The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-05 00:00:00

THE BARON DE BODE V. THE QUEEN.

This well-knowncase is again before the courts, being
now brought on by writ of error against the decision of
the Court of Queen's Bench.
Mr. Sergeant MANNING commenced his address yes-
terday, and did not conclude till this afternoon.
Mr. Baron PARSE then said, the Court would let the
Attorney- General know on Wednesday, whether they
would require to hear him on behalf of the Crown.
In the course of the argument, Mr. Sergeant MANNING
stated that the money which the Biron claimed had, in
truth, been expended in the purchase of furniture for the
Pavilion at Brighton.
CORBETT V. PLATT.
Mr. Cobbett brought an action against the defendant,
who was the keeper of the Queen's Prison, for impro-
perly detaining him in custody. The defendant pleaded
that he detained the plaintiff by virtue of a warrant
issued by Lord Denman for the removal of prisoners
who were confined in the Fleet Prison to the Queen's
Prison, when the former prison was abolished. Mr.
Cobbett had been confined in the Fleet, under an orde r
of the Lord Chancellor for contempt, he not having paid
a sum of money for costs. The present action was
brought in the Court of Queen's Bench, when it was de-
cided that the plea was an answer to the action. Mr.
Cobbett then brought his writ of error in this Court, to
reverse the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, on
the ground that the plea was bad. Mr. Cobbett ar-
gued his own case in the course of last Michaelmas
Term. During last week Mr. Watson was heard on the
part of Captain Hudson, and Mr. Cobbett was also
heard in reply.
The Court to-day gave judgment, stating that all the
Judges who had heard the case were of opinion that the
plea was good, and consequently the judgment of the
Court of Queen's Bench would be affirmed. The war-
rant of Lord Denman had the effect of transferring to
the Queen's prison the custody of all prisoners com-
mitted under warrants, which were lawful upon the face
of them—if they were unlawful upon the face of them
the keeper would not be justified by Lord Denman's
warrant. The statute extended to all prisoners impri-
soned under lawful process. The justification of the
keeper depended upon the process handed over to him,
and that was the warrant of Lord Denman.
Judgment affirmed.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Feb. 3.
(Before Sir 11. JENNER FUST.)
SUSANNAH CROW, DECEASED.

Dr. DEAN applied fok probate to the will of the testa-
trix, who died on the 19th of December last, on the part
of the brother (there were also two sisters of the testa-
trix), who made affidavit that, in searching among her
papers, he found the one now before the Court, and that
it was in the same state in which he found it. This paper
disposes of the testatrix's property, said to be about
SON., but there were no executors named. Charles Crow,
her brother, mow prayed probate to be granted to him
upon giving security. This will was made on the 17th
July, 1837, upon her going to France, wherein she says,
this is my will "if I do mot return from France." But
she did return, and resided in this country some months
previous to her death. It might be supposed that those
words might imply some other disposition, if she did
return, and cited 4th Haggard's Reports, page 76.
The Learned JUDGE said it appeared that the testa-
trix left a brother and two sisters, who were next of kin,
and this paper was found in a bag, and signed by the
testatrix, therefore supposed to be entitled to probate,
but for those particular words, "If I do not return from
France." He (the Learned Judge) thought the case re-
ferred to did not bear upon this, best there was one in
the lst Vesey's reports in point, "If I do not return
from Ireland, &c." Under all the circumstances the
motion must be rejected.

JOHN BRIGGS, DECEASED.
Dr. ROBINSON asked for probate. In this case the
testator made absolute disposition of his property during
his life, of certain shares which were placed in the
hands of trustees, for the purpose then stated. The
Learned Advocate referred to the case of Tapley v.
Kent. _ _ _

The Learned JUDGE felt a difficulty in this case. He
did not know how to grant administration in this case,
as the absolute assignment had been made during the
life of the testator, though it was not to take effect
until after his death.
The COURT could not grant the application.