The Sun.
London, England, 1831-12-03 00:00:00

COURT OF C4kANC,ERY.-45FUIS IDAY.)

The LORD CHANCELLOR was occupied all day in hear-
ing appeals.

ROLLS COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

His Honour the IllAsTEit of the ROLLS sat to hear
causes to-day, but nothing of any public importance came
before the Court previous to our reporter's leaving.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY_)

BURDON V. WRIGHT.

Sir EDWARD SIJGDEN opened this case on behalf of
the plaintiff yesterday, and this morning Mr. COE,
who appeared on the same side, proceeded with the
reading of the evidence. This suit was instituted by
the heir-at-law of a Mr. Burdon, for the purpose of
compelling the defendant to deliver up a will made by Mr.
Burdon, the testator, by which certain property was given
to the defendant. Mr. Burdon, the testator, when alive,
resided at Schermer-Kill, in Yorkshire, and followed the
avocations of a schoolmaster, and being in the posses-
sion of a small copyhold property in that neighbour-
hood, the defendant entered into a negociation with
him for the purchase of it. An agreement was made be-
tween the parties for that purpose. The defendant, how-
ever, afterwards, considering that the execution of a legal
conveyance of the property would be attended with great
expense, proposed to the testator that all purposes would
be answered and expense avoided by his making a will,
leaving him, the defendant, the property in question.
The testator had no objection to the adoption of
this course, and accordingly the will was made, and
the consideration- money, forty-five pounds, wis
paid to the testator. Some time after this transaction a
new light broke in upon the defendant, and the truth of the
testator, as long as he lived, being able to revoke the will
and make another, depriving the defendant of the whole pro-
perty flashed across his mind, disagreeable feelings then
began to assail him, and in the dread of losing the pro-
perty altogether, he went to the house of the testator, express-
ing his dissatisfaction at the contract, and finally persuaded
him to return the consideration money. On the testator's
requiring the return of the will, the defendant
stated that by some means or other he had lost it,
butt that when it was found it should be returned.
The bill alleged that the will had not since been
given up, that the defendant still retained possession of the
property, and the plaintiff had been compelled to institute
the present suit, in order to have the will returned, and
the possession given up. Mr. Coe was proceeding on the
part of the plaintiff,with the reading of the evidence, when
The VICE-CHANCELLOR stated that he really could see
no doubt in the case, as it was perfectly plain from the
statements in the answer of the defendant, which were not
denied, that the will had been delivered by the defendant
to the testator, who had immediately re-delivered it again
to him. His Honour, therefore, felt himself called upon
to dismiss this bill with costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY,

LEVI V. USIIERWOOD.

The plaintiff in this action was a general dealer in Cain
berwell-row, Newington, and the defendant a silver
smith. The action was brought to recover damages for
an alleged false imprisonment. The facts of the case as
appeared from the evidence were as follows :
A person named Caddy, a flute-player, at one of the
theatres, had had some transactions with the defendant,
and the last one gave rise to the present action. He called
at the defendant's shop, and represented that a lady wished
to look at some watches and chains, as she wished
to purchase one. The defendant, on this, let him
have four gold watches and gold chains, and four
seals, amounting to 941. 19e. with him. On the
same night a person named de Burgh, called at the plain-
tiff's shop, and told him that if he called upon Caddy in
Adam-street, Adelphi, he would meet with something to
purchase that would suit him : he accordingly waited
upon Caddy, when he was shown these articles belong-
ing to the defendant. After a negociation he purchased
' the whole, as well as a pianoforte and a dressing-case.
The price he paid for them did not appear.
On the same night Levi pawned the articles at different
shops, Caddy absconded, and the defendant by some means
learned that some of his goods were pawned at the shop of
a Mr. Cameron, when he went and requested that the
person who came for them might be detained. Soon after-
wards Levi called at Mr. Cameron's to redeem some of the
articles, when he was detained, and Mr. !Isherwood sent
for. Mr. Usherwood wished Levi to go before a Magis
trate and account for his possession of the goods, which
he refused to do, en which he was given into custody on
a charge of receiving stolen goods. He was in custody
all night, and was taken before a Magistrate next morning,
when he was bound in his own recognizance to appear
when called upon. This was,the imprisonment com-
plained of.
Mr. GURNEY, for the defendant, would merely put it
to the Jury whether it was not clear that the plaintiff
must have been aware that the goods were not come
honestly by on the part of Caddy. He confidently relied
upon their returning a verdict for his client.
Lord TENTERDEN having summed up, the Jury gave
in a verdict for the defendant.
Mr. CAMPBELL said that unless felony was committed
by Caddy, the verdict must be for the plaintiff. He con-
tended that the charge of felony could not be supported—
at most it could only be a misdemeanour.
Mr. GURNEY said there were several cases in support
of the charge of felony.
Lord TENTERDEN would not at that time give any opi-
nion ; but he put it to the Jury, what their verdict would
be if the point of law was in favour of the plaintiff.
The Jury, after a short consultation, said that in such a
case their verdict would be for the plaintiff—Damages, Is.