The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-15 00:00:00

HOPE V. HARMAN.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Alexander
Beresford Hope, against the executors of his late uncle,
Philip John Hope, to recover the possession of a large
quantity of jewels of great value, which he contended
were left him by his uncle's will. Two questions were
raised in the case—whether the deceased intended the

instrument by which the jeweli were ---------------
been demised to the plaintiff to have effect; and I
whether certain alterations which were made could be
considered legal, and consequently binding upon the
defendant, who was the deceased's executor. To the
verdict, which was for the plaintiff, various objections
were raised. It appeared that the instrument was nevi-
Out of the possession of Mr. Hope, the deceased, and
that the alterations referred to were attested by a
witness. The Court had no doubt that the deceased
intended the will for legal operation, whatever
the nature of the bequests might he. There was a cliff:T-
epee of opinion amongst the witnesses with respect to
the box in which the goods were deposited, and conse-
quently an important question was raised with respect
to documents, or other things, which betrayed a change
of outward appearance ; but an instrument, which
bore the signature of an attesting witness, ought
to be considered as regular in every respect, ex-
cept the codtrary was proved in evidence. There was
another extraordinary fact in the case, namely, that, the
attestation stated that certain words -in the margin of
the will were signed with the initials of the deceased,
when in fact it appeared that be bad signed his name
at length, but, nevertheless, that the additions were in
the signature of the deceased and properly at-
tested, was perfectly clear. Mr. Justice Patteson,
Mr. Justice Coleridge, and the late Mr. Justice Wil-
liams thought the verdict warranted by the evidence ad •
duced, and that it w.as the only verdict so warranted.
The Court, however, paused before giving judgment in
the case, in order that they might consider the number
of objections discussed, but par ticularly wheth,:r the in-
strument could be considered to convey anything, and
whether the attestation being only by one person, did not
invalidate it ; but the rule was obtained on the ground
that the verdict was against evidence, and therefore that
was the point which the Court was called upon to de-
cide, and they felt it impossible to come to the conclu-
sion that the verdict for the plaintiff was against the
evidence adduced. They considered, also, that there
was no misdirection, and therefore the judgment of the
Court was in favour of the plaintiff.
WILLIA3I3OII V. ILAGGARTH.

This was an action against the defendant for disposing
of turf to which he had no right. He had pleaded that
he acted under the instructions of another, and a rule
for a new trial was sought.
The Cot= acceded to the application, and considered
that the defendant should offer a plea of abatement.
SMITH V. HOPPER. _

This was an action against the defendant to recover
damages for breaking the plaintiff's gates, and a verdict
was found for him with considerable damages. The de;end-
an t claimed a nonsuit on the ground that he had not re-
ceived the notice of the action specified in conformity
with the Highway Act. The defendant contended that
he had acted bona fide, but several cases went to show
that bona fide was not sufficient to bring the act within
the meaning of the Highway Act.
The COURT considered that the defendant, who was a
public officer, might have thought himself justified in the
course he adopted, and that the clauses of the Act ought
to receive a liberal construction. They must, however,
discharge the rule.
DOE DEM GOODY V. CARTER.
Rule discharged.
LORD DOWN V. THOMPSON.
Rule discharged.

BROOKS V. DOCKET.

Rule absolute to enter the verdict for the defendant.
CONSPIRACY.-THE QUEEN V. CHARLES WRIGHT AND
SOPHIA. FENNELL.

The ATTORNEY. GENERAL applied to have judgment
arrested in this case. The defendant (Wright) was in
court, but as the female defendant had not received any
notice of the proceeding, he only applied to the Court
on behalf of Wright. An outlawry against the de-
fendants was reversed by consent last term. The general
charge against them was, obtaining a fraudulent transfer,
by means of false letters of administration, certain East
India Stock. The first count alleged, that on the day
mentioned there was standing in the books of the East
India Company, in the name of Charles Campbell, cer-
tain interest or shares in the stock of the company, of the
value of 9652. It appeared that Campbell died, and that
his wife Mary survived him, but she died without
taking out letters of administration. Sophia was one of
their children, and was married to George Fennell ; and
it was charged that she and other defendants conspired
to obtain letters of administration from the Prerogative
Court, in the name of Fennell, in order to get " means
and power " to obtain the said stock. He apprehended
that the Court would be of opinion that this term was
far too vacue and general. All the counts, with the
exception of two, were open to objection, as they did
not state who was to be defrauded, nor whom the stock
belonged to.
The COURT acceded to the application.
SPINKS V. BARDELL.

