The Sun.
London, England, 1808-11-11 00:00:00

1,41 V REPORT.

COURT OF. COMMON PLEAS, Nov, 8.

RIC UT ON THE DEMISE tIF UN-ETT V. BEECH AND

ik .

This was an aflion. of ej:•titnent brought to 1.!-`
cover some lands in, Staffordshire, and. tried be!'
Mr. Justice L.V.yRENT, at Ihe I de Assizes, wi'en
a vcrdiC,t was obtained by the Defendants.
- • Mr. Seritlal?l,::l EST, on behalf• of the Plaintiffs!
moved the Court to set aside the verdict, as being'against .evidence,, and in the obsence of proof-I‘l°
case had been tried upon fornicr ocbaston beforg
Mr..Justice4r;ahmattF., and a , verdid obtained for
the,Rlaaniff 14 tilt entire. satisfaction of tie Judge'
Qa. the late occasion the vertlia was the oppatit4
Way, andagainst the direct-ion of the Learne.l Jo*
who, tried it. The Plaintiff claimed 'the prop4-ti
under the: will of one Haddcrton, who died in 1.802'
having made the will iii question in 179 -At the
period of the testator's death, a Mr. Goodall assisted
in searching for the will, .and was seen to put several
papers in his pocket,--which, he called securities, a"".i
'
sent a bag full of .writings to his lodgings, but ta
will was at that time found. Several years alter.vards-
it'was. discovered that• the will in question wa'
the. poSsession of Goodall; who refused to produce.
it, under various! pretences, 'until he was cited OY
the '.Ecclesiastical Court. When he did produce
it was cancelled. It was contended,,by the Defelid-
ant, on the trial, that the testator himself had one
celled the will in a passion, in consequence
ii supposed quarrel
_"between hint and the Plaintill,
about two years before the testator's death ; 'but it
.
was proved by the testator's attorney, that stlo°.**
quest' to this..supposed quarrel, the testator had 'lc:,
wally consulted hirn'on the necessity Of alteriaell
-will, in consequence of his sister's death, who a
life-estate underit. It appeared, also, from-a-fac
sill /44 of the will, that the cant:citation must 11'4'11
been a pretneditated act, done-with a pair of scisl.9l
or some sharp instrument, and' not in a fit of
passion.
CHLEF. JUSTICE. It appears that Goodall Wag
produced by Detend,ints on the first trial, but not,oll
the list ; this, is ground fur a Rule to shew Cause.
• Justice.CuAmeon. I remember Goodall '0
.produced very reltxtantly on, the first trial, and Pe;
DO doubt, will be produced, much more reluctanti /
•on -the next. • •
Couttr. : Take a Rule to shew Cause. •

NOVEMBER 9.
BAILEY ANj YOUNG v. SMITH AND PHILLIPS, LATE

HIGH SHERIFFS OF THE CITY OF LoNDOIsI.
This was a motiop for a Rule to shew cause °lc
the verdict • for the Jaintiffs' in this action should
be set aside, and a new trial directed.
The question at issue upon the trial of this cad-
se
. .
•was,-whether •the execution levied by the-Deo-1-d
ants, as Sheritfi, against the go,ids ut a persolirr
the•natrie of Tenant, or his bankruptcy, u ere P",°c
in point. of time ?" Upon the trial. it was proved
'the Plaintiffs, that the docket had been struck
the. Plaintiffs against Tenant, upon a debt
from the sale •of goods, upon one month's -cl':•14
and which credit was expired previous• to the iss`'lro.
the exeAnion. For the defence, a ptlrson w." j,
duced, who swore, that, in a conversation oy,(te
Mr. Smith, one of the firm in ,the hou,e
Plaintiffs, the Matter had stated the goodiHhad t*i);,,c
bold to Tenant upon a three months' credit-, bat tiost
notwithstanding he would issue a commission lig3ocp
hint ; and upon this the Jury found fur the 1-)°!eoitil
ants. Upon this motion the affkdavit of Mr.'°l pa
otated, that being. engaged in another partnerslliP'ot,
knew nothing of the sale, or its terms, to Te'Yto
and that he had never used thu words impute
hits.--Rule granted;

• GOLDSMID V. FARQUHAR. ,14
Serjeant .SHEPHEIW,itioved fora venile,ht
navy in this cause. The action had been br°,utter
against the indorser of a' note, drawn 30 days -00
sight; upon Oporto. It appeared m evidence' ear
• certain notes, of wine% this 'was one,. had bee') :wit
circuitously, on account of the war, and tirll,,`„ of
-arrival in Oporto, the French were in •possegs`",:„eo
that city, and the person on whom. they badd 'llllO
W dran was afraid to pay them : it also appeore'be,ell
if they lid • been'sent direa, they would haveover"
duly honOtired.. /The Jury, instead offinding,
diet either for •I he Plaintiff or Defendant, flga re
the' 'absence of •Sir James Mansfield, cvl)° mighttired before they could • agree, that the' 12.!!',-hey foe
have been seat to Oporto direa, and that !' This, i‘
'been sb sent they -would'have been paid'
bag"
was agreed.orr all•hands, .decided • notbins
'the parties. - granted.