The Sun.
London, England, 1849-08-10 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Aug. 9.
(Before the LORD CHANCELLOR in private.)
DENTON V. NETTLEYOLD.
In this case the order which was made by the Vice-
Chancellor of England on Saturday last for the commit•
tal of Mr. Chamberlayne for the breach of the injunction
on proceeding to the trial of the action, was discharged
by the Lord Chancellor on Monday, his Lordship having
heard the appeal at his residence. The record of the
cause was withdrawn.

PREROGATIVE COURT.
(Before Sir 11. JENNER FUST.)
WISE V LEGG—JUDGMENT.
This case was argued before the Court in Easter term,
and judgment was given to day. The facts are briefly
these. The testatrix, Miss Lugg, had resided near
Penryn, in Cornwall, and died at the advanced age of 71,
possessed of considerable property, said to amount to be-
tween 35,0001. and 40,0001., the bulk of which she, by
will and codicil, gave to a Dr. Wise, who was in the habit
of attending her as a physician, to the prejudice of her
only nephew, the next of kin, and who now appear, d
before the Court in opposition to those papers, on the
ground that the testatrix was of weak mind, the weak-
ness having been increased by an indulgence in spirituous
liquors, and that therefore she was not capable of mak-
ing a testamentary disposition of her property.
The Learned JUDGE went through the whole of the
evidence, which has been already fully reported. With
respect to the codicil, he thought Mr. J. Lugg and his
son did not want it to be set aside, as under it they took
an increased interest. It would be for the interest of
those parties that this codicil should not be put on one
side. There was no doubt but the will was a valid in-
strument. lie (the Learned Judge) should now pro-
nounce for the validity of both those papers. Then
came the question of costs. life (the Learned Judge)
felt there was something like secresy on the part of Dr.
Wise in not having made any communication to the
nephew that the will and codicil were executed by the
deceased, and only stating that he had been provided for.
Under these circumstances, and considering the large
property Dr. Wise would take under the will, he felt
bound to allow Mr. J. Lugg his expenses, and to be paid
out of the estate.
WHITE AND TILEE V. GREVILLE.—JUDGMENT.

This was also a question upon the validity of a will.
This cause was argued in Easter Term, and the facts
have already appeared,
The Learned JUDGE said the testatrix in this case
was a Mrs. Emma Blaquier, a widow, who died at Bath
on the 4th February, 1847, having previously executed
a will dated 29th January of the same year, by which
she gave the chief portion of her personal property,
amounting to near 5,0001, to a Dr. Charles Greville, of
Bath. The question upon which the validity of this
will hinged was, whether the words " now standing in
the Long Annuities and elsewhere," inserted in the hand-
writing of Dr. Greville, were there previously to the exe-
cution. The words following, inserted in a blank, "To
Charles Greville, of Bath, M.D." were in the handwriting
of the testatrix, and were, therefore, admitted, but
there was no proof that the previous words were in-
serted with the knowledge of the testatrix. It was not
noticed in the attestation clause. The Learned Judge,
in going over the evidence, commented upon the facts
as he proceeded. The deceased had stated sho should
give her property to strangers, as her family was well
provided for, and that she was much attached to Dr.
Grevillo, with whom she had lived on the most friendly
terms, and had gone so far as to express a wish to
marry him. Mrs. Barnes, who was tr principal witness
in the cause, and who was present when the will was
drawn up by Dr. Greville, did not see the alteration.
After the execution, Dr. Greville said, " Are
you aware lam residuary legatee ?" when Mrs. Barnes
said it mattered not, she may make another will ; to
which Dr. Greville replied, "I will take care of that—
this shall be her last." The Learned Judge said the
onus probandi lay with Dr. Greville to prove those
words were inserted with the knowledge of the testatrix,
but neither Mrs. Barnes nor Mrs. Clarke, who attested
the will, spoke to the fact of its being read over to the
deceased. They attested that it was not done in their
presence, and, therefore, Dr. Greville had failed in proof,
and the presumption in law was against it. The Learned
Judge felt that Dr. Greville bad not established the fact
that this was the will of the deceased; that, as he had
thought proper to propound this Act, he must be at the
expense of the proceedings, having failed to establish
his claim. The residuary clause could not stand, but
probate should pass to the remainder, the costs to be
paid out of the estate.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Appleby, Aug. 7.

The commission was opened here late last night.
This morning, after attending diline service, their
Lordships proceeded to the assize court at twelve o'clock.

