The Sun.
London, England, 1823-11-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 19.
BEER P. WARD.

Mr. DENMAX and liir7l3xrLTlP9were heard in further
support of the argument for setting aside the last verdict, and
granting a new trial.
The LORD CHANCELLOR did not know that it '
would be
necessary to go on with the argument. At any -rate it would
be useless to hear the other side until after the Christmas vaca-
tion: If the third trial were to take place, he would order it to
be a trial at bar. If it were not to take place, then the other
side had only to apply for further directions, and have the cause
disposed of.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 19.
A warrant of his Majesty, issued under the recent Act for
expediting business in this Court, was read by the officer. It
required the Judges, or any two or more of them, to meet on
Tuesday, the 13th of January, for the dispatch of business in
arrear,,and sit till Hillary Term, but with a proviso, that it'
one of their Lordships should he sitting at the Old Bailey, and
another at the same time at Nisi Print, the remaining two
Judges should have an option of either continuing or ternunat-
'intheir sittings.
The LORI) CHIEF JUSTICE announced, that in obedience
to this warrant, his three Learned. Brothers would sit in the
room adjoining the Court at Westminster, and that he should
make arrangements for trying causes at the same time in the
Sessions-house for Middlesex..
POOR RELIEF.
THE KING V. ANTHONY COLLINS.

