The Sun.
London, England, 1838-12-11 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dr e. 10.

THE BIRMINGHAM, BRISTOL, AND THAMES JUNCTION

RAILWAY AND CANAL COMPANY V. LOCKE.

This was an action to recover a sum of 213/. for calls
made by the Railway Company, and not duly paid up by
the defendant. The defence was that the defendant had
not duly become a member of the Company, and that if
he ever had been a member, his shares had been forfeited,
and had Leen so declared by the Directors in the
manner directed by the private Act of Parliament
under which the Company had been established. The
evidence on the part of the plaintiff to prove that the
defendant was a member of the Company, was the common
evidence given in such cases.

Mr. Justice COLERIDGE said that he thought enough
appeared to show that the plaintiff had become a member of
the Company, so far as to be liab!e to the Company for
payment of these calls. On the other hand, the terms of
the secretary's letter requiring payment, and declaring that
a certain default would render his scrip shares forfeited, did
not actually forfeit them, but merely announced what would
be the consequence of a longer neglect. He did not, there-
fore, think that the shares had been forfeited, and lie should
direct a verdict for the plaintiffs, but would give the defen-
dant leave to move the Court for a new trial, should his
direction be deemed erroneous.
Verdict for the plaintiffs—Damages 2131.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 10.
DE PINNA V. CARROLL, KNT., AND ANOTHER.
The facts and arguments in this trial were given in our
report yesterday afternoon : the Lord Chief Justice after-
wards summed up the evidence, and left it to the Jury to
sly whether this deed was a bona fide assignment of the
property for the benefit of the assignee.
The Jury retired at half-past six and returned at eight.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 2501.

PREROGATIVE COURT.—DEc. 10.
IN THE GOODS OF THOMAS ANDERSON.
This is one of the many cases in which violation of the
provisions of the new Act of Victoria has caused the inva-
lidity of the instrument. The deceased being extremely
ill on the 25th of April of the present year, and very de-
sirous of making a testamentary disposition of his pro-
perty, sent for a solicitor, who sat up during the whale
of the night to finish the drawing of the will. The docu-
ment having been prepared, received the signature of the
testator. The attesting witnesses, however, were taken by
the solicitor into another room, to prevent, as he thought,
the unnecessary agitation of the deceased by their signing
their names in his presence.
The COURT could not pronounce for a paper not attested
in the presence of the deceased, as that was declared by
the 9th section of the Act to be strictly necessary, not-
withstanding the accuracy of the attestation clause which
had been carefully drawn out for the express purpose of
complying with the provisions of the Act, but which,
through inadvertency, had not been obeyed.
WOOD AND OTIIEItS U. GOODLAKE, HELPS, AND OTHERS.
This important cause came on for hearing this day. It
is a matter of proving, in solemn form of law, two papers
propounded as containing the last will and testament of the
late James Wood, Esq., the banker, of Westgate-street, in
the city of Gloucester. The papers are dated the 2d and
3d of September, 1834, and are brought into the Court by
the executors and residuary legatees named therein, viz., by
Sir Matthew Wood, Bart., Mr. Cliadborn, Mr. Jacob
Oiihorne, and Mr:: John Surman, against Mrs. Elizabeth
Goodlake, widow, lawful second cousin and next of kin of
the deceased, against the Corporation of the city of Glou-
cester ; T. Helps, Esq., Mr. John Philpotts, Mr. Samuel
Wood, Mr. Thomas Wood, and the other legatees named
in a codicil which is also propounded as containing the last
will of the testator, and which was sent to Mr. Helps, at
his house, in Bakham Hill, through the medium of the
threepenny post ; and also against Mr. Edward Hitchings,
who claims telationship to the deceased, alleging that he is
a lawful second cousin, and next of kin, and who has been
admitted as contradictor to the will.

Her Majesty's ADVOCATE opened the proceedings.
Dr. BURNABY, as counsel for the legatees named in the
codicil of July, 1835, thought it sufficient at the present
stage of the cause to put a direct negative on every one of
the propositions offered by her Majesty's Advocate.
Dr. ADDAMS, for the executors of the papers of 1834,
said that he had no objection to take the question, be-
tween his party and the next of kin, as a preliminary ar-
gument.
The Learned JUDGE said that the whole case must be
heard together. It was impossible to hear it by piecemeal.
All the facts were so blended together, that justice could
not be done to the parties unless this course were adopted.
Dr. PHILLIMORE, on behalf of Mrs. Goodlake, said that
the Court would sec the deep interest which his party had
in the result of the present proceedings.
Dr. CURTIES, for Mr. Hitchings, would contend that
under the circumstances there was net sufficient proof that
the papers (A and 13.) together contained the will of the
deceased, and that the latter being " instructions" for a
will, parole evidence to connect it with the former, was in-
admissible ; that if the Court did not go with him in that
point, that the papers drawn by a confidential solicitor,
materially in his own favour,and assisted by three persons un-
der his influence, must be pronounced against. He was
of opinion with respect to the codicil, without attributing
guilt to the parties producing it, that there was a failure of
proof, and that it could net be pronounced for.
Her Majesty's ADVOCATE then commenced his argu-
ments on behalf of the executors of the papers of Septem-
ber, 1834, and did not conclude till the rising of the
Court.

Dr. ADDAMS will be heard on the same side on the next
sitting of the Court on Thursday.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Dze. 10.
IN RE SMITH.
This person had been some time in Monmouth Gaol at
the suit of one creditor, whose debt he had declared he
would never pay, He had ample means, and the creditor
had under the compulsory clause obtained a vesting order.
The application was now for the assigneeship, which was
granted.

IN THE MATTER OF EDWARD GIBBS.
The insolvent had been discharged on bail until his bear-
ing ; he was, however, soon afterwards taken on a Court of
Requests judgment, and had remained in prison. It
should be known that the bail clause protects a person
from all executions, but the insolvent had taken no notice of
the circumstance, and had remained in prison.
The COURT told him he should have applied for as-
sistance.—He was discharged.