The caleiadar contained a list 01 seven prisoners, four
of whom were charg( d together with having committed
a burglary, ono with concealing the birth of a child, one
with larceny, and one with anon.
The grand jury threw out the bill for arson, and the
burglary was the only 'case tried, the other prisoners
having pleaded guilty. The charge of burglary pos-
sessed no public interest. The Court then tried a mis-
demeanor charging two persona with having sold bad
meat at Kendal, and this finished the criminal business
of the assize.

WESTERN CI RCUI T.—Devizes, Aug. 8.
(Before Mr. Justice CRESWELL.)
James Peirce was indicted for burgltriously breaking
into the house of Joseph Peirce, at Leddington, in this
county, and stealing therefrom fifty sovereigns and
seventeen crown pieces, his property.
Mr. Swayne conducted the prosecution; Mr. Ball de-
fended the prisoner.
In this case the near relationship between the prose•
cutor and the prisoner, who are father and son, made it
one of a painful nature. It appeared by the evidenc,i
that the prosecutor, who is an old man, had placed
ninety-five sovereigns and a considerable quantity of
silver money in a spare room in his house. 'the money
was in a box, and was saved up by the prosecutor
to pay his rent, he being a farmer. The prisoner,
who is a young man of thirty years old, and had,
until lately, always lived with his father, and
had assisted him in his business, of late had absented
himself from his father's house. On the night of the
27th of April, the window or the room in which the box
of money was was forced open, the box broken, and fifty
sovereigns and seventeen crown-pieces abstracted. In-
quiry was made, and it was ascertained that the prisoner
had been seen at a public-house at Swindon, about two
miles from the prosecutor's house; suspicion fell on .him,
and in consequence of some information which he received
a policeman went to Chippenham. On going to the rail-
way station he ascertained that a person answering the
description of the prisoner had Just taken a second-class
ticket for Bristol,
changing a sovereign to pay
for it. The train was just about to start,
and on search being made, the prisoner was
found in one of the carriages, and on searching him
forty-nine sovereigns and fifteen crown pieces were found
in a bag in his pocket. On being taken into custody the
prisoner said to the policeman, "Don't let any one have
the odd money, for that's my own. The old man can't
swear to the other. If I had known you were coming
you should not have found me." He also said that it was
an uneasy mind that led him to do it, and that the old
man had never behaved to him like a father, or it would
not have happened.
Mr. BALL addressed the jury for the prisoner, and
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL having summed up, e pri.
Boner was found Guilty.—Sentence deferred.

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Gloswsster, Aug. 7.
The business commenced here this morning at ten
o'clock. There were thirteen causes entered, of which
three were for special juries. The calendar contained
the names of 58 prisoners, of whom ten were from
Bristol.

None of the casos tried to-day call for a special
notice. Seven of the common jury causes have been
tried, four were virtually undefended, one was substan-
tially not presentable to a jury, and resulted in a non-
suit ; one was referred to arbitration, and one was
really fought.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

Mr. Miller, the relieving officer at the West London
Union, was summoned defore Mr. Alderman Moon, to
show cause why he refused to give relief to an applicant,
under the following► circumstances:—
Ellen Potts, a modest good-looking girl, about 18
years of age, stated that on Tuesday night she applied
to Mr. Miller to be admitted to the house, as she had no-
where to go, wishing to have shelter and food until she
could get a situation, but he refused to grant her request,
and said she must go to her mother's, which she could
not do, as they had had a quarrel about a shawl, and she
would not be let in.

Alderman MOON—Did you give her an asylum, Mr.
Miller? Mr. Miller—l did not, because she has go!
mother who takes in lodgers in Cloth-fair, andCahnsup
port the complainant; therefore I told her go home.
Alderman Moot—But she had a quarirei
asylum.
h her pa-
rent, and you ought to have given h
Mr. Miller—l was only sating under the instructions
of the board of guardians.
Alderman Moos—Can your mother support
from theortyou?
Potts—She cannot; she is now receiving relief
parish.
Alderman 2100 N—Is that the case, Mr. Miller? Mr.
Miller— -he does receive an allowance.
Alderman
Moos (indignantly)—Then how can she
support her
daughter ? You have a discretionary
power, and I think it a most cruel act of a man to re-
fuse shelter to a girl uuder such circumstances, and your
conduct is most disgraceful.
Mr. Miller—The mother--
Alderman Moos—Don't talk to me about the mother.
You may be a good badger for the guardians, but at
the same time a disgrace to human nature. No wonder,
when females are thus cruelly refused an asylum, that
so many should become prostitutes for the sake of ob-
taining that relief for which the ratepayers are rated so
heavily. There are constant complaints of your hard-
hearted conduct, which is a disgrace to human nature.
You have a trust reposed in you, and you ought to use
that trust in a humane manner, 'IA not as you have