The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 23.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins at Guildhall, before Lord DEN-
MAN and a SpeeitlJury.)
ELWIN V. GALLOWAY AND OTHERS.
This was an action upon a charterparty to recover a
balance of freight and demurrage, amounting to about
60L The det'endants, Alexander Galloway, Brothers,
and Co., had a quantity of machinery to ship for Malta,
and it was agreed that the goods should be sent on
board a vessel belonging to the plaintiff called the Union,
of 262 tons burden. The freight was to be paid in the
lump, amounting to 5101., but there having been thirty-
two days expended in loading the vessel at the London
Ducks, it was agreed that a further sum of 101. should
be paid on that account. The defendants gave a bill .for
4861., and had paid a further sum of 321. 10s. into' Court,
and the action was brought to recover the balance,
amounting to 241. odd.
Witnesses having been examined to prove the case on
the part of the plaintiff;
Mr. ANDREWS addressed the Jury for the defendants ;
and after a lengthened investigation of the accounts, and
the custom of the trade as to hoisting, stowing, demur-
rage, and commission on freight,
Lord DENMAN summed up. to the Jury; who returned
a verdict for the plaintiff-19/. 18s. 7d.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Dec. 23.
GODRICII V. JONES.
Sir H. JENNER gave judgment in this case, the argu-
ment of which was heard in Trinity 'Term. The deceased
was Mrs. Harriet Lloyd, who died on the 25th of Sep•
tember, 1838, at the age of 90—an age at which very
extensive capacity could not fairly be expected. It was
uncertain whether she had ever been married, but she
had, at any rate, outlived all her near relations, and the
existence of any re!ationship at all was disputed in the
cause. - The deceased died possessed of property to the
amount of 10,0001., 6001; of which she gained under the
will of a Mr. Howard. There were also 6001. in Long
Annuities, and 800/. in Exchequer bills ; but these were
given to Mr. Gottlieb in the lifetime of the testatrix. She
had made several wills. The one in dispute was dated
on the 13th of February, 1836, to which were annexed
two codicils of the 13th of December, 1836, and the
other of the sth of September, 1838. By a will of 1832
her property was bequeathed to the family of the
Joneses, for whom she then entertained considerable
affection ; and by another paper of the following year,
Mr. Price Jones, whom she called "her favourite ne-
phew," was made her principal legatee. TO bins she
had given 5,0001. to enter into business. It was alleged
that his marriage in 1835, and his general conduct, alie-
nated the affections of the deceased, and that she entirely
discarded him and his family. On the other side it was
set up that during the latter period of her life the testa-
trix was not of sound mind ; that in a weak and imbecile
state she was taken from her own cottage and lived
in the house of Mr. Godrich ; that an undue influence
was exercised over her mind, and that the will now
propounded. was the result of incapacity and control.
The evidence proved the displeasure of the testatrix
at the conduct of. Mr. Price Jones. She would not
see. his wife, and she complained of his neglect. She
believed that at Christmas, 1835, he had given her
too much wine, and had obtained from her in that
state the sum of 2,0001. • This preyed upon her mind,
and irritated her against him. She had said that he had
" disgusted" her, and that he should not have any snore
of her money. This laid the natural foundation for a
change in her testamentary bounty. In 1835 the trans-
actions in which she took an active part proved the capa-
city of the testatrix. So far the Court would have had
no difficulty in pronouncing for the validity of this paper,
but it had been repudiated by all parties, and was not
propounded, but the present paper was propounded by
Mr. Godrich. It was shortly after this that the testatrix
went to the house of that gentleman. For him, it was
clear, and -for his children, she entertained a great par-
tiality. But though Mr. Godrich's conduct was
marked with kindness and attention to the deceased,
yet in inducing her. to assign over certain cot-
tages in Thistle-grove to him, in consideration of
board and medical attendance for three years, he had
laid himself open 'to suspicion and to censure. This
brought the case to the February of 1836, in which
month the propounded will was said to be executed. In
it the bulk of the property was given to Mr. Godrich and
his family. On his part the employment of Mr. Lane, a
perfect stranger to the deceased as • the solicitor: to pre-
pare, draw up, and attest the will, was a false-step, and
Ilemanded vigilance and caution in looking into the cir-
cumstances of the transaction. Mr. Lane's manner of
taking the instructions, by putting leading questions, and
leaving the deceased to say nothing, was too unsatisfac-
tory ; but the subsequent execution, the slow and.-dis-
tinct reading of the will by Lane, the publication of it by
the deceased, the conversation respecting its contents,
the attestation and testimony of a respectable school-
master who had been called in, and the balance of the
whole evidence together proved the capacity of the tes.
tatrix, the genuineness of the transaction, and the.vali-
dity of the will. There was nothing to show any undue
influence over her mind by Mr. Godrich. There might
be. and there was a fair and legitimate influence, but
there was no appearance of control or authority. But
still-his conduct had in some respects been faulty ; the
assignment of the cottages and the transfer. of 1,200/. of
Three per Cent Consols to bins for her board and main-
tenance for the remainder of her life in September, 1838,
only three- weeks before her death, were suspicious cir-
cumstances, placing Godrich in a less favourable posi-
tion before the Court, and throwing a shadow of doubt
over the testimony of Lane. On the part of the
latter it did not amount -to- au absolute want of profes-
sional integrity, but there had been an absence of that
prudence and caution which ought
.especially to distin-
guish the conduct of solicitors in transactions with
women of such an age and placed in such a position,
But still this conduct, and that of Godrich himself,
though in these points unsatisfactory, could not affect
the validity of the will. Notwithstanding the mystery
-by which parts of this case were surrounded, the Court
was bound, though not without hesitation, to pronounce
for that will, and the two subsequent codicils. Yet the
case was such—the conduct of Mr. Godrich had been
such, that it would purposely refrain from giving costs
to the party who propounded them. It accordingly.
would make no order'as to costs. .

