The Sun.
London, England, 1837-11-06 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY—Nor. 4.
GOMPERTZ V. ANSDELL.
In this case, which was argued before the vacation, a
demurrer had been put in to the plaintiff's bill on the ,
ground that any bequest to him by the testator, Benjaniin
Isaacs, was void through remoteness. The property, which
originally amounted to nearly 50,000/,, has been the sub-
ject of much contest both at, law and equity, in cony!-
quence of the son of the testator having concealed the fact
of the illegitimacy of the grandson of the testator, who was
intended to inherit. The allegation on the rut of ti 0,,
Ansdells wits, that the words of the will were too vague to
carry the property over to the son of the nephew.
The LORD CHANCELLOR now gave judgment, and was
clearly of opinion that the I.Kquc'st could not be consi-
dered void on the ground stated by the defendants. Under
the circumstances of the case his Lordship, although he
overruled the demurrer, would say nothing as to costs.
STOCKS V. DODSLEY.
This was a motion made yesterday to refer a report of
the Master to be reviewed, although confirmed in the usual
manner by the Master of the Rolls. The ground of the
applicatio❑ was that the debt of 1,3001. referred to in that
report bad already been adjudicated upon by an award. His
Lord-hip, after an examination of the affidavits, affirmed
the order of the Master of the Rolls with costs.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'SCO URT. —Nor. 4.
BEALE V. HUME.

Mr. JACOB applied to dissolve the injunction obtained in
this case by the defendant. The defendant had carried on
the business of a chemist and druggist, and vendor of pa-
tent medicines, in Long-acre for many years, and some
time back sold the business to the plaintiff, a surgeon.
When the transfer was first made the name over the door
was " Late Hume and C 0.," and the same was painted on
the shop windows, and stamped on the labels for medicine
bottles and boxes, and shop bills. The injunction was ap-
plied for in order to prevent the plaintiff from using the
name of the defendant in any way in connection with it in
business ; but the Learned Counsel contended that there
was no ground for continuing it, inasmuch as the name
was used only to indicate that the business had formerly
been carried on by the defendant.
Mr. KNIGHT, on the part of tine defendant, contended
that the injunction ought not to be dissolved.
His HoNouß, in giving judgment, could see no ground
for assenting to the motion for dissolving the injunction.

COURT OF Q UEEN'S BENCH, Nor. 4.
WARMAN V. HINE.

Mr. HILL moved for a rule to show cause why the ver-
dict given for the plaintiff, with W. damages, should not be
set aside, and a verdict entered for the defendant o❑ one
of the issues. This was an action for a libel contained in
a letter written by the defendant to the Poor Law Com-
missioners. There was a plea of not guilty, and also a
justification, which, however, did not justify the whole
statement, but which took the sting out of it by justifying
the most serious part of it.--Rule refused.

BAIL COURT.
HORSE-RACING.-DAVIS V. WILKINSON.

Mr. TIIESSIGER said that this was an action brought to
recover 4951. on a promissory note given by the defendant
to the plaintiff for money lent. His client was a gentle-
man of high respectability, and formerly an extensive farmer,
and, being a judge of horses, had for years been in the habit
of frequenting the race-courses of Newmarket, Epsom, and
Ascot. The defendant was an extensive tradesman in the
city of London, and also an admirer of the turf, and from
that circumstance the plaintiff and defendant became inti-
mate. In 1831 they met at Tattersall's, and, the defen-
dant, being short of money, borrowed of the plaintiff the
sum of 500/. Having the highest confidence in the honour
of the defendant, no acceptance of I 0 U was given for
the money, and they met and parted as usual. No notice
of the debt was taken until 1833, when they met at Ascot,
and the defendant then gave the promissory note for the
repayment of this sum, and for which the present action
was brought.
After hearing evidence at great length,
The Jury retired, and, after an absence of one hour and
a half, found a verdict for the plaintiff for 400/.
The Court was crowded to excess by sporting men, gam-
ing-house keepers, &c., who appeared to take great in-
terest in the proceedings.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nor. 4.
KEMP V. BOWLES.

Mr. RAWLINSON moved for a rule to show cause why
the verdict in this case should net be set aside and a non-
suit entered, or a new trial had. This was an action tried
by the Under Sheriff of Middlesex, and brought to recover
the sum of 191. for the board and lodging of a child, and
for goods sold, between January, 1834, and April, 1836.
A verdict was found for the plaintiff for 13/. 7s.—Ru'e
refused.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Nor. 4.

WOOD AND OTHERS V. GOODLAKE, HELPS, AND OTHERS

This is a suit respecting the validity of a testamentary
paper propounded as a codicil to the will of the late James
Wood, Esq., the banker, of Gloucester. An application
was made to the Court on the last session to extend the
term of the Commission, which had been instituted for the
examination of witnesses to prove the facts pleaded in an
allegation brought forward by the'propounders of the paper,
which the Learned Judge granted, extending the term for
the closing of the Commission till the third session of
this term.

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE and Dr. LUSHINGTON ap-
peared this day on behalf of the parties named in the will,
and prayed the Court to rescind the above-mentioned or-
der, which they contended had been obtained upon exparte
statements. •
Sir HERBERT JENNER extended the perioi for the re-
turn of the Commission till the third session, by which time
he should expect that the examination of the witnesses
would be concluded.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

GUILDHALL.

Saturday the well-known Joseph Ady, formerly of the
Minories, was charged with defrauding Mr. Benj unin Am-
bler, of Bdes-pond, a bay salesman in Smithfield Market,
of 10s.

Mr. Ambler stated that the prisoner came to him in
Smithfield, and said if he would give him 10s. he would tell
him where he could obtain 3/. 10s. Bd. that belonged to him.
He asked him where it was to be received ? The prisoner
refused to tell him. He then gave him the 10s., and the
prisoner gave him a memorandum that the amount was due
to him, and was lying unclaimed as a dividend on a bank-
rupt's estate. Now, as he should have obtained this money
without any information from Mr. Ady, and as he refused
to i-:,,!arn the money, complainant gave him into custody for
the fraud.
Mr. Alderman WINCHESTEit said that it was a device,
but the matter being true it was not a fraud. It was like
the ease of the man who went to a publican, and, as if he
were about to impart a valuable secret, said if he would
give him a guinea be would tell him how he might sell more
beer. The publican gave him the cash, and the man then
told him to fill his pots.—( A laugh.)
Ady had paid six shillings to obtain the information, and
surely lie was entitled to be paid by those who were to reap
the benefit.
Alderman WINCHESTER thought be ought candidly to
state the plain fact, and leave the reward. to the generosity
of the parties.
Ady promised to consider that hint, and was discharged.