The Sun.
London, England, 1864-01-19 00:00:00

THE SUN. LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JANUARY 19, 1864,

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(This Day),

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Before the Lord Chief Justice, and Justices Crompton,
Blackburn, sad Mellor.)
:MULREADY V. LORD EBURY AND OTHERS.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff against tho
Duke of Bridgwater's trustees, the owners of certain docks
on the river Mersey, for negligence in towing a ship of
the plaintiff's into their docks, by which negligence the
ship became strandcd on the beach and injured. The
defendant's pleaded that they,were not liable for the da-
mage, the contract for towing the ship expressly relieving
them from sueh damage; to which plea a new assignment
was added, that the damage arose through the defendant's
servant's wilful negligence in leaving the ship stranded
without attempting to get her off.
The case came before the Court in demurrer as to the
form of pleading.
The Court allowed the demurrer, and directed a reforma-
tion of the pleading, so as to bring the case properly
before it.

COURT OF PROBATE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
CROSS V. CROSS (THOMAS INTERVENING).
In this case, which was tried before a jury at the
sitting before Christmas, John Cross, the plaintiff,
endeavoured to provoke the revocation of a will alleged
to have been duly executed by his sister Harriett
Cross as far back as 1839. The testatrix had an interest
in a large sum of money left to the Cross family by a Mr.
John Berihill, the sister of the father of the testatrix. The
parties interested were to receive only life annuities on the
estate, but they had power to dispose of the capital by will.
Miss Harriet Cross executed the will five days before her
decease, and probate of it had been obtained in July,
1840. By the instrument James Cross, one of the brothers
who was then abroad, derived an inter3st, and employed an
attorney named Thomas to commence proceedings in Chan-
cery to protect his rights in regard to the family property.
Thomas advanced money to James Cross, in consideration
of which James Cross gave him a mortgage upon the inte-
rest under the will of Harriet Cross. The will of Harriet
Cross was witnessed by her two sisters, one of whom had
been obliged to leave the country, having com-
mitted a breach of trust. The plaintiff, Sir John
Berihill Cross, now alleged that the will was
a forgery, and the intervener, Thomas, was the only
party at present interested in establishing the validity of
the will. At the trial Mary Cross said that the attestation
in her name was in her handwriting, but the sigreiture of
the testatrix was a forgery. The jury found for the will,
and probate was granted. A rule was then obtained on
certain affidavits, and on the ground that the verdict was
against evidence for a new trial. A rule was then obtained,
and argued at length at the last sitting, and now stood over
for judgment.
The Judge Ordinary now decided in favour of the ver-
dict. His lordship granted the intervener (Thomas) his
costs out of the estate, and condemned the plaintiff in the
costs of Alexander Cross, one of the defendants.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Holroyd.)
His Honour, being the Commissioner of the day, was
occupied the greater part of the morning in hearing applica-
tions in the private room.
_ _