The Sun.
London, England, 1831-01-31 00:00:00

THE KING V. ORD.

Mr. CamenELL thowed cause against a rule obtained
in this case for a quo wurranto, calling upon the defendant
to show by what authority he exercised the office of Mayor
of Berwick-upon Tweed. This case has been several times
before the Courts, a former rule having been obtained and
discharged, but the Courts then gave leave for further
affidavits to be filed, and on which being done a new rule
was granted. The last ground of objection to the elec-
tion of Mr. Ord was, that he was not a householder within
the borough at the time he was elected, and, conse-
quently, according to the terms of the charter, ineligible
to fill the office. Mr. Campbell now contended at great
length, that ti.e rule must be discharged, as Mr. Ord re-
sided within three miles of the town, that he had at that
time apartments there, and was now a householder.

The ATTORNEY• GENERAL, with much zeal and
ability, argued in support of the rule, and hoped the
Court would not become a party to violating the terms
of the charter. It was clear that Mr. Ord resided at the
time of his election to the office of Mayor, at a distance
from the town, and such a circumstance might cause con-
sideraltle inconvenience in the administration of justice.
Lord TENTERDEN..4t is only three miles, Mr. Attor-
ney, and there is not much fear of any inconvenience.
The Court was wrong in granting the present rule.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL again contended that the
duties of the office might be neglected.
Lord TENTERDEN—There is no fear. You know there
is a high office in this country now most honourably filled
—(Mr. Attorney-General bowed)—that will prevent it.
The rule must be discharged.—Rule discharged.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved for a mandamus to
be directed to the Chancellor of the Diocese of York,
commanding him to decide on granting probate to a will.
The facts were carious. Two brothers, illegitimate sons of
a woman named Cooper, went to sea ; the eldest, before he
started, made a will of his property in favour of the
youngest, and the youngest willed the whole of what he
Amight be possessed of at the time of his death to his
mother. The ship that they embarked in for Dantzic
was never afterwards heard of; it was therefore certain
that she had been wrecked, and all on board lost.
When the mother applied for probate to the
youngest brother's will, a question arose which of the
two died first, and on behalf of the Crown it was con-
tended that if it was the youngest, then the property of
the eldest could not be passed by the youngest, as be
never was in possession of it. Under these circumstances
the Chancellor refused abjudicating.
Lord TENTERDEN—I remember the case; it is ex-
tremely desirable that the parties should come to some
acconstnodal ion.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that he appeared on
behalf of the Crown.

Lord TENTERDEN—Then, let the case stand over ;
and I hope the Crown will see the necessity of coming to
amicable terms.

No other cause of public interest occurred up to the
me of our reporter leaving the Court.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
ripe KING v. DIMOND.JUDGMENT.

Their Lordships-gave judgment this morntng in this case!
It was an action brought by theAttorney-General to recover
the probate duty upon a large sum of money left by a gen-
th man of the name of Penfield in the French Funds. The
testator died in England, leaving considerable property,
upon the whole of which situated in this country, bo
the probate duty and legacy duty were paid by the de-
fendant, who was the administrator. The testa-
tor had prof erty in the French Funds, to the
amount of 37,0001., which was sold out and distri-
buted among the legatees, paying legacy duty only, be re-
fusing to pay the probate duty. The action was then in-
stituted by the Crown to recover tb. latter duty, and a
special case was ordered, which was argued a few days ago
by Counsel on both sides.

Lord LYNDHURST in delivering judgment said, that this
was an action upon the Statute of the 65th George 111.
chap. 184, by which the stamp or probate duties wen•
regulated. His Lordship had no doubt that the fresh rates
were assets of the testator, but they were not within the
jurisdiction of any Spiritual Court in this country,
and therefore, the Court felt itself bound to
declare that it was property not subject to the payment of
probate duty. The verdict, therefore, must be entered for
the defendant.

Mr. TOLLETT, on behalf the Crown, prayed that tFe
Court would allow the point of law to be further discussed,
that was a privilege which the Attorney-General had
always been entitled to.
Mr. Serjeant MEREWETHER opposed the adoption of
such a course.

Lord Lyrrn nuasT thought the Attorney- General had
no such privilege without the consent of the Court.
Mr. Baron BAYLEY doubted exceedingly whether the
Court would open this discussion again.