The Sun.
London, England, 1824-07-08 00:00:00

BROWN V. MURRAY.

This was an action against Mr. _Murray, the publisher of the
Quarterly Review, for certain alleged liheli'On the Character of
the plaintiff in that journal. The defendant pleaded .the gene-
ral issue, and aho a justification that the mattera set forth in
the article.complained of were true., Ott a fernier day- a rule
was obtained on his behalf to show cause why a commini,
should not issue to examine Sir F. Hanley, and Lord E.
Osborne, in 'the' lonian iilands, on a suggestion that they had
furnished the information in which the paragraphs were framed.
Against -this .rule the 'Costatox StimANT, and Mr.
itRqUGHAM now showed cause, expressing their conviction
that the distinguished persons referred to had not supplied the
matter complained of, and Urging that the application was made
too late, as the action was brought on tdie,29th April. They
also contended that, as it had been laid down by some Letirnid
Judges, therbefore a party published matter defamatory of the
conduct of another; he should be prepared with his witnesses to
justify it, the defendant could not now ask the means of 'ed.:
Eying that which he had ventured to publish. lf, however, the
Court should he disposed to make the rule absolute, they trusted
it would be on the condition that the defendant should admit
the publication of the article.
Mr. PARKE; in support of the rule, contended that the ap.
plication was made in 'time, us the is tie was only joined a day
before the motion was made. As he was proceeding,
The COURT intimated an opinion that the rule ought to be
made absolute, on the defendant. consenting to admit the pub-
lication of the article. _ " -

111 r. PARK): assented; and, on these terms, the rule for a
commission was made absolute.

IN THE NATTER OF nonEwr BRIG I, ESQ.

The COMMON SERGEANT, on behalf of this Gentleman,
who has been bound over to keep the pmee towards Lord Dan-
ley and his son (Lord (:lifton), and whn is now a prisoner it
the King's Tench- moved that he should be re-admitted to the
benefit of the rules,. which he had unfortunately lost. He ad-
mitted that this unfortunate Gentleman had- broken his reeog-
nizanees in respect of Lord Clifton, and that a scire furias had
issued against him for such breach ' • hut his affairs were in a
state of great embarrassment, and his only chance of extricat-
ing himself and effecting an arrangement with his creditors,

depended on the grant a that indulgence for which be now
prayed. If, indeed, this were not granted. he must probably
remain a prisoner for life.
The Co UltT expressed their regret for the situation in which
this Gentleman was placed i • but felt they could not consistently
with their duty grant the indulgence for which he prayed.
'This being the last day of Term, the Court sat till all the
motions were slisposad of, and did not rise till nearly 13 o'clock.

COMIT OF COMMON PLEAS, J tier 7.
f ie Beim.) •
PELHAM V. HA.YMIER AND OTHERS.
This was an action to recover 's. sum of money due from the
plaintiff and two others. The defence set up was, the Statute
of Limitations ; but on the trial it appeared that one of the de-
fendants had, acknowledged ,'es debt within six years. The
question now for the opinion ,irate Court was, whether this ad-
mission was sufficient to hind the ()thin' defendants.
The Loan entre JUiTICE atilt morning pronounced the
judgment of the Conn, which was, that the other defendants
were bound by the admission of one of them. This opinion,
he added, was founded on the nature of the Statute of Limita-
tions; the effect of an acknowledgment under that statute being
to revive, and not to create a proenlae to pay. The promise,
under the circumstances of the ctoe,...yas revived sufficiently to
make all the parties liable.
LADY sacToule D. rroorrox, XECUTOII.
•lu.-this case a rule was obtained yesterday by Mr. Sm.jeant
• TADDY, to *bow cause why judgment should not be entered
up de boiis testatorl.e, et, :I -d: b proprii,
Serjeant D'OvtY was this day about to show cause
against the rule, when the Court Intimated that it was unneces-
sary, and called on Mr. Serjeant Teddy to support the rule. It
was added, that the Coen rt,,e7,-; talten by surprise yesterday, or
they would not have granted the rale, as the practice in these
cases was quite plain.
Serjeant TADDY said, he did rtot mean to dispute the
practice, but he submitted that by'ell the eases on the point in
the bunks, on executor was never made personally liable for
costs, unless he had made a false plea, or had been guilty of
delay.
111 r. Justice flamEt.Er: ohierve;!, that if an executor pleaded
bene administrarrit, pra.kr a certain sum—namely, 101.—and
that verdict and judgment were giveh for the plaintiff, he (plain-
tiff') would be entitled to reetwer sa notch money as remained
in the executor's hand. The: keepine back of that sum even
for a moment was a delay for Which the executor would be
liable in costs.

