The Sun.
London, England, 1837-11-17 00:00:00

REED V. HARRIS.

Mr. CHILTON showed cause against a rule, why there should
not be a verdict entered in this case for the defendant instead
of the plaintiff, on the ground of mis-direction. The action,
which was tried before Mr. Justice Coleridge, was brought
by the plaintiff to revoke a will made by his father in favour
of the defendant, his housekeeper, on the ground of his hav-
ing been under her influence ; and it was also alleged that he
had repeatedly expressed an intention to revoke it ; that he
had repeatedly asked for it for the purpose of destroying it ;
and had on one occasion succeeded in throwing it on the fire,
where it was partly burnt; but being snatched hastily up by
the defendant, was rescued from total destruction. The Jury
found that the will was revoked, and Mr. Chilton now argued
in support of that verdict, on the part of the plaintiff, contend-
ing that under the circumstances the revocation was amply
proved, and citing numerous cases in which an expressed in-
tention to revoke, even without a destruction of the will, par-
tial or complete, had been held to be a revocation in law.
Lord DINAIAN thought those cases only went to this—that
parole evidence might be sufficient to revoke a will ; but then
all the facts must be laid before the jury, who are to draw their
inference.

Mr. CfmroN considered the jury in this case had distinctly
affirmed the animus revocandi to be proved by the circum-
stances of the case.
Lord DENMAN—No doubt a total destruction of the will
would be a revocation ; but if the will be only partially de-
stroyed, there may be a question if he has not altered his in-
tention.

Mr. ClTivrom—There is no evidence of that here. The jury
had,the question animus revocandi expressly put to them, and
they decided in the affirmative.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—Were any other words used by the
testator at the moment of throwing the will on the fire as to
his intention ?
Mr. CHILTON—No.

Mr. Sergeant PATTESON—Because I don't know of any case
at Common Law in which it has been held that a will has been
resolved by act only, without any declaration of intention.
Mr. CHILTON argued that in this case the intention was
abundantly evidenced from the whole circumstances:of the case.
Supposing the man to be dumb, the revocation must be by act
alone, without any word de presenti.
Mr. JAMES followed on the same side.
The case was proceeding, when our Reporter left.
In the course of the morning, a true bill having been found
against Captain Goode, for using threats and seditious lan-
guage against her Majesty the Queen, and in the presence of
her Majesty, it was returned into the hands of the Clerk of
the Crown Office of this Court. The case will, consequently,
come on for hearing in this Court during the present Term.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings in Banco.)
STHOTIIER V. HUTCHINSON.

The plaintiff in this case was nonsuited in a County Court
of Yorkshire by direction of the Judge, before trial, under cir.
curastances which did not this day transpire.
The plaintiff tendered a bill of exceptions for false judg.
ment, in the Superior Court, to which it was objected that
there could not be a bill of exceptions in a case where a writ o'
error would not lie.

Mr. ARCHBOLD supported the bill at great length, but his
arguments were too learned and technical to interest the public.
The Court delivered judgment also at much length in favour
of the bill and reversed the judgment of the Court below.