The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-07 00:00:00

CAVE V. ROBERTS.

Mr. WJGRAM appeared in support of a petition which
raised a question whether the widow of an illegitimate in-
testate, who died without children, and therefore without
next of kin, was entitled to the ►hole or to a moiety only
of the intestate's personal property. The testator, John
Curtis, left the residue of his estate upon charitable trusts.
Part of the residue consisting of leaseholds in the nature of
realty occasioned the intestacy. The executors had proved
the will, and the question was now raised on the part of
the representative of the widow, who had since died, whe-
ther she was not entitled to the whole as against the Crown
claiming a moiety.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR, without calling on Counsel in
opposition to the petition, had always understood in what-
ever way intestacy arises if there were no next of kin the
Crown takes what the next of kin would have taken. He
considered the case as if the widow had herself obtained
administration.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 5.
THE KING V. JOHN MARSH.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved for a rule to show
cause why the indictment in this case should not be quashed.
There was an indictment against the defendant for solicit-
ing a voter, of the name of John Moore, to personate an-
other voter of the name of John Moor, at the last election
for Dover. The indictment was found upon the Ist of
January, 1836, at a Sessions at shich the Recorder of
Dover presided. That Learned G'entleman, in his charge
to the Grand Jury, told them that there ought to be at
least twelve of their number agreeing to find the bill, and
that would be sufficient to find the bill. He, no doubt,
intimated this upon the supposition that there would be no
more than twenty-three persons sworn on the Grand Jury.
There were, however, no less than twenty-eight sworn,
contrary to what the law prescribed, for by the law the
number ought not to exceed twenty-three. There were
twenty-five present when the bill was found, when twelve
voted for the finding of the bill and twelve against the find-
ing of it. This fact was clearly proved by the affidavit of
the foreman of the Grand Jury.
Lord DENIAN intimated a doubt whether the affidavit
the foreman could be used for this purpose. A grand jury-
man was bound by his oath to secrecy.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was prepared to show that
the affidavit could be used where the ends of justice would
be defeated by refusing it. In Sykes v. Dunbar (Selwyn's
Nisi Prius, 1075), it was said that the restriction as to the
grand juryman not stating what passed in the grand jury-
room was confined to the subject of the evidence there
given.—The Court granted the rule.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nor. 5.
GOODDY V. MUSGRAVE, GOLDSMITH, AND OTIIERS

Mr. KELLY moved for a rule to show cause why the
verdict had in this case should not be set aside. The case
was tried during the last Sussex Assizes, before Mr. Jus-
tice Bosanquet, and the ground of action was assault and
trespass. A verdict was entered for the defendants. The
plaintiff was an inhabitant of Sudbury, and the defendants
were the magistrates and certain constables of that town.
Prior to the election of 1835 much political,exeitement pre-
vailed in Sudbury, and party spirit ran high. Ho would
designate ono party as the " Blue," and the other as the
" Yellow" party. The plaintiff, Mr. Gooddy, belonged to
the " Yellow" party, and all the defendants to the " Blues,"
Mr. Musgrave being, in fact, the Mayor, and Mr. Gold-
smith a Magistrate of Sudbury. It appeared in evidence
that few days before the electioa commenced, and when a

