The Sun.
London, England, 1824-11-25 00:00:00

TH KING 1); DIM:WIELD.

This was a rule calling on the proseeutoito shew cause why
the defendant, now a prisoner in Ilorsemonger-lane Gaol,
should not be admitted to bail. The prisoner was taken into
custody in June last, on suspicion of being implicated in the
robbery at Lord Cowper's ; and a hill was preferred against
him at the last Hertford Assizes. The Grand .lury threw out
the bill; but the Judge who tried .the other parties accused,
thought there was evidence to charge him as an accessory in
_Middlesex, and accordingly transmitted him to th 4 "n"'
No bill was preferred at the next Sessions; and after the As-
sizes were over, . an accomplice, named Jacobs, gave informa-
tion before Sir Richard Bunk., tending to show that the pri-
soner received the stolen Bank-notes to a great amount in Surrey,•
and his evidence was in some respects corroborated by that of
a publican • named Itratson. Upon this he was conunitted for
trial in Surrey, but no bill was preferred at the Micheirnas Sea.
;dons, upon which this rule was applied for and granted.
lilt. BOLLAND now showed cause against the rule, which
could be supported only .on the ground of The prosecutor's de-`
fault. Now, as the information tending to prove the offence in
Surrey was not obtained till after the assizes for that county,
he had been guilty of no unreasonable delay, as he was not
bound to indict for so serious an otience at the sessions.
Mr. ANDREWS urged that the man had been in custody
ever since June, and tout he ought to - have been indicted in
Middlesex, or, it' not, at the sessions for Surrey, though the
trial might be postponed till the assizes. The prosecutor seem-
ed to be waiting in the hope of obtaining more conclusive evi-
dence ; but this the lawn? England would not justify. It Was'
true that suspicion attached to Dudfield ; but still he was en-
tided to that justice which every subject had a right to claim.
' The COURT thought the prosecutor was not bound to prefer
a bill at sessions ; anti that, as there would be assizes holden
for Surrey in six weeks, they ought not to admit the prisoner'
to bail.
The rule was accordingly discharged.
ALLEGED MISCONDUCT OF AN ATTORNEY.
Mr. BOLLAND moved for a rule to show cause why an attor-
ney should not be struck off the Rolls for misconduct. It :was
alleged that he had conducted two prosecutions against Josiah
Taylor, for keeping a gaming house, end hatlyroposed to OM:
promise both for a sum of money—rising in ins demands from
cbialuosLe.to laugh.)_The Court granted a rule to show

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. '24.
(Sittings in Banco.)
TJAVIB Amp .A MOTHER v. BROWN.

In this case Mr. Serjehrit moved for a rule to show
cause why the defendant, who is Warden of the Fleet Prison,
cshounitmn
lttlnoetpt under
it, andtoth
epa w themlalilnotitrsa .11 .ieas Corona, and the
om to
copy
them (at their
own expense), for the purposes of the action. The ease was
this: The plaintiffs had commenced an action against a person
named llorkinsl and had him taken in execution under a to. so.
Hoskins was afterwards brought under a Habeas before Mr.
Justice Gaselec, and by him committed to the Fleet. , Pima
that prison he since escaped. The plaintiff brought hie action
against the Warden for the escape, and it was for the purpose
of that action that the present motion was made.
The Cotfai wished to know whether there was any cases to
Show that such an application could be supported ?
Mr. Serjeant 144.1. said he could cite several, but without
troubling their Lordships he would only mention one or two,
Before he did sot he would state it generally as a principle which
had been recot.lized by the Court, that the Court on applica-

