The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-09 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY.

(Before th&Lords Jus ices KNIGHT Bnucu and TURNER.)
HUTTON V. BEETON AND 1101,1URRAY—BEETON V. WMUR-
RAY AND HUTTON.

This was an appeal from a decision of the Vico Chancel-
lor Stuart.

The substantial question in the case related to the proprie-
torship of the newspapers called the Sporting Life, the
Eclipse, and the Sporting Telegraph. Of these newspapers
the plaintiff Beeton was conceded to be the owner of a
moiety, and he claimed by his bill specific performance of
an agreement on the part of Hutton and M'Murray to sell
to him the other moiety. Hutton's bill asked for a dissolu-
tion of the partnership alleged to exist between him and
Beeton, and for a receiver to carry on the partnership busi-
ness and receive the outstanding assets. His Honour dis-
missed Hutton's bill with costs, and granted to Beeton a
decree for specific performance. Against this decision the
appeal was made.
The Attorney-General, Mr Bacon, Q.C., and T. H.
Terrell appeared for Hutton; Sir H. Cairns and Mr Swan-
ston for M'Murray; and Mr Melina, Q.C., and Mr liars-
lake for Beeton.

Their Lordships reversed the decision of the Vice Chan-
cellor and directed a decree to be drawn up in pursuance of
the prayer of Hutton's bill.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURTS, JULY 7.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WOOD.)
BOUCICAULT V. DELAFIELD.
Mr Graham Hastings moved that the plaintiff might pay
to the defendant defendant's costs of suit incurred subse-
quent to defendant's bankruptcy, by analogy to the cases at
law, where, if a plaintiff lost the verdict after his bank-
ruptcy, the costs were not provable, and were not barred.
Mr Dickinson opposed the application.
The Vice-Chancellor said that as the case in equity in
favour of the application had been cited, he should refuse
to make a precedent, and refused the motion.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge-Ordinary and a Special Jury.)
SALT V. SALE.

The Quecn's Advocate and Dr. Spinks were for the
plaintiff—Mr. Manisty, Q.C., and Dr. Wambey for the next
of kin.

The plaintiff propounded the will of her late husband,
William Salt, of the firm of Salt, Stevenson, and Salt,
bankers, in Lombard-street. The testator died Deo. 6 of
last year, leaving behind him a testamentary paper, the sub-
ject of this suit, dated that day. He had been taken ill that
morning, which was Sunday, in church; and on being put
to bed he called for pen and paper and dictated to his wife,
"All my property to my wife." He signed it in the pre-
sence of two witnesses, servants, and desired them to sign
before him. They, however, were ministering to his wants,
and omitted to do so. In less than a quarter of an hour the
doctor came, found the testator dead, and the paper un-
signed. On his learning the facts he suggested that they
should sign then, and they did so in the room where the
body was.

Dr. Walsh, the physician, was called, and stated that he
had found the testator dead.

It should be remarked that, under a farmer will, made
directly after the marriage in 1857, the plaintiff took an
annuity of £l3OO. and was left residuary legatee, which was
worth at that time £lO,OOO more; whereas at present,
owing to the testator having invested money in land, the
residue amounted to nothing.

The Court directed the jury that the signatures of the
witnesses were informal, and that, however they might
sympathise with the rare disinterestedness of the plaintiff,
they must find for the defendant,

The jury found accordingly, and the Court pronounced
against the will, costs to come out of the estate.

(Before the Judge-Ordinary and a Common Jury.)
YOUNG V. YOUNG AND HEATIICOTE.
Dr. Swabey and Mr Inderwick for the petitioner.
The co-respondent is dead. The parties were married in
June, 1855, at Trinity Church, Marylebone. The peti-
tioner was an officer in the army—the respondent, then
Jane Jackson, occupied an inferior position. He sold out
in 1856. At the end of 1861 he went to Brussels, leaving
his wife in England, and he next heard of her from
Algiers. On her return, in the following year, he made
her an allowance of eight guineas a month, and this pay-
ment continued till March of last year. The petitioner at
that time, from information he received, stopped it, and
instituted this suit.

A policeman alleged that he had often seen the peti-
tioner at " Kate Hamilton's" and similar places, and that
her associates were of a low dt scription ; and further evi-
dence was given that in Belasco v. Heathcote, in the Ex-
chequer, she had confessed to living with the co-respondent
in the country.

After the Court had summed up, the jury, thinking the
evidence unsatisfactory, found for the respondent.

JULY 8.
(Before the Judge Ordinary and a Special Jury,)
GIBSON AND ANOTHER V. PEGLER.
Mr Coleridge, Q.C., and Dr Spinks appeared for the
plaintiffs; M Edward James, Q.C., and Dr Swabey for
defendant.

The plaintiffs propounded the will of Walter Gabriel
Bassett Gunton, dated Jan. 16 of the present year. The
defendant pleaded undue influence, incapacity, and fraud.
The testator had been a wholesale chemist in the Borough,
and on his retiring from that business he bought a house at
Southall, near Guildford, where he was living at the time
of his death, the 18th of January last. The property
amounts to £lO,OOO in real property, and £14,000 in personal
property. The defendant was living with Gunton, her
brother, at Bonchurch, in 1861. They disagreed, and in
that year she went away and did not return. Mrs Gill,
one of the plaintiffs, in 1862, undertook the management
of the house at Southall, and did so up to testator's
death, and the other plaintiff, Gibson, was on intir,iate
terms. He was summoned by telegram to Guild&ord in
January last, and he immediately received instr
actions to
prepare a new will in the place of one already made in
1858. The will was written out by hire., and in it the
plaintiffs were left residuary legatees, whereas in the
former will the defendant chiefly benefited. The plaintiffs
take £12,000 under the will now propounded, and the de-
fendant £6,000. It was attested by Mr Sadler, a medical
man, and a tenant named Freebody.
Dr. Guy's Hospital, had been present at the
testator's
tonillksas; ofil iness, and he gave evidence of his full mental
capacity. _

. -
The Court, after hearing the evidence of the plaintiff and
the medical witness, asked if the defence could carry the
case any further, and the jur3 found for the plaintiffs.
Mr James addressed the Court on the subject of costs, but
the learned judge pronounced for the will with costs.