Mr. Sergeant WiLturis applied for a venire de novo,
or for a new trial, cn the ground that the verdict for the
plaintiff was against the evidence. The case was tried at
the last sitting at Guildhall before Lord Denman, and
was brought to recover the keep of a horse, which the
defendant had sent back to the plaintiff from whom he
had bought it, because it had " farcy," "rowelled," and
was a perfect " nuisance." The case will, no doubt, be
in the recollection of our readers. A cross action was
brought in the Common Pleas, which was decided the
other way.
Lord DENMAN considered that the verdict was correct,
but when he came to examine the dates his opinion was
strengthened. The plaintiff acted, he thought, perfectly
bona' fide. lie, however, granted a rule.
MICHELL V. 31008 E.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, the we,
known advertising agent, to recover from the defendant,
a proiisional committeeman, the amount of a bill con-
tracted by the company with which he was connected,
for advertising their project in the newspapers. It was
tried at the last sittings at London,
but the jury found
a verdiat fOr the defendant.
Mr. COCKBURN, Q.C., now moved for a rule calling
uPon the plaintiff to show cause why the verdict should
not be set aside and a new trial had, on the ground of
,ciisaireCtion by the• Lord Chid JUstice. The question
at issue was whether the defendant had or had not re-
voked a consent which he gave to the secretary to place
his name on the provisional committee before the debt
in question was contracted. It was contended that he
had given no consent to have his name placed on the
managing committee, but evidence was adduced at the
trial,ip sluff that he had acted in that capacity, The
mis'direction pf which he complained was this :—One of
the questions left to the jury was, and he submitted it
was,., incorrect, with some little hesitation as his Lord-
ship's opinion was consonant with the opinion of the
Exchequer
Lord DE.
NT+IAN—I consider all my directions to have
been , conformable with the opinions of the Court of
Exchequer, The question left to the jury was this,
was the defendant a Provisional Committeeman at the
timeond if they considered that he bad not revoked
his consent at the time, that they should find for the
plaintiff.
Mr. COCKBURN held that this was an incorrect way
to put the question. The question for the consideration
of the jury was, whether the defendant authorised his
name to be put down in the Provisional Committee, and
what liability he incurred in consequence of this act.
Now, he submitted, that it wus no question to the jury
to say what was the liability of a. Provisional Committee-
man. The duty and responsibility of such an office was
not defined, and, therefore, the jury had no right to
assume their nature.
Lord DENMAN considered that a jury had a right to
bring their experience to bear upon the matter, and to
say, to the best of their ability, what were the responsi

bifiiies of-such an office.
Mr. COCKBURN went on--If they were to go back, to
1845, they would not find two men to agree on suet!' a
question. Then again, even up to this timo, no definite
view had been agreed to by the courts of law on the
m ater. Then how much more difficult was it to satisfy
the minds of twelve men on the subject, seeing different
opinions prevailed.
Lord DENMAN said the Learned Counsel for the de-
fendant contended that they should not take the respon
sibilities considered to attach to tho office at the time of
the trial, but at the time the contract was made. Ha
thought that a just observation' and adopted it. He
called the attention of the jury
to the prospectus.
The Court took time to decide the point.

BAIL COURT, Jax. 14.
THE QUEEN V. HINCKLEY.
Sir F. THESIGER, on the part of Mr. Hall, a magis-
trate for the counties of Stafford and Derby, moved for
a criminal information' to be
filed against Arthur
Hinckley, clerk of the peace for the county of Stafford,
for endeavouring to provoke Mr. Hall to a breach of the
peace. It appeared that the parties had long been at
feud on account of the removal of a fence, and that
Hinckley had adopted all sorts of methods of annoying
Hall, and at length applied the terms felon and coward
to that gentleman.
Mr. Justice ERLE—There is sufficient for a rule to
show cause.
THE QUEEN V. THE CHURCHWARDENS OF THE PARISH OF
ST. DUNSTAN, STEPNEY.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL in this case, which was
one of disputed church-rates, obtained a rule calling upon
the churchwardens of the parish of St. Dunstan, Stepney,
to show cause why a mandamus should not issue
commanding them to allow Mr. Edward Horton, a
parishioner, to inspect the vestry book, containing the
proceedings of a vestry meeting which took place in
December last, at which a church-rate was proposed and
carried.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 14.
LAMERT V. HEATH.
This cause was tried before the Lord Chief Baron at
he last sittings after term at Guildhall, and a verdict
'ound for the plaintiff.
Mr. MARTIN now moved for a rule nisi to set aside