The Sun.
London, England, 1838-12-01 00:00:00

IN THE GOODS OP MR. THOMAS NEWMAN.

This is one of the cases now of such frequent occur-
rence, in which wills have been executed contrary to the
provisions of the new Act of Victoria, and have conse-
quently been declared invalid. The deceased in the pre-
sen tinstance, a Mr. Thomas Newman, having previously
made several wills and codicils, executed the one in question
on the I Ith of September of the present year (the day of
his death), in the presence of two attesting witnesses, who
did not, as the 9th section of the Act demands, affix their
signatures in the presence of the testator, but retired into
another room for that purpose, and there, in the presence
of each other, signed their names.
The COURT could not, under such circumstances, grant
its probate to the paper.

SHAFT V. MAUT.

The deceased in this case is Mr. William Groom, who
died in January of the present year, possessed of property
to the amount of 1,4001. or 1,5001. He made a will in
March, 1812, which is opposed, on the ground of testa-
mentary incapacity. In March, 1813, being of unsound
mind, he was sent to a lunatic asylum, where he continued
until the time of his death. Allegations having been ad-
mitted on either side, a responsive allegation was this day
offered on behalf of the parties setting up the will, in
which it is pleaded that at all times previous to the execu-
tion of the will, and for a considerable time after, the de-
ceased was of sound mind ; that be carried on conversa-
tion, and performed various acts requiring judgment in a
rational manner—that he had acted as executor and as
trustee under several deeds, and that the will was entitled
to probate, a :the instrument of a capable testator. It
denied, also, the imbecility and the principal facts in
proof of it, pleaded in the adverse allegation.
Dr. ADDAMS opposed the allegation, on the ground that
fresh matter was introduced into it which, as it purported to
be merely responsive, must render it inadmissible.

Her Majesty's ADVOCATE supported its admissibility.
The COURT directed it to be resumed.
WINTLE V. WINTLE.

The arguments in this case were resumed. Dr. AD-
DAMS concluded in support of the will, and Dr, PHILLI-
MORE contra, was heard at some length, but had not con-
cluded when the Court rose.
SHERIFFS' COURT, INor. 29.
SANDAL V. CHARLES.

CONFLICTING EVIDENCE.—This WaS an action brought
by the defendant, an undertaker, to recover the sum of
51. 4s. of the defendant, Mrs. Charles, for burying a person
of the name of Burroughs.
Mr. RoBINSoN stated the case. The brother of the
person buried applied to the plaintiff to perform the
funeral ; the plaintiff declined, and Mrs. Charles, the de-
fendant became security for the burial, which took place in
due order. The plea on the part of the defendant was
that she was not indebted.

W• ••••••
Henry Vere examined—l have been foreman to the
plaintiff twenty-one years. I received orders from Mrs.
Charles for the funeral of Mr. Burroughs. The funeral
was performed as desired. I have called on Mrs. Charles
three or four times for the debt. She told me that she had
not the money to pay it with, but that she expected some
money for a bill, and that upon receiving it she would pay
the debt. He was cross-examined.

John Fox, a collector, swore that be had called upon
Mrs. Charles 40 times ; that he had seen her upon several
occasions, and that she promised to pay the money. He
bad never asked for Mr. Burroughs.
For the defence, Mr. Thomas Burroughs, the brother
of the person buried by the plaintiff, was called. He swore
positively that he gave the order for the burial of his
brother to the plaintiff in person, and that he never went
with the witness Vere to Mrs. Charles's ; after the burial he
saw the plaintiff, who asked him for the money. He hat:
offered to pay the debt and costs to the plaintiff's attorney,
who refused to accept the money.
Martha Charles, daughter of the defendant examined—
The witness Vere called several times at my mother's. He
always asked for Mr. Burroughs. He never asked for my
mother. The witness Fox called several times and asked
for Mr. Burroughs.
The Learned UNDER-SHERRIFF summed up, and the
jury, after a short consultation, found a verdict for the
plaintiff.

SECONDARIES' OFFICE, Nov. 30.
POWELL V. KETTLE.

