The Sun.
London, England, 1838-07-30 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE.CHANCELLOR'S COURT, .le.r.r 28,
BOYD V. BUCKI.V.

This was a bill filled by the widow of a testator named
Boyd avainst the executers of her husband. Under tier mar-
, riagc settlement Mrs. Boyd was entitled to an annuity of 2901.
a year, depending upon a leasehold interest which expired in
1834. Her husband, in anticipation of that event, directed a
suffici-nt potion of the inco.ne of his estate to-be set apart to
cm.tinue to her the annuity for her life. The executors ad.
mitted they hat/ received assets amom•ting to 40.000/., but it
was alleged that, after payment of legacies and annuities to
other patties, there was not sullici,mt income of the residue of
the prop.rty (to which the widow was independently entitled
for life) to pay her more than about 2001. a year. Mrs. Boyd
prayed by the bill to have the deficiency made good out of the
capital, but an objection was taken for want of parties, that
the persons interested in the capital of the residue were not
parties to the suit.
His lioNoca thought the will sufficiently doubtful opin the
point to require the presence of all the residuary legatees.
Mr. KNIGHT BRUCE submitted, if the Bill were dismissed,
that Mrs. Boyd should have her costs out of the estate.
His HoNoutt seemed to think that reasonable, and the ease
stood over fur Mrs. Boyd to make her election.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

ROME CIRCUIT-
GUILFORD, JULY 27.

BASINGSTOKE CANAL CONIPANY V. TIIE LONDON AND SOCTII-

AMPTON RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was an action of ejectment brought by the Basing-
stoke Caual Company against the London and Southampton
Railway Company, to establish the right of the former Com-
pany to compensation for certain encroachments, which it was
alleged had been made by the Railway Company upon the
property of the Canal Company, in four different parishes,
lying in the course of the railway from London to Woking.
The case was expected to occupy a considerable time, but
after two or three witnesses had been examined, it was agreed
between the parties that a verdict should be taken for the
plaintiffs, subject to a reference to a gentleman at the bar.

PEAT V. ETTERTONI AND SOCART Y.
hid been
ern—isinaNtZeELsesrtvaicteL dnftliceolpolainluiff's case. The plaintiff
fortune residing near C.roydon, n‘i
but. hadttegrtuointt,eda
tgbeenstelermvicaen
in
f
the early part of the present year. Colonel Utterton's stable
h
having been entered on
e 9t t), hrecnorpre tlr Ot yt h
stolen
plaintiffthon.fl weiFan
se,bcarounas
ener
eys
hrp,
niace
undernd i
od
n in s ohtt mhah
de
robbery, saddles, harness, and other
i
robbery, and the defendant "Ms
police force at Croydon, es it wasYs'lwg le eda atactingthead of tEe
direction of Colonel Utterton, proceeded to London, took the
plaintiff into custody, and lodged him in the gaol of Cro}don
where he was kept during the whole of an intensely cold
night. The next day, however, the plaintiff was brought
before a Magistrate, and having satisfactorily accounted for
himself on the night when the robbery took place, and there
being no evidence to connect the plaintiff with it, he was
discharged, and brought the present action, as well to vindi-
cate his character as to recover compensation for the incon-
venience which he had sustained by his imprisonment.
Lord DENMAN left the case to the Jury, who returned a