This was an appeal against the accounts of the overseers of a
parish in Suffolk. The case suited that the parishioners were
charged with various sums paid to labourers who were able and
willing to work, but who could not earn sufficient to Support
theniselves and their families, and who were relieved in proper.
tion to the smallness of their earnings and the number of their
children. No work was provided for them by the parish offi-
cers, and sometimes no less a sum than 7s. or Os a week was
allowed an individual family.
Mr. COOPER, on behalf of the officers, said that he supposed
three questions were to be raised on the argument—first,
whether able-bodied men are entitled to relief at all; second,
whether, supposing them to be entitled to relief, the overseers
are not bound first to find them work—and third, whether pa-
rish officers arc justified in affording relief without the order of
a Magistrate. The first question depended on the construction
of the word " impotent," in Ale statute of Elizabeth--a word
which could not fairly be considered as applying only to physi-
cal inability, but to every species of inability to obtain sub-
sistence, arising from whatever cause. It was as necessary that
a man who was starving for want of work, should be assisted
by his fellows, as that a man who was incapacitated from per-
forming work should be so assisted. It was impossible to con-
ceive of a state of society in which men unable to obtain the
means of subsistence, should be left to starve ; in which they
should be subject to the laws, yet deprived of their protection ;
and know nothing._ of their operation but by the gaol, the tread-
mill, and the scaffold.
Mr: Justice BEST.—And yet such is the state of every coun-
try in the world except this country and (we think the,Learned
Judge said) Norway. There is no system of compulsory
charity : of course relief is often afforded by the voluntary
compassion of individuals.
Mr. COOPER proceeded to advert to the uniform practice of
two centuries as conclusive of the meaning of the statute, and
cited the case of " Walton v. Sparks," Skinner, 656, where
the extended construction was given to the word " impotent."
He' then proceeded to argue, that the magistrates were not
bound to relieve the able-bodied poor by finding work for them,
but might afford them relief at once in money. A contrary in-
terpretation would be productive of this mtschief—that the
parish officers would be obliged to purchase materials when no
market could be found for the results of the paupers' industry.
When the Act was passed, manufactures had not become 10.
cal ; the act _of machinery had not rendered the works of the
unassisted hand of little value ; Birmingham, Sheffield, Pais-
ley, Manchester, and Glasgow, wore not in existence as great
manufacturing towns ;;and -therefore a different practice might
be useful. But now, when even the spindle was deserted, it
would be more absurd to buy material* which would be menu-
factored at a loss, than to employ the poor on the plan sug-
gested by a departed statesman, in digging holes one day and
tilling them up on the next. On the third point, the Learned
Counsel contended, that .the words of the Act clearly em.
powered overseers to dispense relief without the sanction of a
magistrate's order, and that a contrary interpretation would
lead to the most disastrous conclusions.
Mr. ANDREWS followed on the same side, and obaerved that
the question was really one of frightful interest; for if the
Court should hold that the overseers were bound to set the poor
to work before they relieved, them, , all who now were assisted
by parochial charity must desert the employments in which they
were at_preient engaged, to. entitle them in future to receive it.
Mr. SCARLETT, On the other.eide, said that some persons
obtained a hollow popularity by asserting the right of the poor,
under all circumstances, to compulsory assistance from the
rich; but he Would,. at all times and in all places, assert that
there was nothing, more prejudicial to their true interests than
the attempt to separate labour and profit, which were connected
in nature.. What could be more absurd In principle, more de-
grading in practice, than the syitem which was now so coin•
mon, of paying to the laboUrer loWer wages than he was justly
entitled to receive as the price of his industry, and giving him the
difference in the form of poor-rates ? It was said a farmer
could not afford to lay out 401. in labour : then surely lie could
not better afford to give 401. in poor-rates; and it must be more
for his benefit to pay men who did something. than men who
did nothing. He should contend, that under the statute of
Elizabeth, no overseer was empowered to afford an able-bodied
man relief in money, but could only relieve hint legally by
proViding work. The Learned Counsel was proceeding to
argue this point, when
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE observed, that as he must sit
at Nisi Prins in a short time, and as he believed there were
some motions which must be made to-day, it would be better
to postpone the remainder of the argument to Saturday.
hlr. SCARLETT assented to this proposition, and the argu-
ment was accordingly adjoured.
The Loan CHIEF JUATICE then went through the bar,
taking only motions of urgency, we believe, in order to give
Mr. Chitty an opportunity of making his expected application
to the Court.
IN THE AfATTEA or JOUR THORTELL.
Mr. CHITTY, being called on, rose and said, " I am in.
structed to move your Lordships on behalf of John Thurtell,
a prisoner in Hertford gaol on a charge of murder, for a rule to
shew cause why Mr. Fenton, his attorney, whose presence is
sworn to be essential to his defence, should not have admission
to him at all reasonable hem.
Mr. Justice BEST.--I 1 lie fully committed for trial ?
Mir CHITTY.—fie is, my Lord; and therefore he is now
within the provisions of 4 George IV., c. Of. passed for the re•
gulation of prisons.
The LORD CHIEF ArsTicr..—To what section do you re.
her, as applicable to the subject ?
Mr. Ciirrry.—To the sixteenth regulation, under the 10th
section of the act, which directs that provision shall be made
for the admittance of professional advisers of prisoners coin-
milled 'for trial.
The' Lou) Cnizr,JUSTICE.—It is in theee terms :—" Due
provision shall he Made for the admission, at proper times and
under proper restrictions, of persone.with whom prisoners com-
mitted for trial may desire to communicate; and such. rules and
regulations shall be made by the justices in Quarter sessions
sembled. for the admission of the friends of convicted persons 101
to Ml6' justices shall seem expedient ; and .the Justices shalt
also impose such restriction: on, the comnuinication and corre.
spondence of all such prisoners with their. friends within or
without the prison, as they shall judge necessary for the mein.
tenance of good order and discipline in such prison.". The only
question is, whether under this clause we can interfere.
CII/TTY.—My Lord, we do not complain of .any regu.
lation, but of total exclogion, which will entirely deprive the
prisoner of an oppo!tunity of making an effectual defence, in a
cve of the deepest importance.
The Logi) CitiElr .11.1STICE.—litit still if the power of cc.
in persons
,ilesiring to see prisoners be
dg eulleaetatedg fiea
tot adiegnilig:tirZiteni.
aat sessiens, ;u)w can we interfere.?
CHIT T Y.—My Lora, this Court, as the highest, Court
of criminal judicature, has a superintending jurisdiction over
every prison in England where parties are confined on criminal

charges.
Mr. Justice BEsT.—The rules made by Justices for re u.
Latin prisons are not subject to the revision of this Court, but
of Justices of Assize.
Itlr. CHIT T Y.-I'o, the Justices of Assize are spe:ially di-