Lion, . . ••
. . ,
on, woad grant an order to inspect the books of the corps ras
Lion or parish. •
Lord Chief Jdstice.fir.sT.—The cases you mention do not, I
think, apply,to the precept. The bookS of a Corporation, every
member of that corporation has a right to itiSpect. So likewise
has every inhabitant of a • parish a right to 'inspect parochial
books and accounts. . •
111 r. Sergeant PE LL said he would.ment,ien a case which he
thought would satisfy their Lordships. There was one in 2d
Strange, 1242, in which a man brought an action for. illegal
proceedings in the Court of Requests in London, and he applied
•to this Court for an order, authorizing him to inspect the pro:
seeding, of the inferior Court, for the purposes of the action.—
The Court granted the application on this ground—that every
man had a right to inspect proceedings in which he himself was
personally interested. The principle ter which be now con- •
tended was here fully admitted. The Learned Sergeant said,
that the defendant refused to deliver up the documents, or allow
them tabe copied, on the ground thet he had no authority so to
do, without the perthission of the Court.'
Lord Chief Justice BEST here observed, that the questioni
its 'it appeared to him, itqui---hoVir far these were public docu-
ments, and as such, how far the plaintiff' had a right to have
access to them?
..
..,•,. Alr,Steigebtktt.rt 1.1.3eas pontwediElp its el Le. :ad* et,ease a initurlis.e, •:-' ~.
port
of his motion, when the Oottet zetimated that they had al.
ready heard inotigh to bier the Case come betere them for argil. •
ment, and granted a rule to show cause.
• i --,
PREROGATIVE COURT, Nov. 24. -
MONTEFIORE AOAINST MaNTEVIORE AND °Turing.
Sir JOHN NionoLL observed, In giving sentence, that'this
• cause had been very fully argued on a termer Court.day. The
suit was brought before the Court amicably between the parties
for the purpose of obtaining the opinion of the Court in respect
to the validity of a testamentary paper which was propounded
as thli last will and testament of Abraham Morttetiore, 'Eel.,
deceased. And although the property in this case was of very
considerable amount (nearly 600,000/4, and the matter was
most elaborately argued, the Court on the fanner.day entertain-
ed a very strong opinion in respect to the decision it should
come to, yet it felt extremely anxious not to give even the ap-
pearance of hastiness to that decision, but, on the contrary, to
devote to the case the most mature consideration. After the
most deliberate attention to all the details of this, cave, the .
Court, however, could find no grounds for departing from the
opinion which it had originally formed on it.—('l'he Learned
Judge then carefully recapitulated the facts, but these have
been reported by us so lately, that it will be unnecessary now
to re-state them.)—The Court adverted to the several peovisione
of paper A, the executed will of the 3d of Nay, 1820, ••by
which the deceased left ah eeual portion to each of his children
of MON/. a-piece, and a variety of other legacies. The subs. -
quoit testamentary papers D. L, and I', iielierein the deceased
proposed to leave to his wife after his decease, GAO/. -a,year
tintil their children should have attained a certain age, and after- ,
wards. 4,0001. a-year, with a poWer of disposing by will of
100,0001., and the recital made by him that he lied invested. in-
the funds to the amount of 10,000/. sterling a-piece, in the
name of each of his sons anti daughters; and the bequeet con.
tainedin the papers B and C (the one in French, and the other
in English), being the last testamentary dispOsition ofdereafitd,
•of his two freehold estates to his two sons, and the whole of his.
personalty to his wile. The Court, in allulien to the will of
Nay 12120, observed, ,that no mention was made of. the really
in it; and therefore it wits, perhaps, the testator's intention ,
that that part Of his property should follow the usual course of
the law; but in every other respect ft appeared to be a ttmiti. '
iterate and equitable dieposition of .his estate; and unless re.. • • .
voked, must operate so far as it went. As to D, 1.,:, and,F,
they were obviously unfinished poets, and at the utmost could '
be considered only as indicadons of what it might be his in-
tention at some future time to tlo in the way of an altered
testament. In regard to paper C, (all the circumstances in re-
spect of which the Court weighed with great caution), not te
mention the .departure that its provisions Manifested froni. sit•••.
the testator's previous -beneficial intuitions in •filvotir of his
children, whom lie thereby left without any ,testamentary
benefit whatever (or any other benefit but the several invest...
merits of -10,0000, and the 'beefiest of the whole of his per.. ~„'
sonalty, which was thereby conveyed to his wif,.. (to irlioitt;'•':" '•
however, lie had shewn that he meant to have limited intes .
reet'only, by naming an annuity, of 'CAUL ii-year, mid filing . •
the sum over which she should have a disposing *wet by
will to 10000/. 3 per cents., instead of leayjugber t lo: whole
'residue). There Were other (Miens intopeieopetel al, eh wetild
so
not allow the Court to consider it as efititleiMiti its treobate. The
Court was by no means satisfied of the perfectly disposing niind•
'and sound capacity of the deceased within flve hours of his de-
w
ee, adieu-paper C was written ; and 'upon the Whole, the
Chart was of opinion that this' imperfect paper C could have no
legal effeet„, supposing, even, that till the circumstances pleaded
in the allegation admitted of proof; and therefore it rejected the
allegation which propounded such paper. As the Will of 1820
by no means included the whole property, the wife would still
be entitled to a large residue.
Dr. .14.1th:n said; the Court would give him leave to ob-
serve, that not only would Mrs. Alonteilore be perfectly disposed •
'to follow the suggestions of the Court in respect. to her own .
capubility'of enlarging the tesounentary benefit of her'ehildren, •
and :fulfilling till the affectionate infentione of the deceased in
their favour, but he ( Or. J.) was anxious to assure the Court, that ,
Airs. 31enteliore would even lutsitt felt mortified had the deci-
sion of the Court been diferent from tliat which it had just '
given. Neither would,the paper in question have been, ire her,
behalf, at till submitted to the Court, .had net her legal ad-
visers mid her friends pressed upoh her wet strenuously the
absolute necessity of obtaining tins Court's opinion 'O4 its vali- •
silty.
. .

