The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-23 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-July 22.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before C. Cresswell.)
HAWARDEN V. DUNLOP.
In this case, which has been so frequently before
the Court, the plaintiff, Lady Hawarden, had in-
stituted proceedings for the purpose of obtaining
letters of administration to the effects of her
brother, the late Lord Elphinstone, as next of kin.
The detenaant, Mr. ueo. Dunlop, had propounded
a will by which he was constituted sole executor
and universal legatee. This instrument had been
duly proved before the Commissary Court of Dum-
bartonshire, but an appeal had been lodged by the
plaintiff, which is now pending before the Court of
Session. The defendant had been cited to pro-
pound the will in this Court, and he prayed that
the seal of the Court might be affixed to the confir-
mation grant by the Court in Scotland, which
would have the effect of proving the will according
to the Scotch law. Pending the proceedings an
arrangement had been come to between counsel by
which the suit should be discontinued, upon terms
to be mutually agreed to, and the Judge Ordinary
made a decree in conformity, to the effect that the
Court should affix its seal to the confirmation of the
Court in Scotland, on the understanding that the
litigants acceded to that course.
To-day the case was again brought before the
Court on a technical point, namely, as to whether
the confirmation should be delivered out of Court
with the seal affixed.
Sir C. Cresswell said he should have all the
papers before him, as well as those giving an ac-
count of what had taken place in the Court of
Chancery, and that he would give his judgment on
Tuesday next.
JAGO V. JAGO AND GRAHAM.
Mr. Bingham Daly made an application for a new
trial in this case, on the grounds that the verdict
was against the weight of evidence, and of surprise.
The particulars, which have been recently reported,
exhibited a discrepancy between the witnesses as to
the date of circumstances material to the issue.
Sir C. Cress well said that there was some ground
to suppose that there had been a failure of justice,
and granted the rule nisi for a new trial.
HEPWORTH Y. HEPWORTH.
This was an application for an allotment of ali•-
moray. The petitioner had become bankrupt on
the 10th March, and the respondent had been
allowed to put in her claim as a creditor for the
amount granted by this Court. Dr. Wombey ap-
peared on behalf of the respondent.
The petitioner, who appeared in person, stated
he had been put to such expense by his wife, that
if he should be compelled to comply with the order
of the Court, he would be obliged to leave the king-
dom.

The case came before the learned judge in the
form of a motion, on the part of the respondent, for
an order directing the petitioner to secure for the
further costs in the cause.
Sir C. Cresswell said he could not help the posi-
tion of the petitioner, and orders of the Court were
made in the ordinary way, and should be complied
with, and acceded to the application.
DICKENS T. DICKENS.
In this case an attachment had been granted by
the Court against the husband, who was the respon-
dent in the suit, for costs and alimony. In the mean-
time the respondent had become bankrupt, and the
wife had been allowed to come in as a creditor to
the estate; Subsequently an application was made
for sequestration as against the estate of the respon-
dent, and the motion stood over for the considera-
tion of the Court.
Sir C. Cresswell now delivered judgment, and
having recited the several dates of the orders issued
by the Court, refused to make any decree for seques-
tration, on the ground that no such order would
'have effect until the attachment was returned.