rested to perform this duty ; hut the ancient power of this Court
is not taken away.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.••-.ot whose act do you com-
plain—of the Justices in Sessions, or the visiting Magistrates ?
Mr. CHITTY.—My Lord, we have not seen the order it-
self, but we are told that it direct, that only one professional
adviser shall have access to a prisoner, anti that this profes-
gimlet adviser, once admitted, cannot be changed, So, because
Mr. Jay has seen this unfortunate man, he is told that he can
have no other assistance to prepare for a most momentous trial,
though Mr. Jay cannot give the necessary Attention to the
cause.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.--It is not of a general order,
but of a particular order, then, of which you complain ? that
will alter the cue.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY referred to the 10th section of the Act,
and observed, that it governed the clause as to regulations by
Justices.
Mr. Justice BEST.—Does the prisoner hiniself desire Mr,
Fenton's admittance?
Mr. Cm TTV.—Yes, my Lord. It is sworn that Mr. Jay, a
most respectable solicitor at Norwich, was retained with Mr.
Fenton, an equally respectable solicitor, and agent to Mr. Jay,
in London, by the ffiends of this unfbrtunAte niatiat'Nbreehf
to conduct his defence, and with his concurrence. His family
are highly respectable, and his father an -Alderman of the city
of Norwich, and they requested Mr. Jay to conduct his defence.
Mr. Justice BEST.—Who is it who desires to see the pri-
soner; Mr. Fenton, or Mr. Jay.
Mr. CHITTY.—Mr. Fenton, my Lord. Mr. Jay is not ac.
customed to criminal practice, and his avocations at Norwich,
some of which are of a public nature, prevent him from re-
maining in the neighbourhood of London ; lie therefore wished
to delegate the conduct of the defence to his town agent, Mr.
Fenton, who is a gentleman of unimpeachable character; but
the Magistrates insist, that because Mr. Jay has had an inter-
view with the prisoner, no other attorney shall have access to
him and they refuse to give their reason.
Sir. Justice lIOLROYD —You swear you have applied to
the gaoler as well as the Magistrates ?
31r. Curt-rt.—Yes, my Lord; and we have been refused.
It is really a most urgent case; the interval before the time
fixed for the trial is very short; and the prisoner may be tit-
terly deprived of the means of adducing that evidence by
which he hopes to convince the public of his innocence.
The Loan Cirtar Just ICE.—In what form do you pray
the writ ?
Mr. CHIT TY.—I move for a rule calling on the keeper of
Hertford gaol and the visiting Magistrates to show cause why
Mr. Francis Tarrant Fenton, attorney for the defence of John
Thurtell, should not have access to him at all reasonable hours.
The Lanni CHIEF J u STICE,—AII reasonable hours I Then,
you must stftl leave it to the Magistrates to say what hours
are reasonable, and submit to the regulations they may think
proper.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—You had better take the rule in the
terms of the statute.
Cit ITT t.-11 your Lordship pleases. We have no wish
to infringe on the internal regulations of any prison; and Mr.
Fenton swears he has no object in desiring to see the prisoner,
but that he may be able to conduct the defence.
The Judges consulted for some minutes. After which,
The LORD CHI EF.ortIST ICE said, you have asked only for
a rule to shew cause; but it has occurred to us that every man.;
dames is in the nature of a rule to shew cause, as, if there be.
any reason for not obeying it in term, that reason may be
ehewn in the return. We think, therefore, you may take your
writ in the first instance, and if there be any cause for not cony-
plying with it, the Magistrates will make a return. and delay
will thus be avoided. Take a mandamus, then, addressed to
the Magistrates, the gaoler, and the Sheriff, of Hertfordshire,
Commanding them, in the terms of the Act. " to make due
provision for the admission, at proper times, and under proper
restrictions, of Mr. Fenton to John Thurtell, he being a prisoner
committed. for trial, and desiring to communicate with Mr.
Fenton."
Mr. CHIT T Y—May not the rule include Mr. Jay? He has
seen the prisoner, an advantage Mr. Fenton has not, and he
might be able to come up to town, though not to remain there.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—Yes; the act says " per-
sons," therefore there is no objection.
Mr. Justice Bast.—Mr. Fenton Ls of course an attorney ?
Mr. CUITT Y.-0 yes, my Lord,, of the most respectable
character.
The Loan CHIEF Jtrrica—Then take the writ in that
form.
The following is the affidavit on which the motion for a
mandamus was fotinded
George Jay, of the City of Norwich, gentleman, and
Francis Tarrant Fenton, of Austin-friars, in the City of
London, gentleman, general town agent to the said George
Jay, severally make oath and say, that John Thurtell is con.
lined in Hertford Jail, on a charge of murder. And this
deponent, George Jay, saith that he is appointed by the
family and friends of the sidd John Thurtell, with the con.
currence of the said John 'Thurtell, to cause him, the said
John Thurtell, to be duly defended against the same ; and
that he, this deponent, is resident at Norwich, 119 miles from
London, or thereabouts, and that from the nature of his pro.
fessional engagements it will be Impossible for him to absent
himself from home for a length of time sufficient to prepare
materials and collect evidence for the defence of the said John
Thurtell ; and he is, therefore, desirous that the said F. T.
Fenton, who is resident in London, and near the spot, should
conduct the said defence. And this deponents both say, that
on Wednesday last, the 12th November instant, these de-
ponents applied to Mr. Wilson, the gaoler of Hertford gaol
aforesaid, to be admitted to see the said J. Thiirtell, as his
. professional advisers, but the said 31r. Wilson refused to
admit them. And these deponents further say, that on Thurs-
day last, 13th of November, instant, they applied to the Rev.
Mr. Lloyd, a visiting Magistrate at the gaol of Hertford afore.
said, forp,ermitsion to see and consult with the said John Thur.
tell, with a view to prepare forhis defence; but these deponents
say, that the said Mr. Lloyd refused to admit more than one
of these deponents, in consequence of an order signed by a
nutnerous Bench of Magistrates, ordering that only one profes-
sional adviser should be admitted to the prisoner. And this
deponent, F. T. Feuton, saith that he, this deponent, applied
on Saturday last to the Magistrates, then sitting at Hertford
aforesaid, about twelve in number, for permission to see the
said John Thurtell es his professional adviser ; but the said
Mr. Lloyd, on behalf of the Magistrates then assembled, in
their presence and with their concurrence, refused such perinis.
eion to this deponent, and declined to state their reasone.—
And both these deponents positively say that they are advised,
and verily believe, that it is absolutely necessary that this, de.
ponent, the said F. T. Fenton, should have free access to the
said John 'Thurtell at all reasonable hours, in order that the
said John Thurtell may have a fair and just trial for his said
supposed offence. And these deponenta further say, that they
have no object, Intent, or desire, to see the said John Thurtell,
or to be admitted into the said gaol, save and except for the
purpose of duly defending the seuljohn Thurtell."
The following is a copy of the 21randantus:—
" The Fourteenth Day. of Michaelmas Term, in the Fourth
Year of the Reign of King George the Fourth.
" (leorge the Fourth, by the grace of God, of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland King, Defender of the
Faith, to the Sheriff of Our county of Hertford-, and to the keepers
of our peace and Justices of our said county, being 'limiters of
our gaol of our said county, and also to the keeper of our said
gaol et Hertford, in our said county, and to every of them
greeting; .Whereas we have been surest to underetand, in our
Court before us, that one John Thurtell is confined in our
gaol at Hertford, in and for our county of Hertford, on a
charge of murder ; and whereas we have been further given
to understand, in our said Court before its, that one George
Jay, of the city of Norwich, gentleman, one of the Actor.
nies of our said court, and oiSO one Francis Tarrant Fen-
ton, of Austinfriars, in the city of London,
_gentleman, one
other of the Attornics of our said Court, have, and each
Of them heath, by the concurrence and wish of the said John
`Thurtell, been applied to to prepare materials and collect evi-
dence for the defence of the said John Thurtell, for the said
supposed °fie' nce ; and whereas we have also been given to un.
deretand in our said -Court before us, that the said George
a,
Jay, and the said Francis Tarrant Fenton have, and each
of them bath, applied. to you. or some of you, for their ad-
mission respectively to the Raid gaol, at proper time and
him from time to
under limper restrictions, to see and communicate with the
collect evident* for the de.
said John Thurtell as his professional advisers, fin. the ,
rials
you and every of you,
hwpt
eunc
liesoktss
oone
oowethina
gf
preparegee,
edetiilmintaistge
ten,
ttid:nsyetfrom
premises, but not
_regarding your duty
fence of the said. John 'Murrell against the offence of which
in this behalf, have wronginilY' r9l//sen the "bniuiee of
the said George Jay and Francis Tarrant Fenton to communi.
rate with and see the said John Thurtell for the purposes afore.

