The Sun.
London, England, 1838-04-23 00:00:00

COUI?7' OF QUEEN'S BENCHi APRIL, 2

DAY V. SEALS.
Mr. Sergeant ADAMS moved for a rule to show cause trey
the verdict given for the plaintiff in this case should not be
set aside and a nonsuit entered, of ►: fit* trial granted. The
cause was tried at Warwick, when it appeared that thtl drfead•
ant was a carter, and he had been employed by the surveyor of
the roads of .t portion of the county to cart some stones to a
p.:rt of a public road, and to put them down there, it being the
intention of the surveyor to have them svread, for the purpose
of mending the road. The defendant did cart the stones, and
left tlicm by the side of the read. On the night of the 3(1 of
November the plaintiff, in driving by that part of the read in
his gig, came against one of the heaps of stones, their being
no light set near them, and his gig was overturned and hi►n-
'elf injured. He thereupon brought an action against the de-
fendant, and the Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The
Learned Sergeant submitted that this verdict could not be
supported, as the defendant wan not answerable for the stones
having been left in a heap on the road for some days.—Rule
granted.

BAIL COURT. •
Mr. CLARK SON applied to his Lordship to grant a writ of
Habeas Corpus to bring into that Court a young Mao named
Shaw, who was at ;;resent confined in Newgate prison, on two
charges of embezzlement. The affidavits on which the ap-
plication was grounded stated that the accused had been a
clerk in a solicitor's office in the Temple; that a short time
since be was prevented from attending to the business of the
office in consequence of his having been arrested for debt ;
and that when he subsequently returned, and offered to resume
his duties, the solicitor refused to allow him to do so, and
charged him IN ith having embezzled certain sums of money
received by him on their account. The object of the present
application was that the prisoner might be admi.ted to bail in
such an amount of recognizances as the Court might here-
after direct.
Mr. JUSTICE WILLIAMS granted the application.
BLENKINSOP V. ORPWOOD.
Mr. THESIGER stated that this action was brought to recover
compensation in damages for certain slanderous words spoken
by the defendant of arid concerning the plaintiff. The plain-
tiff and defendant were distantly related by marriage ; the
plaintiff having married the daughter of a Mrs. Holder, who
resided at Sevenoaks in Kent, and who was the grandmother
of the defendant. Mrs. Holder was for some time previous to
her death subject to occasional fits of insanity, and had at one
period been the inmate of a lunatic asylum. In May, 1833,
she was found drowned in a pond, and there were some marks
of violence about her person, but which it was proved were
occasioned by her falling against a post in the pond. A cco-
ner's inquest was held on the body, who, after the examina-
tion of several witnesses, returned a verdict of " Accidental
Death." Mrs. Holder left a considerable property among
her relatives, but the defendant was dissatisfied with the man-
ner in which she bequeathed it, and the consequence was a
law suit between the plaintiff and defendant. In June, 1837,
the plaintiff's wife died, leaving two children, a boy and a
girl, by a former hu,band, she being a widow at the time the
plaintiff married her. Shortly after the death of his wife,
plaintiff called on the defendant and requested he would pro.
cure the admission of the boy into the Somers' Town Charity-
school. He (defendant), said that he would not do so,
and. told the plaintiff that he had been the destruction
of his (defendant's) family, adding the words which formed
the ground of the present action, namely, " You drowned
my grandmother, and robbed her of her property. You
plundered my brothers and my sister. You know you
robbed the house of the property that was in it." A Miss
Pitman, who had accompanied plaintiff in his visit to defen-
dant's house, asked him if what he stated was true, and he re-
plied that in his opinion it was. The plaintiff subsequently
called on the defendant to retract the abominable expressions
he had used, and the defendant having refused to do so, the
only course left to the plaintiff was to seek redress for the
injury he had sustained at the hands of a jury of his countrymen.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS summed up the evidence. The
Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff,. damages 40s.

PREROGATIVE COURT, APRIL 21.
IN THE GOODS Or LADY MARY MUSGRATE.
Application was made to the Court in this case to grant its
probate to a copy of the will of the late Lady Mary Musgrave,
who died on the 11th of June, 1837, possessed of personal
property to the amount of 45,0001. or 50,0001. The deceased
made a will, which was dated " 14th September, 1829," and
inclosed it in an envelope which bore the date of the 15th of
September, the next day. This the deceased deposited at her
hankers, Messrs. Wright, Selby, and Co., Honrictta•street,
and a copy was made of this will, for which, in consequence
of the destruction of the original instrument, probate was now
sought. The testatrix subsequently made a codicil, in which
she referred to the original will as bearing date " 15th Sep-
tember," and this codicil she also deposited in the hands of
her bankers. On her death Sir George Musgrave called at
her bankers, for the purpose of ascertaining whether any in-
structions v,ith regard to the funeral had been left by the de-
ceased in her will ; and saw two papers, one of which he
(imagining it to be a duplicate of the other) tore up. This
paper destroyed by Sir George, however, turned out to be
the original will of the testatrix. The only question for the
consideration of the Court was, whether all the circumstances
had been fully and sufficiently explained in the affidavits.
The COCRT granted probate to the copy of the will.