The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-26 00:00:00

sert you." He then advised the girl to go to Exeter and
afterwards to Exmouth, to take lodgings there, and call
herself a married woman, and he would come /and see
her, and he gave her two sovereigns. The girl accord.
ingly m ide an excuse to her father, and went to Exeter,
where she stayed some time, and then she went to Ex-
mouth. The defendant had promised to send her money,
but he did not do so. She wrote several letters to him,
but he sent her no answers. Being in a complete state
of destitution, she at length wrote to her mother and
apprised her of her situation, and was taken back
to Dartmouth, but not to her father's house.
Shortly after her return she went to the defendant, who
endeavoured to prevail upon her to swear the child to f
some other person, and offered her
.50/. if she would do
so. The girl told him that if he would give her 50/. no !
one should ever know who was the father of the child,
but she could not place it upon any other person, as she
has! never known any one else. The defendant said he
would rocure the best barrister he could to get him out
of it. The girl was delivered of a female child on the
10th of April last, at a neighbour's house.
A very long cross-examination took place with the ob-
ject of shw‘ing her to be a person of immoral habits;
.but she solemnly denied that she had been on terms of
trupniper intimacy with any other person.
Mr. CROWDER was addressing the jury on behalf of
the defendant, sating that he could contradict the girl in
in many of her statements, when he was interrupted by
Chief' Justice WILDE, who said that the girl, by going
away, had put an end to the relationship of master and
servant. When she was brought back she was not re-
tained in her father's house, but placed in that of a
neighbour. She was not then able to have rendered her
lather the same services as she had done before. By
mutual consent, therefore, the relationship of master and
servant had been dissolved, and he was of opinion that
the plaintiff must be nonsuited.
Plaintiff nunsuitt.d.

July 24.
The Crown C.turt has been engaged during the greater
part of the day in trying ca'es which are unfit fur publi
cation, and Chief Justice Wilde was occupied in trying
causes of local interest

MIDLAND ClRGUlT.—Notti,gham, July 24.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Baron ROLFE and a Special
Jury.)
PICKERGILL AND WIFE V. BAGSHAW.