,
said, and to make due provision for-their respective admission
as aforesaid, in -contempt cif us, and to the great damage and
prejudice of the said John Timmll, as we have been informed
from complaint made to us in this behalf; we; therefore;
being willing that due and speedy justice should 'be done
in this respect as it is reasonable; do command you, the said
visiting magistrates, end every of you, firmly enjoining you,
that you or some of you do immediately, upon your recem
ing this our writ, make due provision ter the immediate ad-
mission, at proper times, and under proper restrictions, of
the Said "George Jay and Francis Tarrant Fenton respec.
tively, into the said gaol, for the purpose of conunuracati
ing with-the said JOhn Thurtell, a prisoner in the said gaol',
committed for trial on a charge of felony and murder, who
bath. desired to communicate with the said George Jay and
Francis Tarrant Fenton ; and we also command you the
said Sheriff', - and also the said keeper, immediately to admit
the said George Jav and Francis Tarrant Fenton IOtO- the said
gaol, and to continue such admission according to.
Moms or show us cause to the contrary thereof; lest by your
default' the same complaint shoUld be repeated to us ; and how
• you shall have executed this our writ, make kno*n to us at
IVesuninster, on Thursday next after 15 days of St. Martin,
litetttrttifhing to this ourwrit ; and this you are not to omit.
Witness; Sir Charles Abbott, Knt., at It'estminster; the 19th
day of November, in the fourth year of our reign:
By the Court.
" LUSIIINOTON."

