The Sun.
London, England, 1837-04-21 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

HOUSE OF LORDS, APRIL 20.
The House sat at Ten o'clock this morning to hear Scotch
appeals. The Lords present were Lord BROUGHAM, the Earl
of SHAFTESBURY, and Lord CLANWILLIAM. The arguments
were concluded in the appeal of " The Tailors' Company
v. Coutts,” and judgment was postponed.

COURT OF CHANCERY, APRIL 20.
ARNOLD V. ARNOLD.

The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment in this matter,
which was argued in December, last year. The question
was whether a sum of .56,0001., remitted from India, and
appropriated to the payment of legacies given by Colonel
Arnold in this country, be charged with the legacy duty.
The will was executed in India, and the great bulk of the
property was realised there; but in consequence of there
being a small sum vested in stock in this country, one of the
executors proved the will in the Ecclesiastical Court, and
having- received the stock paid the debts of the testator.
The executor in India proved the will there, and having col-
lected all the property remitted it to this country for the
benefit of the legatees—the widow and two children of Col.
Arnold. The money was placed in the funds, and a bill
filed against the executors for an account and distribution.
Ia the case now before the Court it appeared that the pro-
perty was put in a course of administration in this country,
although the executors might have readily avoided the ques-
tion that arose on it by appropriating the money in India,
and afterwards remitting to the legatees their several por-
tions. The, words of the Act of Parliament meant personal
estate in Edgland, and they were not, therefore, applicab!c
to personal estate in India ; but, applying as they did, pa per-
sonal estate in this country ; when unappropriated the Court
had so decided in the case of the Attorney-General v.
Cockerel!, Crumpton and Jervis. The Court required a re-
presentation of the personal estate to be before it in this
country, before it acted in cases of this description ; but if
the money was appropriated and remitted to an executor
for distribution, or to the legatees themselves, it seemed
clear that the legacy duty , was not then chargeable. I.
must be held that in this case the legatees of Colonel Ar-
nold were nut bound to pay the duty on legacies.

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT, APRIL 20.
WELLINGTON V. NAYLOR.
_ _

Mr. JACOB moved to dissolve an injunction granted in
August, 1834. The plaintiff's and defendants were rival
steel manufacturers at Sheffield, and the plaintiffs by their
hill complained that the defendants, in their manufactures,
were using certain marks, of which the plaintiffs alone were
the proprietors.

Mr. KNIGHT opposed the motion.
His HONOUIt observed the conflict of swearing in this
case rendered it extremely difficult and dangerous to decide
on which side the truth lay. The injuuctinn was continued
as altered in some particulars, and the plaintiffs were di-
rected to bring such action as they might be advised, with
liberty for any party to apply again to the Court.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, API?IL 20.
DOYLEY V. ROBERTS.
_ _

Mr. GODSON moved in this case fora rule to show cause
why the verdict should not be set aside, and a nonsuit en-
tered. This was an action of slander, tried by Mr. Baron
Parke at the last Oxford Assizes, when a verdict was
found for the plaintiff. Damages 501., under one of the
Learned Judges' direction. The plaintiff was an attorney,
and was proved at the trial to be a sporting attorney, a
very successful rider at steeple chases, and accordingly one
who was seldom to be found at his office, but invariably at
every steeple chase in the neighbourhood. Now the de-
claration stated that the plaintiff had properly conducted
himself in his business as an attorney, and that on the 26th
of July the defendant had said of: and concerning him in
his character and business of an attorney, " He has de-
frauded his creditors—he has been horsewhipped off the
course at Doncaster." That was the scandal complained of.
After hearing Counsel, the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said,
take a rule to show cause.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, APRIL 20.
WATSON V. EDWARDS.
Mr. Sergeant Gour.eunN applied for- a rule nisi to set
aside the verdictgiven for the plaintiff, with 126/. damages,
and proceed to a new trial, on the ground that evidence
.temlered by the defendant at the trial of the cause before
the Lord Chief Baron at Warwick had been improperly
rejected.

After hearing the statement of the case, the Court was
of opinion that the Learned Judge was right. The de-
fendant, by the payment into Court, admitted the damage.
On the ground of excessive damages, Counsel might take
a rule for a new trial on the usual terms—payment of costs.
Mr. Sergeant Goutsunti said it was not worth his
while to accept a rule on those terms.

(Equity 'Sittings before Mr. da-ion ALDERSON.)
DICKENS V. CLARKE AND OTHERS.
This was a bill filed by the plaintiff, as heir at law of the
late Rev. Mr. Dickens, praying that his rights as heir at
law should be declared, and the usual accounts taken. The
question turned entirely on the construction of the testa
tor's will, by which, on certain contingencies, his real and
personal estate was to go to the Rev. Joseph Burrows, of
Brazennose College, Oxford, upon his taking the surname
of Dickens. Two contingencies had taken place ; viz., the
death of the testator's widow, her son surviving her ; and,
second!), the death of the son, after coming of age, without
ever having been married. These, plaintiff contended, were
not the contingencies required by the'vvill to pass the estate
to the Rev. Mr. Burrows, and he therefore claimed the
estate as heir at law, but consented to abandon his claim
to the personality.

Mr. Baron ALDERSON said that, upon the construction
of the will, he must decree in favour of the heir at law.
The costs, however, were to come out of the real estate.
Decreed accordingly.

SHERIFF'S COURT, G UILDHALL—ArBIL 20.
JACKSON V. ANDERSON.
This was an action brought against the defendant, the
brother-in-law of Madame Vestris, to recover a sum of
Si. 10s.,alleged to have been lent by the plaintiff, on whose
behalf a witness of the name of Whimpsey was called, who
said he was steward of the Strangers' Club, but which he
admitted to be a common gaming house in the Quadrant,
and that he heard the defendant acknowledge the debt. An
appraiser of the name of Scale was also called, and he swore
that when he served the defendant with the writ, he said
that all he owed the plaintiff was 5/. 108. Mr. Humphrey,
the defendant's attorney, said that on seeing the plaintiff's
attorney, he told him that if he would Shaw him the letter
he stated he had received from Mr. Anderson, acknowledg-
ing the debt, lie would pay the amount.
Mr. Sergeant ARABIN having summed up, the jury im,
mediately found for the defendant.

pRNIVOGATIVE COURT—ArinL 20.
woop AND OTHERS V. GOODLAKE, HELL'S, AND OTHERS.
.In this suit, which relates to the will of the late James
Woad, Esq., the banker of Gloucester, the particulars of
'which have appeared at very great length, the allegation
propounding the codicil which was sent by the threepenny
post, which, after being deeply discussed, was during the