The Sun.
London, England, 1863-11-04 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 4, 1863,

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

NEW QUEEN'S COUNSEL.
Mr. J. Locke, of the Parliamentary bar, Mr. W. IL
Cooke, Mr. John Gray, and Mr. J. J. Powell, all of the
Oxford Circuit, appeared in court, and were called within
the bar, and took their seats on being appointed Queen's
Counsel.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

THE ALEXANDRA.

The Attorney. General, this morning, said he had con-
sidered this question as it stood, and he was of opinion that
the Court had the power, under the provisions of 22 and 23 of
Victoria. They could be so interpreted as to give effect in
cases such as the present. The learned gentleman then re-
ferred to the 26th section, which gave the Court certain
power to apply the provisions and the rules of the Common
Law Procedure Act under certain circumstances.
The Court thought they had the right, but they would
consider the matter, and if they should be of opinion that
the Common Law Procedure Act gave the power they would
to-morrow morning announce their decision. In the event
of it being favourable to the learned gentleman, it would be
perhaps the best course if the bill of exceptions were aban-
doned, and a new trial moved for, which would raise all the
points.

COURT OF PROBATE.
(Before Sir J. Wilde, Judge Ordinary.)

HAWLEY AND OTHERS V. STOKES.

This was a suit instituted by the plaintiffs, as executors of
the will of Joseph Stokes, deceased, to prove the will of the
testator in solemn form. Probate was opposed by the evi-
dence on the ground that it was not duly executed, that it
was not the will of the testator, and that it had been
obtained under undue influence and fraud. The plea al-
leging fraud was withdrawn by the defendant's counsel.
The testator, it appeared, at the time of his death, which

took place on the 31st of January, 1863, was only 31 years
of age, and had been married to the respondent not quite
two years, and resided at Sheffield, and had been in the
employ of Messrs. Pavyley and Stokes, butchers at ShetSeld,
but owing to his intemperate habits he was compelled to
leave their service. Atter that the testator and respondent

lived very unhappily, and on the 30th day of January the
testator, who had been suffering from delirium tremens, was
attacked with pneumonia and bronchitis. He was attended
by Dr. Kemp and Dr. Elam of Sheffield, who, from the
dangerous state of the testator, advised his friends to inform
him that if he had any disposition of his property to make
there was no time to be lost. He was perfectly sensible,
although in a dying state. Mr. Pawley, one of the execu-
tors, and Mr. Stokes, his brother,visited him at his request.
Mr. Stokes took his instructions for the will, had it drawn
and executed, by which he gave all his property to his twin
sister, Mary Stokes, an idiot, for her life, and after her
death to be divided between his three married sisters, Sarah,
Priscilla, and Elizabeth, making no provision for his wife.
After the will was read and explained in the presence of his
mother, he having previously stated to his brother that, as he
thought there was no chance of recovery, he was desirous of
making his will, and leaving all he had to his sister and his
mother,'and nothing to his wife, as she had treated him un-
kindly, his brother advised him not to mention his mother
in, the will, and it was accordingly drawn out, leaving all
the property to his sister Mary, and naming Mr. George
Elshaw, the husband of one of his sisters, and Mr. Pawley
as his executors. The will was executed in the presence of
Mr. Huby, a solicitor's clerk. _ . .

: • The witnesses in support of the will deposed that at the
time the instrument was executed the testator was in a
perfectly sensible condition, although in a dying state. He
died the morning after the will was signed.

At the conclusion of the examination of the witnesses in
support of the will, the learned judge asked the counsel for
the respondent if they thought they could resist such evi-
dence.

A consultation then took place, when Dr. Deane said he
did not think he could straggle against it, and as the peti-
tioners did not ask for costs, he would at once withdraw
from the cause.

Probate of the will was then granted, the learned judge
remarking that had costs been asked for he should certainly
have given them, as there was no pretence for the plea put
on the record.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Commissioner Holroyd.)

PRIVILEGES OF M.P..S.

Mr. Chidley appeared in the case of a judgment sum-
mons issued against a defendant, who is stated to be a
member of Parliament.

The plaintiff's solicitor contended that Mr. Chidley could
not be heard unless the defendant himself appeared in pur-
suance of the summons.

Mr, Chidley said he was there to show that the summons
ought not to have been issued at all, as the defendant being
a member of Parliament could not be taken in execution,
and that no capias could be legally issued against him.
His Honour held that Mr. Chidley was entitled to be
heard on the point.

Mr. Chidley quoted the case of Cassaday v. Stewart, in
which a capias had been issued, and Mr. Justice Wight-
man set aside the capias as having been improperly issued.
He (Mr. Chidley) had argued is several cases to that effect.
His Honour said that the plaintiff oould not tako out a
capias or execution, and therefore was not entitled to call
upon the defendant to appear here—the summons wculd
therefore be dismissed with costs.