The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-08 00:00:00

iiiIITII v. LADIIROOKE.

The further arguments in this part-heard case occupied
his Honour the remainder of the morning.

(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. K. ButtsE.)
This was a motion for a new trial, on the ground that the
Lord Chief Justice, before whom the cause was tried, had
rejected evidence on the part of the plaintiff which was
essential, and which would have materially affected the ver-
dict of the jury. The facts were simply these :—The plaintiff
was next of kin of a person named Elizabeth Allen, who died
in 1840, and who it was contended was the daughter of John
Hollins, who was described as a substantial yeoman resident
in Staffordshire or Worcestershire. By this relationship she
would have Leen entitled to the property of a relative de-
ceased. Mrs. Allen was stated to have married a jeweller,
which match being below her rank in life led to a separa-
tion between her and her relatives, with whom all inter-
course from that period terminated. It was further stated
that Mrs. Allen lost her husband 25 years before her death,
during which time she was living in great indigence. The
evidence in support of the plaintiff's case was the statement
of the grandson of Mrs. Allen, who deposed that he had
seen his grandmother write, and that a document corrobora-
tive of the foregoing statement was in her handwriting, and
the depositions of a person named Loyd as to certain obser-
vations confirmatory of the same. The evidence rejected
were two declarations, one written by the deceased Mrs.
Allen, and another by her brother-in-law, as well as certain
interrogatories to elucidate the pedigree of Mrs. Allen.
The defendant denied the alleged -relationship, and the jury
found in his favour.

The case came before the Court last term, when the argu-
ments were concluded.

His Howovr. delivered judgment to-day, and having gone
through the short-hand writer's notes, the notes of the judge,
the evidence pro and con., affidavits made subsequent to the
trial, cum multis aliis, decided that there should be a new
trial on the second issue, on condition that the plaintiff
should sue in right of Mrs. Shields, as sole administratrix of
Mrs. Allen ; that Richard Hollins left Mrs. Allen clearly his
sole next of kin, or one of his next of kin, and that she was
entitled to a residue of his property.
The costs were reserved.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Before the LORD CHIEF BARON.)
BARKER V. BRADLEY.
RAILWAY AtovEnTisEmENTs.—This action was brought by
Plaintiff, an advertising agent, to recover 57/., being a
balance of a larger sum for advertisements inserted in the
various London papers on behalf of a company, called " The
Dutch Hanoverian Railway Company," of which the de-
fendant was a director and one of its most zealous supporters.
Mr. William Dickinson, the secretary, was called to prove
the orders for the insertion of the advertisements, and also to
establish the defendant's liability. Upon examination this
witness stated that all the directors, the defendant amongst
the number, had subscribed a sum of 101. each for "contingent
disbursements," which sum was afterwards returned on the
deposits being paid by the shareholders. Witness also stated,
and which appeared on the resolutions, that one of the di-
rectors, named Collins, had undertaken to get the adver-
tisemeuts inserted through an agent, the board undertaking