This was an issue directed to be triad. by Vice-Chan-
cellor Bruce, as to the validity of a will made by a gen-
tleman of large property, named Draper. Originally the
case was to have been tried in Lincolnshire, but the
venue was afterwards changed into Nottinghamshire.
Sir Fitzroy Kelly was brought down specially to support
the validity of the will, and Messrs. Whitehurst, Hum-
frey, and Mellor, to support the claims of Mrs. Picker-
gill. At nine o'clock yesterday morning Mr. Baron
Rolfe took his seat upon the bench, and the special jury,
with one exception, was full. It was understood that
various attempts had been made to settle the case, but
they were unavailing until they came into Court. After
one hour and twenty minutes' consultation in Court,
Mr. WHITEHURST, Q.C., the counsel for the plaintiff,
upon rising to address the jury, said—" Gentlemen, I
have the honour to appear upon this occasion as counsel '
for the plaintiff in this action. It is an action brought
by my client, the daughter and only child of an extraor-
dinary and eccentric character. It is scarcely necessary
for me to state that the action is one of an important cha-
racter, as it is of public notoriety, and relates to the
validity of the will of the late Mr. Draper. It so hap-
pened
that the lady whom I represent was in her infant}
estranged from her family relations. The testator made
a marriage which turned out unfortunate. He became
disgusted with his wife and child. He never acknow-
ledged his daughter, and upon his death he made a will
in which he left the whole of his property to his nieces,
to the exclusion of his daughter. After looking most
attentively at the evidence likely to be produced at this
trial I could not ask yeu to give a verdict against the
will of the late Mr. Draper. Tne testator appears to
have been a gentleman of great forethought, of great
business habits, and the will, except to the exclusion of
his daughter, is a very fair and good one. Under
these circumstances, I must say, the action having been
brought to determine the validity of this will, the oppo-
site party have evinced a liberality towards my client
which I consi ler commendable. Gentlemen, therefore
we consent to this will being established. It was drawn
by a gentleman for whom I entertain the highest re-
spect, and I cannot hope to ask your verdict to set aside
that will. Gentlemen, the arrangement made is con-
clusive. All sales of property which have been effected
since the death of the testator ate rendered inviolable;
there is to be no more litigation between any members
of the family, and my client is to receive a certain pro-
portion of the property under the arrangement."
sir F. KELLY—My 1.,,,rd and Gentlemen, I have the
honour, to appear as counsel for the defendants, and I
very much rejoice that you are relieved from any further
consideration of this important case. Gentlemen, my
Learned Friend, Mr. Whitehurst, has abandoned, with
great discretion. any attack upon the will of tee Iree
Mr. Draper. He feels, if I were called upon to establish
the validity of that will, that I am possessed of such
overwhelming evidence that I should be enabled to estab-
lish it beyond even an approach to a doubt. My Friend
knows perfectly well that the testator, although of
eccentric habits, was a man of extraordinary sagacity,
and likewise a men of accomplished business habits.
Under these circumstances, sympathising as we do with
the plat ititT, we have agreed to the terms which my
Learned Friend has just alluded to. Gentlemen, one
word in favour of the two Misses Grinshaw, for whom
really I appear. In consequence of unfortunate circum
stances connected with the tamily of the testator he dis
inherited his only child. The Misses Grinshaw, the chil-
dren of his only sister, were left by that will the possessors
of his property, with the remainder to their children, and
various other remainders I need not mention. But these
young ladies possessing this property have always felt
most anxious that their cousin, the daughter of the late
Ur. Draper, should be well provided for. They have at
all times expressed a most earnest desire that a hand-
some provision should be made for her maintenance;
they have aforetime proposed to do so, and they are now
prepared, the validity of the will being established, to
carry out to the fullest extent their wishes with regard
to the plaintiff. Gentlemen, the proposition is, that Mrs.
Pickergill should be placed in an equal position with her
cousins. The aextety of the Misses Grinshaw is that
they should not live and be maintained at the expense of
the only child of their uncle. And, gentlemen, Ido
again most sincerely rejoice in the hope that this ar-
rangement will put au end to all those painful and dis-
cressing differences which have existed between the
parties, and that they will become one happy and united
amily.
Mr. Baron ROLFE—Gentlemen of the jury, your duty
is a very simple one ; you will, it you please, find a ver-
dict for the plaintiff.
The jurystound a verdict accordingly.
Sir Fitzroy Kelly immediately left the Court for Lyme
Regis, in Dorsetsbire.
(Before a Common Jury.)
BROWN V. SANDERS.
This was an action in which the plaintiff, a victualler,
residing at New Basford, sought to recover the sum of
601. for victuals, spirits, ale, cigars, and tobacco, fur-
nished to the t rder of the detendant, an attorney of this
town, who pleaded the Tippling
.Ic;;and that he was
not indebted except for 21., which was paid into court.
['he plaintiff accepted the 2L. and joined issued on the
other points.
Counsel for the plaintiff, Messrs. Whitehurst, Q.C.,
and Mellor; fur the defendant, Messrs. Miller and
Ilacaulay.
Mr. WIIITEHURST. in sta'ing the case, said that the
plaintiff had, du ing the election in 1842, kept open
h ,use in the Conservative interest, and on the election
of 1943 the defendant applied to the plaintiff to keep
open hestse again. Plaintiff replied that he had lost
money by the party over the last election, and would
not supply any more ale or provisions unless Mr. San-
ders or some other individual would give personal se-
curity. Mr. Sanders, after some demur, consented, and
on Sunday, the 2d of April, gave an I 0 U for 30/.
['hey agreed, however, to date the instrument on the
Ist, under the impression (which was of course all non
sense) that it would not be valid if given on Sunday;
and, at the request of Mr. Sanders, the plaintiff was to
keep no books of the transacion, lest their car &date
should be again unseated for treating. In defence, the
had been
secondly,
passeddate ndant had first pleaded that he had not given the
order;
that ha
the
0 Tipplingrs a Act, an old statute
so to prevent people
from poisoning themselves with gin. By that law, if a
person gave trust for any quantity of spirits than
20s. less
20s. worth at a time, he could not r
The law, the Learned Counsel said,wovaserbtrhoeken amount.
time a person bought a glass of brandy-and-water; every
he proceeded, therefore, to charge Mr. S I ' and
he eras plea
with being the very reverse of honest or gentlemanly.
The following witnesses were then examined:
Benjamin Flewitt, of Basford, joiner, said,-4 am a
voter, and was so at the election of 1842 and 1843, I
know tee plaintiff. lin company with Wardle and some
others employed myself in looking out for voters. On
Sunday the 2d of April, I heard the plaintiff's house was
open." In consequence of that I went there the same
evening, and saw the defendant. He said something to
,
me %hen I went in. I stayed tbere that night and had
some drink. There were many persons engaged in the,
election also drinking there; amongst others Mr. San-
ders. On the following day I saw him there again. A
number of voters and runners were then drinking. I
said to him that we were not at all satisfied, and should
not promise our vote, until Mr. Brown had been made
secure. I said that Mr. Brown had not been paid for
the last election. He said we might be satisfied, as he
had given Mr. Brown an I 0 U for 30/. We continued
to go on drinking. I saw Mr. Sanders there every day,
and spoke to him once or twice. I have seen him
amongst the voters, and when I could catch one of the
opposite side we used to take him there, and endeavour
to persuade him that Conservatism was the best. I haye
seen as many as 30 persons present. They were eating,
drinking, and amok'
to call for. They itl*
They had anything they chose
the defendant last- kept Sunday
and going away. I saw
emorning at Old Basford. I
told him that I thought
and that I showd like to SS quite wrong in this mat-
ter,e to have it made up. He Aiken
me if I knew about dile I 0 U? I said I aid. He asked
me how I knew, and I answered,
himself. From what I saw, I could because
he had told me
would not be an unreasonable au m say that 501. or 601.
for what was con-
sumed at plaintiff's house.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mrsaza—l was not engaged
as a canvasser. I took it upon my own head. Mr.
Brown knew that on the Sunday, about 11 o'clock, I
was in the street near his house, and he came out to
speak to me. He spoke to rne first, and told me to go
round to the voters and get them to come. Mr. Brown
eves very active in collecting votes. I have never heard
him say that he bad paid for " detectors." I don't know
what "detector" means.
Mr. M on—Persons employed to go round and see
that there is no bribery in the other camp. I don't mean
yours, you know.—(Laughter.)
Witness—l know now. I never heard Mr. Brown say
that he hail pad mun-iy Lr that rturpee, and had not