The Sun.
London, England, 1830-06-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

HOUSE OF LORDS, MA .lir 28.

THE RoKEBY PEERAGE.

The claimant in this case is Matthew Montaguei
son of Morris Robinson, who resided some years ago.
in Chancery-lane.
The case on behalf of the claimant hiving closed.
The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that if the
documents produced were such as they were repre-
sented to be, they were sufficient to establish the
claim; but before the Committee could decide on it,
it would be necessary for them to inspect these dc-
cuments. He therefore moved that the further con-
sideration of it be adjourned until Wednesday,
which was accordingly agreed to.

PREROGATIVE COURT, JUNE 1.
HEADINGTON V. HOLLOWAY.
This was a question as to the validity of an alleged
codicil of Mrs. Elizabeth Headington, of Crispin-
street, Spitalfields, who died in March, 1829; and
it contained a bequest of a policy of insurance for
5,000/. on her life, effected with the Sun tire-office,
to the Rev. Henry Holloway, the son of her de-
ceased husband, and by whom the instrument was
propounded. Its admission to probate was opposed
by two of the executors under the will of the de-
ceased (the other executor being Mr. Holloway).
dated in September, 1828, on the ground that there
was not sufficient evidence of its being the act of the
testatrix, that the circumstances attending its pro-
duction were suspicious, and that it was at variance
with the arrangements made in the will for the be-
nefit of the residuary legatees, who were the two
sisters of the Rev. Mr. Holloway.
Sir JOHN NICIIOLLS did not think it necessary to
hear the argument through, and pronounced for the
codicil. As to the costs, it was the general rule,
that in such a case as this the costs should not fall
upon the propounder, yet considering the circum-
stances of this case, he should direct Mr. Holloway
to pay his own costs.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, JUNE I.
WEDLAKE V. HURLY AND OTHERS.
This was an action for money had and received
for the use of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff is a coal-merchant residing in Mon•
mouth ; the defendants are merchants residing le
Great Winchester-street, in the city of London•
Thomas Goold, a merchant residing in Cork, trans.
acted business with both parties, and in 1829 gave
a promissory note to the plaintiff for 1031. ss. 6d.,
payable at the house of the defendants on the 4th of
January last, on which day Goold sent a Bank of
Ireland bill to the defendants, payable in 20 days
after, endorsed by him in these words : -•••" Pay to
the order of MeEsrs. Charles Hurly and Co., under
a provision for my note to Thomas Wedlake, payable
at their office." The defendants received the amount
of this bill at the Bank of England on the 25th of
January, and the plaintiff applied subsequently for
the amount of the promissory note payable at their
house; but the defendants refused to pay it, though
they acknowledged having received the Bank of Ire-
land bill for that purpose.
These facts having been established by evidence,
Mr. Serjeant JONES, for the defendants, submitted
that the plaintiff should be nonsuited. He submitted,
that when a remittance was made to any person, it
should be applied according to the directions of the
remitter, and if there were no directions, the person
to whom it was remitted might dispose of it as he
pleased; but the directions of the remitter gave no
right to the party to whom the sum remitted was
made payable, to bring an action at law.
aonsuited. -n.

BOARD OF EXCISE COURT. 7. s'

John Fryer, a grocer, residing at 104, High-eireet,
Shadwell, appeared to answer an information for
having unlawfully in his possession 781bs.of tea with•
out the regular permit.
Excise officers deposed to finding on the de•
fendant's premises, on the 30th of April last, 78Ibs.
of tea in a chest, on which was cut in the number
4,210, and the initial I, purporting that it was from
the ship Inglis, and for which the defendant had ao
permit. The witnesses consequently seized it.
The defendant was quite innocent of any inten-
tion to defraud the Revenue. The tea had been
sent by Messrs. Nicholson without a perznit.--'
Defendant at the time remonstrated against receiv-
ing it without, when the porter said the permit was
lost, but he would petition the Excise Board and
that one should be sent. A day or two afterwards
defendant received a permit in a bluak sheet of
paper, sent by the two-penny post.
The permit was here produced with the chest of
tea, but they did not correspond with each other;
the permit of Mr. Fryer being for another chest of
tea, by a different ship.
Mr. Nicholson here earnestly begged to explain
the matter, and very honourably exonerated the de-
fendant (Fryer) from any blame. He, too, was
quite innocent of tke transaction, which had been
conducted by his clerk, who had admitted the fact,
without his (Mr. Nicholson's) knowledge. The
Court would, however, find that no fraud was in-
tended; for two permits had been taken out; but
from one being lost, his clerk had committed an
irregularity.
The COMMISSIONERS (Messrs. Parish, Plunkett,
and Harrison) said it was clear an offence had been
committed which required their serious attentions
The Court condemned the tea as forfeited, and di-
reeted Mr. Mayo to inquire into the mutter, and re-
port to the Board.

A ehalybeate spring has been discovered at
Cullinagh Lodge, Newcastle West, county Limerick,
which promises to be of much importance.—Tipperary
Free Press.

BIRTHS.
On the Ist inst. in Cavendish-square, the Viscountte#
Barrington, of a daughter.
On the Ist inst. the lady of E. 11. Blunt, Esq. of Ea+•
ham, Hants, of a daughter.
On the 26th ult. in Merrion-square, Dublin, the lady
of Sir Gerald G. Aylmer, Bart. of Donadea Castle, Kil-
dare, of a son and heir.

On the 29th ult. the lady of C. Deacon, Esq. of Wey-
mouth-street, Portland-place, of a daughter.
On the 30th ult. at Tunbridge Wells, the lady of Cu).
J. Nicol, of a son.
On the 30th ult. the wife of H. Buckley, Esq:, of the
Lawn, South Lambeth, of u daughter.