ATTF.MPT AT SUldtbr..--L•Pti Monday evenin',
a yOung man, named William Berm, attempteetto put a period
to his existence at the house of his father-in-law, .Mr. U. Car-
lisle, pf No. 16, Comm-street, Brunstvic,k-sware, under the
following distressing cireuthstances :—lt appeal that about four
years ago, Mr. item, wholes very respectably &inflected in Staf.:
fordsbire, had married Miss Carlisle, quite against•the inclina-
tion of her family, and the consequences was, that a separation
was ultimately .effeeted, and Mr. Berm soon after left London
fur .Leicester, where he remained, often in a miserable state
of mind, produced by the separation from his wife, until
Monday, when he arrived in town by one of the Liverpeol
stages, and went immediately to his father-in-law's. An. in-
terview took place between the young couple, and he proposed
taking furnished apartments if she would consent to hare
her father's house this she was willing to tin, peovided it
met the sanction of het father anti mother, and begged leave
tn consult them on the subject, to which he agreed ; but ,they
as avers as ever to any re-union taking place, and the
wife then said, that .withintt their content 'she would not go.
At this direct refusal the husband expressed considerable ;mei,—
siness, anti wag heard to say twice or thrice, " matter, my
dear, I have had a last Sight of, you no matter." He' then
complained of having an occasional ague, and .said that he
.
was misdeed by a medical gentleman at Leicester, on the ap-
preach of every fit, -to'swallow a certain powder, and.hegged
for a teacup of warm water, with which he waa accordingly
peovided. In evident agitation of mi4:l he mixed the fatal
draught, which was no' sooner swallowed, than the unhappy
young man was seized - with strong convulsions, anti trio
most racking torture of the intestines. • The melancholy truth
now flashed on the mind of his wile' who, on examining the
remnant left in the teacup, perceived theist was a red powder,
and' the paper in which it was folded, was marked " strong poi-
son." Surgeon Winter, of Tavistock-place, and another tned:.
cal gentleman, were then called in, and various antidotes were
administered for a considerable. time without the-desired effev
'and very faint hopes were entertained of the etiarer'a .
However, by repeated emetics of the most powerful descrip.
tion, , the drug was at length dislodged, and analyration proved
it to, be corrosive sublimate, in quantity rather more than an
liatt're6ceakairnmerobtaerilttavvbi
)ttiLatipitaelpl
ounce. Restoratives were then introduced, but from the tit •
ut
bility produced by the rapid action of the poises on. the in.
poison, placed the intention of aelf-destructiott
testines, a perfect recovery is still extremely doubtful, Tee
young man still remains under the protection of his wife's
milt'
ptatss
happy
haaaintrildtir: presumed,etmitstyinhg he
wi
nasst
reunTlytfl
ithsy
ing marked "
beyond all doubt'.

Yesterday afternoon, between three and four
o'clock, as the driver ,of an empty cart was en-
deavouring to turn into Green-alley, 'rooky-
street, by his unskilfulness, he drove his borse'g
bead with such force against the ofd wall, that dire
poor animal's skull was crushed, and itbecame
necessary to cut its throat.