The Sun.
London, England, 1822-11-13 00:00:00

NO

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1822.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER 12.
THE PORTSMOUTH CAUSE.

On the application of Mr. HORNE, the further hearing of
this cause was postponed till Monday, in order to afford suffi-
cient time for the affidavits on his side. The Counsol on the
other side agreed to the postponement.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he should expect sonic ex-
planation of the letter which Dr. Bankhead carried from Lady
Portsmouth to Lord Portsmouth.
There was no other business of public interest.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 12.
BATLEY V. SNELIIAM.

This cause was instituted by the trustees appointed under the
will of James Snelham, in order to obtain the opinion of the
Court as to who was-entitled to the property of the testator.—
Mr. Snelham directed in his will, that after his death his pro-
perty should be vested in trustees, who were to pay over the in-
terest arising upon it to his widow, and upon her death the
whole bulk of the property was to be given •to any child or
children begotten by him and his wife. In case there was no
such child or children, the estate was to pass to his sister,
Anne Goodyear.
Mr. HEALD stated, that at the time the testator made his
will, his wife had a male child six months old. This then in-
fant was now of age, and claimed the testator's estate ; but his
demand was objected to, because it was contended that the tes-
tator did not designate the child then living as his—no reference
was made to it, and the will expressly stated that only the child-
ren begotten by the testator and his wife could only inherit.—
Supposing it should appear that the claimant was the son of
the plaintiff, a question would then arise as to his legitimacy,
because his mother was the sister of Mr. Snelliam's former
wife; and it was doubtful whether, according to the laws of
Scotland (in which country Mr. Snelham married) a man could
intermarry with the sister of his former wife.
Mr. BELL argued that the intention of the testator was to
declare that any children whom he might have by his last wife,
whether illegitimate or otherwise, should he entitled to take
under the will. He probably doubted the validity of the mar-
riage in Scotland, and intended to resolenmize it in England,
without prejudice to the existing child.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR observed, that he could mt agree
with Mr. Bell in the view which he took of the case. lie could
not perceive that the child existing at the time the will was
made was pointed at ; there was no descriptio persona'.
Mr. BELT. said, that with respect to the otherpoint—namely,
the validity of the marriage—it could only be impeached on the
ground that it was contra bonus mores. The marriage took place
at Gretna-green, and therefore the question wofild turn upon an '
extremely difficult point of Scotch law—namely, whether the
marriage was void or voidable. In England it would only be
voidable. There had been contradictory decisions on the sub-
ject in Scotland.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR observed, that it struck him that
the law of Scotland differed from the English law upon the
point in question.
Mr. ROUPELL said, that in some cases an intermarriage
with the sister of a former wife had been deemed incestuous.

Mr. BELL said, the practice of the English and Scotch law
differed on this point, although they both professed to take the
book of Leviticus as their authority. There could be no doubt
of the validity of the marriage according to the English law.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR asked whether there was any proof
of the marriage ?
Mr. BELL replied, that it might be difficult to obtain proof
of the fact, inasmuch as the ceremony was performed by the
celebrated blacksmith, Joseph Pesly, who was since dead. Per-
haps, however, the evidence of the postilions who drove the
parties to the temple of Heymen might be obtained.
The VICE-CHANCEL Lon was of opinion, that it must be
referred to the Master, to inquire whether the testator was le-
gally married to the mother of ale young man who claimed the
estate at the time the latter was born. He would, however,
read over the papers in the cause, and if he could, consistently
with the truth of the case, make a declaration which would save
-the parties the expence of a reference to the Master, he would
state so on a future day.

COURT OF KING'S BENCII, WESTMINSTER, NOV. 12.

THE KING V. lIALSE.

Mr. Serjeant PELL moved for a rule to show cause why the
defendant in this case should not have a new trial. It was an
indictment for bribery, tried at the last Assizes for Cornwall,
when the defendant was found guilty. The bribery was alleged
to have been committed at the last election for St. Ives, when
Mr. Evelyn and Mr. Graham were returned on the interest of
the defendant, who was a Gentleman of considerable influence
and property. His first ground for now moving that the case
should be submitted to a second inquiry was, that the former trial
took place undercircumstances of great hardshipand oppression
—circumstances which tended at once to h armss th e defendan t,an
to preven t him from making the preparations necessary to the vin-
dication of his character. Indictments had been repeatedly pre-
ferred; actions had been brought against him; notices of trial had
been given and countermanded ; and it was not till the latest
period allowed in strict practice, that notice of trial was renewed
on the particular indictment upon which he had been• found
guilty. 'By this vexatious conduct he had, after suffering much
inconvenience, been led to believe that no trial whatever was
intended, and had accordingly omitted to prepare those full in-
structions which the case required, or to search for witnesses.
The indictment charged two corrupt promises, one made to a
person named Bennett, and another to James Richards. Ben-
net swore that Mr. liaise had told him if he doubled his vote
he should fare the same as at former elections; but this wit-
ness actually swore that he did not understand the allusion, that
he had no idea of a bribe, and that the conversation had no in-
fluence on his mind. Of this person the Learned Judge said,
that if the case depended on his testimony alone, it would be
entirely futile. And what was the evidence of Richards ? He
stated that Mr. Halse promised him " that if he would vote for
Evelyn and Graham lie should get double ; it would be a good
election to him, 401. or more." And this conversation his son
and his son-in-law attempted to corroborate by saying that
they overheard part of it, standing in a court-yard next
the house. Now there were affidavits positively stating that
before this time Richard had removed from a house with a
court-yard, to one which had no court-yard, nor any place where
a dialogue withiti could be overheard. Bennett had said that
Mr. Graham was present when the promise was made to him ;
but Mr. Graham had made an affidavit, bearing on it the stamp
of truth, that though he neither personally knew Bennett nor
Bennett's house, as there were many voters of St. Ives with
whose names he was not acquainted, he could state positively
that on no occasion did Ms. liaise use such language to any
one in his presence. Mr. Graham would, therefore, have been
a most important witness for the defendant ; but it was impos-
sible to anticipate that Bennett would swear that he was pre-
sent, and therefore no measure was taken to secure his attend-
ance in Court. He (Mr. Sergeant Pell) distinctly charged that
the whole accusation was the result of conspiracy, and he felt
as confident as he did of his own existence, that he should be
able to make good this assertion, if the Court would send the
case to a second trial.

The COURT said, that though they were exceedingly reluc-
tant to grant a new trial to a defendant who had taken the chance
of the result, yet as there seemed reason to believe that at least
the statement respecting the court-yard was incorrect, they
would grant a rule to show cause. It must be understood that
they did this only on the facts disclosed by the affidavits affect-
ing the merits, and not on the statements made by the Learned
Sergeant respecting the notices and countermands of trial. If
the defendant was not ready, he should have applied for a
postponement of the trial, and could not now ask to set aside
the verdict, because he had omitted to take this step at the pro.
per season.—Rule Nisi granted.