pleas, notwith-
standing the advice of the Learned Judge to take the chance of
trial. The prisoner Cutts is it young man of respectable con.
nexions.
Abraham, Easter was indicted for stealing on the 28th May,
at Chelmsford. a bay mare, the property of gohert Allen.
Mr. .17ssorr conducted the prosecution, and 111 r. BBoantcx
and Mr. Dow LI NG the defence.
It appeared in evidence that the prosecutor, who resides at
Kingston, in Surrey, lost his mare on the 24th May, 11i24, from an
enclosure, and on the 2fith of the same month the prisoner, who is
a licensed horse-dealer, of Woodbridge, Suffolk, purchased it at
Chelmsford fair for 71., and in the course of the same day resold it
for 81. to an inhabitant of Writtle. In September last the prose-
cutor Rmind the mare in the possession of the purchaser, and in
consequer ee of inquiries the prisoner was apprehended. but ad-
mitted to bail. Upon the facts proved the Learned Judge thought
there was no case to go to the Jury, and the prisoner was accord.
ingly found Not Guilty.

ClL,a.ntu.cu to UIC
141/11; prove that
t rpiainciflitt tilde
a weite
rn 4P
ti kgers ao r hi ;23" awL
. Verdict tor the plait
Th'.• action was br
bill of etchings aces,

•
LAWNAaFitris!
7
• COUJIT OF CIJANCERY.
TRie• 3,nip ciaANCTI.4.OIIII,II MQXXtXG It titia•
llograpt Petttion,, pit heard—Exports Forrler v. Early.
To berpote to—ln re Donee.
Appenla...Dtann T. 'Watson, A porney•General v. Mayor of Exeter,
Uoinmay r. Reade, 4 causes.
IitIIWORC TEC vicr.cinawc, Lima. TEIII MORNIIIE AT
RALF-PAST TEN.
Pig heard_ Walker v. /toward.
CAUPEII.
A*lol,oty.ottlfrit T. I B.Thei V. Kemp Pones v. 'Remnant

THE li*lli#ololo*4.lll4

IVIYTER Pran CIRCUIT.
.4,11 k
—.......-.
- ESSEX ASSIZES, CntLioroun, DEc. ft.