The Sun.
London, England, 1830-07-09 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

HIGH COURT OF DELEGATES, JULY S.
WYATT AGAINST INGRAM.
This case has been so often before the public, that
it is only necessary to say that it is an appeal from
the sentence of the Judge of the Prerogative Court,
by which the will of Mr. John Clopton, formerly
Ingram, of Clopton-hall, Warwick, made in favour
of a stranger in blood (Mr. Henry Wyatt, son of the
testator's solicitor and agent), to the prejudice of his
next of kin, was set aside on the Fround that it was
obtained by fraud and circumvention.
The appeal was some time pending in this Court,
and on the first day of Hilary term last, the Court,
after a long consideration, came to the resolution of
withholding their decision, without naming► a day to
deliver it, throwing out a suggestion that the parties
might come to some arrangement.
This day the Court assembled to give its sentence.
After nearly an hour spent in deliberation, strangers
were admitted, and the registrar read the result,
namely, that the Judges being divided in opinion, the
Court gave no judgment.
The Commission consisted of Mr. Justice LIT-
TLEDALE, Mr, Justice GAMER, Mr. Baron VAUGHAN,
(the three Judges from the common law Courts,)
and Dr. DAUBENY, Dr. BURNABY, Dr. GOSLING,
Dr. DODSON, Dr. ADDAMS, and Dr. BLARE, Surro-
gates from Doctors' Commons.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Jim' S.

John _Maley Lawrence, solicitor, late of Howard-

treet, Strand, applied Cor hia discharge. It ap-
ieared that he was a bankrupt in April, 1829, and
'is debts now amounted to 9,068/. Ile attributed

his situation to losses by had debts and expenses in-
curred in defending actions. To Miss Graddon,
late of Drury-lone Theatre, he advanced 1601., and
to her father 2604 none of which was returned.
Other persons be mentioned had left this country
considerably in his debt. The insolvent gave Hs
evidence in a very candid manner, and it did not
appear that he had concealed any property.—He was
ordered to be discharged.

OLD BAILEX, JULY 8.

TRIAL OF ISAAC, ALIAS IKEY SOLOMONS.

At five o'clock the RECORDER took his seat on
the bench, when the prisoner, Isaac Solomon:, was
arraigned upon five indictments, to which he pleaded
" Not Guilty." He was then put to the bar on an
indictment, charging him with burglariously breaking
and entering the dwelling-house of Richard Grow-
cock and others, about the hour of three oclock on
the morning of the 6th of January, in the 7th year
of the late King, and stealing therein 77 pieces of
lace, 43 handkerchiefs, 28 veils, 43 cups, 367 other
caps, 30 collars, 468 cap-crowns, and other goods,
the property of the said Richard Groweock and his
partners, within the city of London. _ _ _

Mr. eIARKSON appeared as Counsel for the prose-
cution, and in the course of his address to the Jury,
cautioned them not to suffer the very great notoriety
which marked the character of the prisoner to weigh
with them. The Learned Counsel then called the
following witnesses :
Harry Patches deposed, that on the day of the
robbery he was in the employ of the prosecutors,
and secured the premises in the evening, When he
left the property enumerated in the indictment safe.
On the Monday morning following he went to the
warehouse, which he found ransacked, and the pro-
perty gone, amounting in value to about 5001. The
prisoner was taken into custody in the month of
April following.

Mr. C. Pittaws appeared for the prisoner.-1
Witness was not the last person up on the night of
the robbery. A female was up af:er him. 'Witness
timened the outer door. The amount of the goods
found in the possession of the prisoner was about
lOU in value.
Jane Modes was a housekeeper in Lower Queen-
street, Islington, at the time of the robbery. The
prisoner rented a room of the witness, and used to
sleep at the house and have his meals there. The
officers came to the house, and found a quantity of
property, which had been placed there by the pri-
soner, which they took away with them from the
prisoner's room. The wife of the prisoner did not
live with him ut the house of the witness. The pri-
soner went by the name of Jones while he lived
with her.

James Lee, an officer of Lambeth-street police-
office, went to the house of Mrs. Llodes, where he
found a quantity of property, which was afterwards
claimed by the prosecutors. The property was tied
up in bundles under the bed. The prisoner was
then committed to Newgate to take his trial. It
was fully three months after the robbery that the

property was found in the prisoner's room. There
was a great quantity of other property, but no in-
struments of house-breaking were found.
Robert Davis, also an officer, deposed to the fact
of finding the property in the room of the prisoner.
The property now produced was a part of it. There
was a coach►-load of it found.

Sampson Copestack, one of the prosecutors, Wen-
iGed the property produced as part of that which
lad been stolen from their warehouse.

Benjamin Cockermouth deposed, that at the time
of the robbery he was u traveller in the employ of
the prosecutors, and saw a part of the property pro-
duced in their warehouse on the day before the
robbery.
Richard Smart—l was one of the under gaolers
of Newgate in 1827. The prisoner was in custody
of the Governor. Witness took the prisoner to
Westminster on Holy Thursday, 1827, for the pur-
pose of being bailed in the Court of King's Bench.
On the following day the prisoner was again taken
to the Court of King's Bench, but ho contrived to
escape. The witness then described the manner in
which the prisoner escaped, he (the witness) having
been stupitled by some liquor given to him.
The prisoner, m his defence, declared that be had
no share whatever in the robbery, and bad put-
chased the articles at various sales and in the regu-
lar way of his business.

The RECORDER lIIMMed up the case to the Jury,
in-the course of which he strongly remarked on the
facts of the prisoner going by the name of Jones—
secreting the property under his bed, running away
from the charge, and, although three years had
elapsed, not having made any claim for:the property.
The Jury found the prisoner Not Guilty.
SECOND TRIAL OF ISAAC SOLOMON%

The prisoner was again put to the her on an
indictment charging him with burglariously breaking
the
dwelling-lolnoutslem o7stheiVirli
and entering
kor Fzeiebirtailairdy,stienaltihneg Bthth° reyiena'r of the reign of his late
Majesty, 174 table•cloths, 6 dozen of napkins, six
ether napkins, 16 hats, three other pieces of linen, a
quantity of bed-linen, six pieces of silk handker-
chiefs, and divers other articles, the property of
David Law. The prisoner again pleaded « Not
Guilty," and was indulged by the Court with a chair.
In this case the evidence adduced to bring the
charge home to the prisoner in whose possession
the property was found, was that the property pro-
duced had been stolen from the warehouse of air.
Mackenzie, of No. 71, Wood-street, and about three
months after found at his lodgings with the other
property. In this case the premises had been en.
tered by a crow-bar and centre-bit, and property to
the amount of 2201. end upwards stolen.
Evidence was adduced as iu the last ease, of the
locing and finding a part of the Property, but no
feature of interest arose in the case different from
the previoue one.
The Jury found the prisoner Not Guilty.
The Court was crowded to excess during the
whole of the trials, the dock being crowded with '
ladies and geistlernert. The prisoner did not evince
that agitation on hearing the verdict, which he ma.,
nifeted on being first placed at the bar.
The two cases upon which the prisoner has been
tried urn considered weak, in point of proof, as com-
pared with the other indictments; oil 01-1„f which
it is said a conviction must inevitably i,oce place,
owing to the recent possession of the property by