The Sun.
London, England, 1824-06-29 00:00:00

71USISELL V. HALLAM AND HOPE.

This was an action by a widow, against Hallam, her land.
lord, and Hope, a broker, for a trespass. It appeared that
Hallam called for 1/. 13s. 4d., the rent of a room occupied by
plaintiff. This was on the 7th of August. Plaintiff said her
rent was not due till the Bth. Defendant Hallam called in the
other defendant, and made a distress. The rent was paid, anti
the action was afterwards brought for the trespass.
It was proved that the rent was not due till the Bth.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN, for defendant Hallam, contended,
that it was not a case where the plaintiff could sustain an action,
as she was removing her goods in order to avoid paying the
rent, when defendant stopped her.
Hope, the other defendant, addressed the Jury for himself,
and observed, that he had acted in the business by direction of
Hallam ; but that he only prevented the removal of the goods,
and did not distrain.

The Jury gave a verdict against both defendants, 'damages
405.; but it was understood between Counsel that Hope should
not be called upon to pay any thing.

ARCHES COURT, MONDAY, JuNE 28,
D ItirCE V. EIIiTCE. _

This was a suit instituted by Mary Anne Bruce, otherwise
Butler, against Tobias Burke, otherwise Tobias Burke Bruce,
for a nullity of marriage by reason of a former marriage; the
husband in this case was tried and convicted of bigamy at the
Old Bailey Sessions, and is now on board the hulks at Ports-
mouth. The first marriage took place in June 11115, and the
parties cohabited together subsequently, the zesult of which
was the birth of two children. . . .

Dr. PICKARD, on behalf of the husband, made objections to-
the admissibility of the libel, on account of the too general
terms of the charge relating to the former marriage, the birth
and baptism of the children.
Dr. LUSHINGTON and Dr. DODSON argued on behalf of
the wife.
Sir JOHN NICHOL, in delivering his judgment, observed
that if the articles were of ,too general a nature, the defendat►t
must be supposed to know the circumstances of the first mar-
riage much better e.an the party instituting this suit; and,
therefore, he might, if he could, have contradicted the ,facts
pleaded against him ; and as the admission of this allegation
would only go so far as to bring forward all the evidence new
cessary to the cause, he ordered it to be admitted accordingly.

PREROGA/IVE COURT, JUNE 28.
GRIFFITH, ATTORNEY OF GRIFFITH, V. LANE.
This was a case arising on a testamentary paper written by
the late Thomas Howard Griffith, Esq. (who, as our readers
must recollect, was shot on the 23d of June, 1823, by his son
Abel), and who died possessed of very considerable property,
chiefly in the West Indies.
An allegation was some time since given in by Mrs. Jane
Brandford, a daughter of the deceased Thos. H. Griffith, pro-,
pounding this testamentary paper, hut the Court then intimat-
ed that it should be more fully furnished with 'facts- it had
therefore been Withdrawn, and was now brought'forward
again in a more lengthened state, comprising twenty articles.
The allegation stated that the deceased having separated from
his wife some time before 1809, went over to Barbadoes, taking
with him his favourite daughter Jane, who afterwards married
there with his entire approbation. In August, 1821, he left
Barhadoes, and having just then had a slight dispute with his
daughter Jane, he made anti duly executed a will not yarticu
larly in her favour. He appears at different times to Nave dis-
agreed with most of his other children, Thomas, William,
Charles, Daniel, Lucy, and Abel ; but after his return to Eng_
land he became reconciled to Mrs.l3randford, and her husband's
affairs becoming embarrassed, he expressed a strong desire to do
something for their relief. The allegation went on to plead a
variety of verbal declarations by the deceased prior to the Bth
of June, 1823, that he would make his will in favour of his
daughter Jane anti her children, and after that day that he had
done so, and there was good reason to believe that on the even-
ing of that day he actually wrote the paper in question. It was
however extremely informal, neither dated nor signed, and full
Of alterations and interlineations ; and it was now urged by the
Counsel against the paper, that it could not be received to
proof under the principles by which this Court is regulated hi
cases of unexecuted papers, especially when they go to control
or revok' a regularly executed will, subsisting
time of the death among papers of moment. The Counsel on.
the other side dwelt with great force on all the particulars,
skewing the intention of Mr. Griffith that this paper should
operate: and kept at the
and the Court, after going carefully over the fact&
pleaded, declared that it would admit the allegation, but would
reserve its opinion as to the effect of the facts pleaded until it
saw how they might turn out in 10°°f*