The other Judges concurred In thisopinion, and the rule was
Ordered to be discharged. This was }he last day of Term.

PREROGATIVE COURT, JuLr 1.
Rica a. )!L•3HP,'TT.

On a former day, the evidence in this case was read and
Counsel- heard : it respects• the validity of a will made by a
Mr. W. Litchfiehl, formerly of London, upholsterer, who died
on the 31st of May, 1813, leaving behind him a property, at
the time of his decease, estimated to be worth 50,000/. (per-
sonalty), and a real estate of the yearly value of 3001. ; hut in'
the hands of the Accountant-General of the Court of Chancery,
.the accretions have enlarged the personulty to the amount of
70,0001. The deceased was a very illiterate man, and having
quitted business, retired to Hanwell, where he had an esta—
blishment consisting of one fttnala servant, and. a boy •who
took care of his horse and gig. • flis-,habits were extremely
penurious ; and he fowled, during his residence at Hanwell,
an intimate connexion with his servant, by whom he had an
illegitimate child, born in the year NM and baptited, at his
express desire,• by his own name " William Litchfield.",
There seemed to be a goad deal pf evidence to prove the.
decesSed's declarations of affection fur ,this son, of whom he
would often declare " that he intended .4'make a gentleman of
hint ;" and by a will made in Scptembeff 1807, he gave and de-
vised all his property and estate, real and personal, in trust for
the use and benefit of the said William Litchfield. On the
18th of May, 1813, however, abOnt a fortnight 'before the tes-
tator's death. he made another w:11, lead•lngtKkulk of his prn_
. put vAinpna iogion." ~.7-6...341k is Itataal Sonic
ortlie witnesses deposed, that the deceased bed always ex-
pressed himself in terms of great dislike- for his relatives, I,r.
tieuhrly his brother. But in the month of June, 11;13, pro:
bate cif the will of May preceding, was granted to Mr. Mushett,
One of the executors • 11411-1131 therein, and in March, 1821, Mr.
John Rich, one of the execators named in the will of Septem-
ber, 1807,..gited11.1r. Mushett into this Court, to show cause
why the rrobate that had been granted to him should not be
revoked, and lettersof administration, with the will cif Septem
her, 1807, annexed, to be granted to Mr,Rich. The principal
ground an which the validity of the Litter will is disputed, ap-
pears to be the asserted incapacity of the deceased at the time
.of its execution..

Sir JOHN , NICHOL'. gave judgment in this cause to-day,
and pronounced the will (of Air. Litchfield, deceased), dated
in 1807, to be entitled to probate. The Court, in an ela-
borate sentence which occupied fire hours in the delivery, (but
which, as it was a mere analysis of the evidence in
the cause, and as that evidence was of a description •en-
tirely uninteresting to the public, it does not seem neces.
nary to give a more particular account
of ), rejected the will of
11113, by which the deceased had virtually revoked his will of
1807, on these grounds—that intention was clearly &hewn in
respect of the will of 1887; that Ito case had been made out to
account for the alteration or that intention, or for the testa-
mentary dispositions exemplified in the will Of 1813 ; and that
at the time of executing the will of 1813, the deceased was in a
State of bodily and mental incapacity. The Court also decreed
probate to the codicils bearing date in May, 1813, to be taken
aped aria with the will of 1807.
Py this decision, Mr, W. Litchfield, the illegitimate child of
the deceased, conies into possession of a property amounting to
70,000/.
• SECONDARY'S COURT, JULY 7.
ItITCWELL V. POPE.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a respectable
broker and auctioneer, against the defendant, an attorney, re-
siding. in Chapel-place, Aloorilelds, to recover the sum of Bt3l.
for money had and received, and for work and labour done.
The various items of the charge were proved to be perfectly
fair, and the plaintiff
.iminediately obtained a verdict for the
whole, .with the exception of 301. being the amount of a bill of
exchange,. for which there was no evidence to prove that Mr.
Pope had received any value, or that it had been in his pos-
session,

CHERIFF'S COURT, Juur 7.
'PAGE V. CAPTAIW POBTER.
This way an action against the defendant a Captain in the
army, to recover 146/.-for millinery, "for which it was alleged
in the declaration he had made himself liable on behalf of a
figttrante at the Opera House.
it was proved, Unit the tief:ndant had ordered dresses, itc.
from the plaintiff, a dress-maker, for the Opera Lady, and the
Jury returned a Yerdict—Dainagm