The Sun.
London, England, 1863-04-18 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

COURT OF PROBATE.
(Before the Judge •Ordinary.)

CRISPIN V. DOGLIONI.

This seemingly interminable case was resumed again
this morning. There has already been a special jury trial of
portentous length, resulting in a verdict which decided that
the plaintiff, Francisco Crispin, was the natural son of a rich
merchant of English descent, at Faro, in the province of Al-
garve, in the kingdom of Poi tugal,by Barbara Julia Cortes,
the daughter of a barber in that town. The suit now comes
again before the court for the discussion of several legal
points; among others whether Henry Crispin,the plaintiff's
father, was by the law of Portugal of noble or plebeian
rank ; and whether a person of the latter description, with
a natural son, could dispose by will of more than a third of
his property ? The estate in dispute is said to be worth
about £300,000. It was contended that Henry Crispin was
not a noble, and that therefore his natural son had a right
to succeed as if he were legitimate. Before 1756 no Portu-
guese trader ever did or could acquire nobility; but by a
Series of statutes which were commenced by Jose 1., and
which continued till 1777, nobility was conferred upon the
members of certain privileged companies, and also upon
grossos trattos or wholesale merchants. It was denied that
Henry Crispin was a grosso tratto, because he sold goods
over the counter.

When the case will close is very:uncertain, as there are no
less than ten counsel engaged in it.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE,--This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

UNFOUNDED CHARGE OF ATTEMPTED HIGHWAY
ROBBERY.—George Mille, a respectable-looking young
man, in the employ of Mr. Anderson, dyer, of Howland-
street, Fitzroy-square, was charged before Mr. Knox with
attempting to steal the watch of John Joseph Parry, of 39,
Upper John-street, Fitzroy-square.
Prosecutor said that about half-past eight the previous
evening, having been out with some friends, he was return-
ing home along the Tottenham-court-road, when the pri-
soner ran up against him and seized his watch chain. He
immediately laid hold of the prisoner, and on a constable
coming up he gave him into custody, when the prisoner
said it was all a mistake.

Fieh, 331 A, said when the prosecutor gave prisoner in
charge he said the prisoner had his chain in his hand, but
afterwards, at the station, said he had his watch in hie
hand.

Mr. Knox asked if anything was known of the prisoner?
The constable said the police knew nothing of him, but
his master was in court.

Mr. Anderson, dyer, of 2, Howland-street, said the pri-
soner had been in his employ nine months, and he believed
him incapable of doing such an act as that with which he
was charged. He had always found the prisoner strictly
honest, and he had been working at his house till half-past
eight lest night

Mr. Knox said it was preposterous to think that the pri-
soner intended to commit a robbery. What did he find—a
young man of good character ran against by a half-drunken
man, who then fancies he is about to be robbed, and gives
the prisoner into custody for attempting to rob him. Not
only should he discharge the prisoner, but he thought that
if he brought an action against the person who had given
him into custody it would prevail.

Tho accused then left court with his employer.