The Sun.
London, England, 1837-06-26 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JuxE 24.
IN THE MATTER CF LYONS, A LUNATIC.

1,.. rionNr, a,:vertn:g to the i-:ctition in this case
or 11:Csuperseding the commission, entered into some
catements to prove ',hat the insanity of Mr. Lyons arose.
kolelyfioin intemperance, anti that now having abandoned
hic habit of drinking I;randy hr was as pciff•ctly competmt
j o the management of his own affairs as any person in the
.1::ourt. Mr.. Lyons had ny.7.rricd a French lady, whose in-
[

. -
13uence over his actions had proved most beneficial to his
lealtli, and there was not, as long as that influence eon-
) itmed, the slightest reason that he would relapse into his
7fornwr course of indulgence in ardent spirits.
! After some observations from Mr. WHITMARSH in sup-
-port of the commission,
The Loan CllaNcur.r.on. would see Mr. Lyons, an 1 he
herefore directed his committee to attend with him in his
Lordship's private room on Monday morning.
nEaNAL r. BERNAL.
This ease has been of late frequently before the Court.
The question at issue arises out of the construction to be
1: laced by the Court on the ...ill of a Spanish ,Jew, named
_ i los:_ph Gasper Beraid, who died in 1595. By that will a
oi,nrn of money was gi. en on trust to pay a certain annuity
-o such of his father's riations and their descendants as
A:hould from time to time require and ckin the same. The
. :uit was instituted in 17-23 for the administration of this
diarity ; a scheme was aeTeed on, and by a decree of the
-Court sums of money have been since phi to such persons,
.141 tale and female, as have proved themselves to be descend-
' -4':ants of the testator within the meaning of the will. In 1884
4 the plaintiffs presented a petition, stating that they had dii-
ieovered that the bequest ought to be li:nited to the male
.Idescendants of the testator, es, according to the Mosaic
: I iw, females were exeluded. At the time the scheme was
rgreed on it had been supposed that the testator, who had
-/
in establishment in London, and whose wife was buried in
--ii.ondon, had died there himself ; hut it was now found that he
lied in Amsterdam, and that his property was therefore to
`: .ie distributed according so the law of the country in which
..-; ,e was domiciled. The question of the domicile had been
-eferred to the Master, and he found it to be in Holland ;
tut on the parties coming for a confirmation of that report,
be Lords Commissioners thought the evidence not satis-
actory and sent the matter back to be reviewed.
Mr. WAKEFIELD now prayed the confirmation of the
-eport, as the Master had gone into fresh evidence, and
,gain found that the domicile was in Holland.
Sir W. IlonNE, for the female claimants on the fund,
aantended that the proof of the domicile was still so insufll-
.; :ient that the Court ought to make it the subject of future
nlquiry.

-At three o'clock his Lordship postponed th© further ar•
.;ument till Monday.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, JUNE 24.
UTHER V. LORD ARTHUR CHICHESTER.

This was an action to recover the amount of a bill of
,xcliange for 3001., accepted by the defendant. The case
iad been before tried under the name of Uther v. Rich,
.he defendant in the former action being the drawer of the
the amount of which was in the present action sought
obe recovered from the defendant, the accept Or. Some
ime since Mr. Rich and Lord Arthur Chichester, both otfi-
,ers in a regiment stationed at Portsmouth, Were in want
f ready money, and they saw a person of the name of
I.evy, who was sent down to them from London, with the
iew of arranging a loan. They drew bills on each other to
:le amount of 1,9001., some of them at long dates, and on
-wo occasions they saw Levy, and gave him the bills to be
liscounted. After some time, as they got no money, they be-
•ame very urgent with Levy to return the bills, and he did re-
,lrn several of them; but the bill which was the subject of
he present action, and another bill for a smaller amount, he
lid not return. The bill in quei.tion he passed into the bands
f one Charles Hunter, who was described as an attorney,
'rid who was stated to have been much engaged in discount-
ng bills. From Hunter it passed into the hands of the pre-
,ent plaintiff. The pleas put upon the record in the present
•ase were that the bill had not come into the hands of the
hintiff as a bona Me holder for a valuable consideration.

Sir W. FOLLETT, for the defendant, contended that the
ransaction was not one in the ordinary course of business.

Lord DENMAN summed up the evidence, which he left to
he consideration of the Jury, %Nilo returned a verdict for the
lefendant, on the issue as to the transaction being usurious.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUNE 24.

SMITH V. DE TASTET.
This was an issue directed by the MASTER of the ROLLS to
-ry the question, whether M. Vincent Taloclion, better
znawn as the 1-)tre ElisL, had enmn:itted an act of bank-
uptey previous to the 29th of March, 1811. The facts, which
ac of little general interest, were detailed in our columns
,pon the occasion of the first trial during the sittings after
ist Hilary Term, when the Jury having remained in delibera-
ion the whole night without coming to any decision were dis-
i!bar-bed. A new trial had been granted, and the same case
vas to-day submitted to a second Jury, who, by giving their
verdict for the defendant, found that no act of bankruptcy
had been com-nitted by :he Nre p:eviously to the time
in question.

COURT OF EXCTIEQUER, JUNE 24.
GOUGH V. BRYAN.

This was an action brought to recover compensation for
damage done to a gig and horse, the property of the plaintiff,
:hrough the negligent driving of the defendant's servant. Ilis
Lordship having summed up, the Jury found for the plaintiff,
mith 5/. damages. The case occupied the entire day.

WESTMINSTER SESSIONS.

SATURDAY.

BoYam-n Halloway, aged 38, in the garb of a butcher, re-
iembling in his burly appearance the effigy of Henry the
Eight, at the Exchange, was indicted for assaulting Sarah
wife.

The CHAIRMAN directed the unfortunate wife to explain her
accusation, and the poor woman, some years younger than her
''husband, and bearing traces of considerable personal beauty,
I narrated a sad tale of continued ill-treatment from the time she
narried, very young. sixteen years ago, up to the period of the
,resent charge. She said that she had been at times left
vithout support, at others severely beaten, and even during
Tcgnancy had been ill-used.

The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty.
The CHAIRMAN dwelt with marked emphasis on the brutal
!onduct of the convicted offender, and sentenced him to six
nonths' imprisonment, and, at the e4iration of that term, to
Ind good sureties to keep the peac.3 for twelve months.
Seventy prisoners were-discharged by proclamation, and the
session terminated.