The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-02 00:00:00

LAW IN TELLIGENCE.

VICE- CHANCELL OR' S COURT, FEE. 1.
PEARSON V. SMEDLRY.
A person named Gartland Jones, an old bachelor of very
eccentric habits and considerable wealth, lived for twenty-four
years in the house of the plaintiffs, Pearson, a mason, and his
wife, at Matlock. By a dced made in January, 1834, a few
mouths before his death, reciting the fact that he bad lived in
the house of Mr. and Mrs. Pearson for the period already
mentioecd, and that Mrs. Pew-son had attended and waited
upon him during the whole time, and had used her utmost
care to make him comfortable, Jones made her a gift after his
death of all his property, which was said to amount to
50,0001. ; and the defendant Sim dley, a spar-turner, in the
same place, who was brother to Mrs. Pearson, was made her
trustee. A sum of 6,0001. which it appeared Jones had at
the time at his bankers, at Manchester, was transferred by
his direction into the name of Smedley, and this money
Smedley afterwards transferred to his own credit to
the bank of Messrs. Crompton and Co., of Derby. Jones
was a member of the family concerned in the house of Jones,
Lloyd, and Co., but had no very near relation. After his
death one of the film went dow❑ to Matlock, and inquired
into the circumstances, and gave notice to the bankers not
to part with the money. But after a full investigation all
claim on the part of Jones's own family was abandoned, and
Mr. and Mrs. Pearson were allowed to receive the property
unmolested ; and the bankers at Derby paid them all the
money in their hands except 1,0001., which they retained in
consequence of a notice to that effect from Smedley. For
the payment of this sum the present bill was filed, upon
which an injunction had been obtaiaed, and was still in
force against Smedley restraining him from receiving the
money.
Mr. Knight Bruce appeared in support of the bill, and Sir
William Horne was heard for the defendant Smedley.
His flosotot very shortly delivered judgment. All oppo-
sition had been withdrawn on the part of the family, and it
was an idle pretence to refuse to give up the thousand pounds.
It would be giving up all the rules of the Court between
trustee and cestui qui trust to refuse to make a decree as it
was prayed.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, FEB. t.
THE QUEEN V. HALL.
In this case, which was not concluded yesterday when we
went to press, the Jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Fier. 1.

MADDISON V. BACON.

This was an action brought to recover 1,0001., which the
plaintiff alleged he had lent to defendant. The plaintiff and
defendant were gentlemen resident at Bath, and had been in-
timate friends. The present action arose out of the following
circumstance :—An attorney of the name of Hale, the pro-
fessional adviser and intimate friend both of plaintiff and eke-
fendant, being anxious to raise a sum of 1,0001. for his brother,
Dr. Hale applied to defendant for that purpose, and induced
him to give his acceptance to a bill for that amount at six
weeks. It was with a view to take up that bill that the sum
of 1,000/. now in question, was borrowed. Hale had applied
to plaintiff on behalf of the defendant for the loan, which
plaintiff gave in two checks, one of 700/. and the other of
3001. as security for which Hale told him that he was to have
have a bond. Subsequently Hale became a bankrupt, and
the plaintiff then found that the only security was an I. 0. U.,
signed by defendant and addressed to Hale. Under these
circumstances the action was brought.

After hearing of Counsel, and the summing up of the
Learned Judge, the Jury found a verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, FJIII, i.
FENNELL V. STEWART.

This was an action of slander. The plaintiff is a picture-
dealer, and the defendant holds a situation in a piano-forte
manufactory. The defendant, having bought a picture, by
Gainsborough, at a sale for 671., sold it to the plaintiff for
1001. The plaintiff, after having it cleaned, sold it again, as
he said, for 2001. to a Mr. LAM It was concerning this tran-
saction that the words complained of were spoken.
Mr. KELLY, for the plaintiff, stated that the plaintiff was
greatly surprised to hear that the defendant had seriously as-
sailed his character, and used the following words : " Fennell
has robbed and swindled me out of that picture by Gainsbo-
rough." As the plaintiff knew there was no foundation for
such a charge, he had been obliged to vindicate himself by
bringing the case before a jury.
Mr. Baron GURNEY havinc, summed up,
The jury found a verdict for' the defendant.