The Sun.
London, England, 1840-11-26 00:00:00

CHANCERY COURT-(THIS DAY.)

The LORD CHANCELLOR sat in Lincoln's Inn Hall, and
heard appeal motions.

VICE-CHANCERY-(THIS DAY.)

His Honour the VICE- CHANCELLOR heard petitions.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

The MASTER of the RoLLs sat this day at his Court in
the Rolls-yard, Chancery-lane, and after hearing about 90
solicitors sworn in, proceeded with the short causes.

SEIMOUR V. BELL.

Mr. PEMBERTON, who appeared for the plaintiffs, stated
that the bill was filed by Lord George Seymour and Sir
George Seymour against a gentleman named Bell, for the
specific performance of an agreement for the purchase of
Norris Castle, in the Isle of Wight. Lord Henry Sey-
mour made his will in 1826, and devised his property to
the plaintiffs. His Lordship died in 1630, apd, after his
death, they put up the property for sale by auction. It
was not sold on that occasion, but subsequently an arrange-
ment was made with the defendant, Mr. Bell, for the pur-
chase of the estate for 16,0001. An abstract of the title was
delivered to Mr. Bell ; he expressed his satisfaction with it,
and an agreement was entered into by which he was to be
let into possession upon paying down 5,0001., and paying
4 per cent. interest on the remainder of the purchase-
money. He was accordingly let into possession, and was
about completing his contract when, unfortunately for all
parties, in passing over in a steam-boat from Portsmouth to
Ryde, he heard some idle report that Lord Henry Sey-
mour was not in a sound state of mind at the time he made
his will. In consequence of this Mr. Bell set up an ob-
jection that he had heard those rumours; that he bad re-
ceived two anonymous letters, which had been produced,
and required proof of the validity of the will, under
which which Lord George Seymour claimed. The plain-
tiffs had proved that there was never a more idle or
unfounded pretext. By his will Lord Henry gave legacies
to Lord Hertford, his heir-at-law, and other members of
his family, but bequeathed the bulk of his property to the
two plaintiffs. The Learned Counsel stated that his
clients had examined the Solicitors employed to make the
will, and every person who could give the least informa-
tion upon it: and they bad found not only that the will
was made after the most mature deliberation, but that the
reason why he had made it so favourably to his son, Lord
George, and his nephew Sir George, was, that they were
not in such affluent circumstances as Lord Elertford. In-
deed their case had been established in such a way, that he
(Mr. P.) believed that if the case were gone into, the
Court would order the defendant to pay the whole of the
costs of the suit; but, as, if such an argument were gone
into, the cause could not be heard as a short cause, and as
it was of importance to his clients to have the matter con-
cluded as speedily as possible, be was content to take the
decree without costs.

The MASTER of the ROLLS—Then you purchase celerity
at the expense of the costs.
Mr. PEmnEwroN—Yes, my Lord ; we give up the costs
to avoid the delay that would arise in the prosecution of
the suit if it was not now heard as a short cause.

Mr. KMDERSLEY appeared for the defendant, and stated
that Mr. Bell was about completing the purchase when the
rumours which had been mentioned reached him. After
due consultation with his legal advisers, and considering
the purchase as of some magnitude and importance,
Mr. Bell tlkubht it right to have a judicial inves-
tigation of the title of the plaintiffs, even if that
investigation should be at his own expense. He (Mr.
Kindcrsley) was bound to say there never was a case
more completely proved on the part of any plaintiff
than the testamentary capacities of Lord Henry had been,
and he was therefore perfectly ready to submit to the de-
cree. Justice had been done, by the other side, to the
motives of Mr. Bell, who had not required proof of the
validity of the will for the mere sake of delay, but in order
that all doubt respecting the title might be removed. It
had been agreed between the parties that the cause should
be set down as a " short cause," on the understanding that
the question of costs should not be gone into.
The MASTER of the RoLLs—By that arrangement the
parties purchase a speedy decree. Prima facie the plaintiffs
would be entitled to costs, but undoubtedly that is a ques-
tion which would require a great deal of discussion.
After disposing of the remainder of the short causes,
the Court heard Counsel on the part-heard case of Rad-
burn Jervis.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

( Sittings at Nisi Prius.)
( Before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE and a Cornmou Jury.

DOYLE V. WILCOX.

This was an action for an assault, alleged to have been
committed upon Captain Doyle, the plaintiff, in the hall or
Messengers'-room of the Army Pay-office, under the follow.
ing circumstances :
It appeared upontthe case for the plaintiff, that upon his
going, accompanied by two other persons, to the Paymas-
ter's office, to receive his half-pay, he was met there by his
wife, with whom he was at the time upon unhappy terms,
when the seized him by the cloak, and after behaving in a very
violent manner, fell down in a fit. His two witnesses
positively swore that the Captain offered her no violence
whatever. He took them with him, in order by their
assistance—one of them being known to her as his friend
and agent, he might avoid corning into collision with Mrs.
Doyle, as he anticipated she would be there to annoy
him. When he succeeded in extricating himself from her,
and got out into the street, the defendant Wilcox,
being a messenger in the office, followed him out
seised him by the collar and dragged him back into the
hall, and detained him whilst a police-officer was sent for;
to whom he was given into custody upon a charge of
assaulting his wile.

For the defendant, several persons who were present at
the time, messengers and clerks in the Paymaster's-office,
stated that the plaintiff shamefully assaulted Mrs. Doyle
upon her laying bold of his cloak, and saying " She would
not leave him until he gave her money for the support of
her children, as hi had turned her into the streets at
twelve o'clock at night." The Captain, they said, twisted
her arm round until she screamed with pain, and then
struck her a violent blow and knocked her down the stairs,
at the bottom of which she lay in a state of insensibility.
Several persons called out " Shame—do not let him go,
until a policeman is sent for." One of the messenger s, by
ender of a superior clerk, attempted to stop the
who however passed him, and got into the street. Witness
followed, and brought him back. The officer was sent for,
and one of the clerks (not witness) gave the Captain into
custody.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, in summing up, said that

the very circumstance of such a disturbance as the wit-
nesses on both sides had spoken tu, occurring in a public
office, was a sufficient cause to send for a constable, who
would be justified in detaining the plaintiff until the cause
was ascertained. But the defendant was not justified by
law in seizing and detaining the plaintiff, though he seemed
to have acted from a praiseworthy motive, and in a mis-
taken opinion that he was acting lawfully. On the plea
of justification, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to a
verdict, in such reasonable compensation as the Jury might
consider adequate. The fact that Mr. Doyle first as-
sailed the plaintiff, and if, as was stated by his witnesses,
he did not strike her, the Jury should take that also into
their consideration.
The Jury, after a few minutes deliberation, found for
the plaintiff on the first plea (the general issue). Da-
mages one farthing. And for the defendant on the second
plea, the justification of giving into custody for the assault
on Mrs. Doyle.
The effect of this verdict, under Lord Denman's Act,
is to leave both parties to pay their own costs on the first
plea, unless the Jadge certifies for the plaintiff that the as-
sault was malicious. But the defendant recovers his costs
in the second plea against the plaintiff.

EXCHEQUER COURT-THIS DAY