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOISE.
A foreigner, named Meyer Morris, was charged with
having obtained a quantity of cutlery from Mr. Peter
Moore, Orange-Street, Sheffield.
The prosecutor stated that the prisoner called at his
warehouse, in Sheffield, and gave him' an order for cut-'
lery goods to•the amount of 341., for which cash was to
he paid, as a matter of course. The prisoner desired the
bill to be made out in his name, and a man -who was
with him also gave him an order, but the former was re-
sponsible fir the amount. The prisoner made a great
many excuses about the payment, and at last contrived
to obtain possession of them, without paying a farthing,
and to convey them to Hull ; but the prosecutor followed
him,. and.finding that time goods were actually on board
the steamer, got into the vessel and remained in a diffe-
rent cabin until the arrival in London, when he appeared
befimre Mr. Morris, claimed the cutlery, and employed
an officer to take the prisoner into custody.
The prisoner's Solicitor—Were not other goods packed
up with the cutlery at your warehouse? Prosecutor—No.
Alderman WILSON—Who was the person who accom-
panied the prisoner to. your warehouse ? Prosecutor—
His name was Woolfe.
The prisoner's Solicitor—Did you not take prisoner's
guarantee fur what the other had of you ? •Piosecutor-7
The prisoner told me to make out the whole bill in his

name.
Alderman WILSON—And you were to be paid in cash ?
Prosecutor—Certainly. The prisoner, after trying all
other means with me, wanted me to go over with him
and the goods to Hainburgh, where his brother would, he
aid, pay me.—(A laugh.) -
Alderman WILSON then, at. the prosecutor's request,
remanded the prisoner, with directions that upon the ar-
rival ,f a warrant from Sheffield, the case should be sent
thither.

A woman named 'Elizabeth Smith was charged with
having smuggled two bottles of French brandy.
A Revenue Officer, who stated that the smuggling on
board the steamers was most extensive, notwithstanding
the great exertions made to detect and punish, said that
he observed the defendant doming from the Harlequin,
a Boulogne steamer, at Fresh Wharf, and suspeCting that
she had smuggled goods about her, found with very little
trouble that she had two bottles containing a pint and a-
half of brandy under her cloak.
Alderman WILSON—We have constant complaints of
smuggling on board the Harlequin. I thought that when
a vessel became notorious for conveying contraband goods
• the Commissioners pat an effectual stop to the smuggling
in that vessel by seizing it.
The officer said that vessels were frequently put upon
the stop," for having smuggled goods en board, and
the harlequin had been served in that way ; but not-
withstanding all that could be done the practice was ear-
ried on enormously. The Company to which the Harle-
quin belonged did all they could to prevent' the contra-
band dealing, and had upon one occasion discharged. the
whole crew. It would, therefore, be very hard upon. the
Company to seize and sell their vessel under such dr-
•eunistances.
Alderman WILSON—Certainly it would. What has
—the defendant to say to the charge ? Thadefendant who
eieleavoured to attract compassion, by carrying an infant
in her arms, said she washed for the seamen on board the
rlequin, and they gave her the brandy for her own use.
The officer said that great numbers of persona were
generally engaged to take away small quantities.
The defendant was fined twenty shillings, which she
immediately paid.

GUILDHALL.
A respectable-looking young man, who described him-
' selfas clerk to a wine merchant in the City, was charged
with stealing a sovereign.
!Sergeant Deivlin said the prisoner was brought to the
station-house, in Black Horse-court, on the preceding
night, by two men, who gave their names and addresses,
and stated that, a short -time previously, they went into
the Dolphin Tavern, Ludgate-hill, • where they saw the
prisoner standing at the bar, and one of them, in the course
of conversation with him, laid his hand on his shoulder,
when the prisoner pushed .it away, and a sovereign,
which was between the glove and the palm of his hand,
was lost. He entered the charge as one of robbery on the
police sheet. The complainants did not attend. . . .
Sir I'. LAURIE said this was a most scandalous case,
and he thought there were substantial grounds for an
action for false imprisonment. All that surprised him
was, that the person on duty at the station-house could
be so foolish as to take such a charge. He should or-
der the prisoner to be at once discharged, informing
him, at the same time, that there was not.the slightest.
imputation against his character.

BILLS PAYABLE.—The public will recollect
that all bills falling due on Christmas-day and the Sun-
day following are payable on Friday, the 24th inst. -