close contest was anticipated, some of the voters belonging
to the " Yellow" party were, either by force or fraud, con-
veyed from the town in order to prevent them from voting
according to their wishes.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE asked whether the Learned
Gentleman meant to move on the ground that the verdict
was against the weight of evidence, or because of mis-
direction ?
Mr. KELLY replied that his motion was founded on
both grounds.
Mr. Justice VAUGHAN thought that at all events a new
trial could only be granted on the usual terms—on paying
the costs.
Mr. KELLY said that, as the proceedings of the defendants
were not only improper, but he would say criminal, he
hoped no such terms would be imposed on the plaintiff.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE observed that, as the evi-
dence was contradictory with respect to the material points,
it would be necessary for the Court to see the Learned
Judge's notes before they decided this case.—Motion ad-
journed.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nor. 5.
ADAMS AND ANOTHER V. OBRIEN.
Mr. PLATT said he had to apply to the Court for a rule
to set aside the verdict which had passed for the plaintiff
in this cause. It was tried at the last Surrey Assizes be-
fore the Lord Chief Baron, and involved the same question
as to the liabilities of the Westminster Reform Club with
that which arose in Mr. Hector's case.—Rule granted.
SAME V. RIPPON, ESQ.
Mr. PLATT had a similar application to make in this
case. It was an action against the defendant, as a member
of the Westminster Reform Club, to recover a bill for the
amount of 241. It was tried before Mr. Baron Bolland the
day before yesterday, when the jury, under the direction
of his Lordship, returned a verdict for the plaintiff for
71. 10s. He (Mr. Platt) argued at the trial that the de-
fendant, according to the rules and regulations, had ceased
to be, and could no longer be, considered as a member,
not having paid his subscription within the time limited for
the purpose.
Mr. Baron PARKE—Take a rule to enter the verdict for
the defendant.
BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE—HOLLOWAY V. ABEL.
Mr. GODSON applied for a rule, calling on the plaintiff to
show cause why the verdict had for her should not be set
aside, and a verdict entered for the defendant. It was an
action for breach of promise of marriage, tried at the last
assizes for the county of Hereford, before Mr. Justice Lit-
tledale, when the Jury found for the plaintiff, with 2001.
damages. The defendant pleaded first the general issue,
and secondly, a plea of infancy. The plea on which he
moved was the plea of infancy, and the ground was that
the verdict was totally contrary to the evidence. The cause
before it on the paper was an action against the same de-
fendant by the young lady's father for the seduction of his
daughter, which was tried the same day, and on. which the
jury awarded him 20/. damages for the loss of her services,
the young lady herself on the same day getting from ano-
ther jury in her action for an alleged breach of promise of
marriage the sum of 2001: In addition to this the defend-
ant, shortly after Miss Holloway had given birth to twins,
which she affiliated on him, was summoned by her before
the magistrates at session, and an order-of maintenance
made against him by a majority of the magistrates for the
sum of 2s. 6d. weekly. The Court would, therefore, see
that this was the third legal proceeding which had been in-
stituted against the party. At the time of the alleged pro-
mise, the defendant was a minor, and it ought to have been
found so.
Mr. Baron GURNEY—He appears to have been only
twenty years and nine months old.
Mr. GODSON—Just so, my Lord. In addition, he had
now an affidavit from the mother of the child of his being
only twenty years and nine months old ; and one from the
nurse, who had since been found, to the same effect.
Mr. Baron PARK—I shall take an opportunity of con-
sulting my brother Littledale, to know whether he is dissa-
tisfied with the verdict, and thinks it a wrong one.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Nov. 5.
A great mass of business, of no public interest, was dis-
posed of.

BARER V. HARWOOD.

This case, respecting the validity of the will of the late
Mrs. Baker, was brought before the Court.this day on the
admissibility of an allegation. Her former husband, Mr.
Thomas Edward Baker, died in March, 1833, leaving the
greater part of his property to her ; that she, after his
death, married a Mr. Harwood, one of the parties in this
case, and died, having bequeathed the property left to her
by Mr. Baker to her last husband. The will was opposed
by Marianne Baker, a cousin of the first husband.
The Court having gone very minutely through the alle-
gation, was of opinion that it required general reformation,
and decreed accordingly.

LADY BROWNLOW V. BLIGH.
This cause, concerning some testamentary papers of the
late Countess of Darnley, who died in December, 1831,
was brought forward to ascertain the opinion of the Court,
whether those papers, or any part of them, ought to receive
probate. The suit was an amicable one.
The COURT, on the prayer of Dr. Lushington, postponed
its decision.
In one of the papers left by the Countess of Darnley
and found by Mr. Duncan Bligh and Lady Elizabeth
Brownlow, the deceased directed her jewels, of the value
of 2,0001., to be disposed of to her Majesty the Queen, or
to the Princess Victoria, if a fair price should be given for
them by the illustrious persons named, the produce to be
laid out in the building of almshouses at Cobham, and to
provide an annuity for six poor widows for ever.