This was an action for assault and false imprisonment.
Mr. C. JONES, in stating the case, said the plaintiff was
a cattle-dealer, residing at Mitcham, and the defendant a
most respectable dealer in horses, at Croydon. Both of
them had for years past frequently attended Croydon-
market, where they were well known. On the 25th of
August last (market-day) defendant spoke to plaintiff in
the High-street, used opprobrious language towards him.
and charged plaintiff with having robbed him of 2s. After
having done this, he called one of the constables of the town,
and charged him to take plaintiff into custody for the
alleged felony. The constable urged upon the defendant
the propriety of obtaining a warrant from the Magis-
trates ; the defendant would not attend to such advice,
and plaintiff was accordingly taken before Mr. Suther-
land, the Magistrate, a crowd following the parties
through the town. The charge was gone into, and
it appeared that, on the 18th of August, plaintiff and de-
fendant made a bet with each other, and placed 10s, in the
lands of a stake-holder. A dispute arose, the stake-holder
threw the money down, and the plaintiff, having secured
7s. of the sum, said he should keep it, as defendant had
betted he could prove certain charges against him, and he
should wait and see if be was able to do so, and that if he
could not, which be (defendant) knew he could not,
\would lose his bet. The Magistrate, at once, dismissed
the case. It wds for the injury that the plaintiff had suf.
fee:ltl through this proceeding that the present action was
brougt.
Mr. Lewis, the constable, of Croydon, deposed to the
facts as stated by Mr. Jones.
Mr. SHEA addressed the Jury for the defence. his
Learned Friend, much to his (Mr. Shea's) surprise, ha,l
not attempted to prove the abusive language which he
Mated had been proved before the Magistrate. No special
damage had been suffered by defendant, otherwise he
would have proved it. Both parties were well known in
Croydon, and the charge was, therefoee, not likely to ha
iejurious to the plaintiff. It was admitted that the plain-
tiff had taken is., and it did not appear that the 2s. had
been returned.
The SECONDARY summed up, aid the Jury found for
the plaintiff—Damages 101.
plaintiff—" Gentlemen, I am very tanal obliged to
you; I 4m very much injured."—(Loud laughter.;

4CRIMINAL COURT.-(YESTERDAY.)

'THE LATE MURDER AT SHADWELL.—In this case'
which was not concluded at the time of our going to press
yesterday, the Jury returned the following verdict
-Robertson, Guilty of Manslaughter ; Collins, Guilty ; and
at the same time recommended them to mercy.
The Court sentenced Robertson to twelve months' im-
prisonment, and Collins to seven years' transportation.
POST-OFFICE i onezny,—James Hart, a letter-carrier,
whose case recently appeared in our police reports, retracted
his plea of " Not Guiliy," and pleaded " Guilty" to steal-
ing a letter, the property of the Postmaster-General, the
rost-office having abandoned the more zerious charge of
embezzlement. He was sentenced to two years' imprison-
ment.
FORGERY.—Robert Alexander, a genteel looking lad,
was indicted for forging an order for the payment of the
sum of 301., with intent to defraud William Henry Shrub:
sole. The prisoner was also charged with feloniously ut-
tering the order in question.
It appeared from the statement of the prosecutor, :yho
is a tavern-keeper, residing in Princes-street, Cavendish-
square, that the prisoner lodged at his house for some
days, and on the 10th of November the prisoner produced
a check for the above amount, which witness took, giving
for it money and goods. The cheque was afterwards paid
into the branch of the London and Westminster Bank. It
was, however, afterwards returned to him.
The cheque was here produced, and purported to be
drawn by Messrs. Alexander and Co., of Leadenhall-street
A clerk in the London and Westminster Bank proved
that the signature to the cheque was a forgery. The wit-
ness in reply to the Court said that the prisoner was, the
son of one of the firm of Messrs. Alexander and Co.
Mr. Robert Alexander, the father of the prisoner, and
one of the firm of Alexander and Co„ merchants, Leaden-
ball-street, deposed that the cheque produced was not in
the hand-writing of either himself or any of his partners.
It was a studied imitation, and he could not say that it
was the hand-writing of his son, the prisoner. He never
authorised the prisoner to sign any cheques. He did not
know where his son was until he was apprehended upon this
charge.
The police officer who took the prisoner into custody de-
vosed that the prisoner admitted that he took some blank
46ecks out of the counting-house when he left his home,
~ly one of which he filled up.
The Learned JUDGE having summed up the evidence,
The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty of uttering the
heck, well knowing it to be forged. They, however, re-
Ammended the prisoner to mercy on account of his youth.

The Court sentenced the prisoner to two ye ' imp ri
sonment. ..

DISCHARGE OP THE GRAND JURY.—Shortly after
wards the Grand Jury brought in the remaining bills, an:
announced that their labours were concluded.

Mr. Deputy Corney, the foreman of the Grand Jury,
said he was instructed by them to express their sense of the
services of Mr. Clarke, the clerk ci arraigns, who by his
advice and assistance lessened materially the labours of the
Grand Jury. He was also instructed to advert to the in-
convenience which witnesses attending on the Grand Jury
were liable to from want of proper accommodation, and he
expressed a hope that the Corporation would take some
steps to remedy the evil. He was further instructed to
express the high sense which the Grand Jury entertained
of the services of the Metropolitan Police, not only in de-
tecting but in preventing crime.

The Learned RECORDER, after complimenting the Grand
Jury, expressed his assurance that the Corporation would
attend to the suggestion of the Grand Jury in respect to
the inconvenience which witnesses attending upon them
laboured under. He was also glad to find that the Grand
Jury felt it to be their duty to compliment the Metropoli-
tan Police, which he considered to be a most efficient body,
and he hoped that the Corporation of London, in the new
police force which they were about to form, would as-
similate it as much as possible to the Metropolitan Police.
He begged again to thank the Grand Jury for their sercices.
The Grand Jury then retired.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

WORSHIP-STREET.

Yesterday John Thompson, the master of one of the
Messrs. Pickford's passage-boats, was brought up for re-
examination, charged with having committed several rob-
beries of property entrusted to his care.
He was remanded for a week.