" By rule of Court.

TILACICIItTR.S:" V. .3tACKEY.

This was an action by a tailor against the defendant, for a
bill of 131. as., for clothes supplied to his son when a minor.
It did not appear that the lather gave any authority to the
plaintiff to supply the clothes • but he had written a letter,
offering to pay 71. Bs. of the, bill, being a former demand, if the
tailor would send him a receipt.
Mr. Itonirrsox addressed the Jury for the defendant, con:
tending, that the letter was no proof of a prior agreement, and
that It contained a condition which had not been complied with.
Tile 'Loan etriEr,Jvs•rtcr: left the Jury to say whether
the letter was evidence of an original authority.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff- Damages, 71.85.
lIMIESFORD V. PREXTICE.
This was an action of trespass by a Magistrate's cleric, against
a poulterer at Islingtim. It appeared that the plaintiff owed the
defendant 10s. ad. or Bs., and that he thought fit not only to
demand it, but, on a reflisal of payment, to sit down and smoke
in the plaintiff's house.—The Jury found a verdict for the
plaintiff—Datnages,

nisPaTcit. or BUSINE9I.
During the sitting of the Court this morning, Mr, LE BLANC,
clerk of the Crown-office, read, by direction of their Lordships,
a warrant from his Majesty, directed to the Judges, founded on
the act of thdlast session, for regulating the future dispatch of
business in this Court.
'rite warrant was dated the lith of November, and, advert.:
ing to the act in question, and to the accumulation of' bust•
tress before the Court, cave the sanction of the Crosin for
their Lordships to sit in .Lincoln's Inn-Hall, Westminster
Hall, Serjeant's Inn. Hall, or any other place which to the
Lord Chief Justice and other ,Judges should appear convenient
for a certain peiiod previous to the commencement of the next
Term, to dispatch such business at might remain undisposed of
at the conclusion of the present Term. The warant proceeded
to signify his Majesty's pleasure that the Judges should
meet for this purpose on the 13th of January next, and con»
tinue to sit, if necessary, until the first day of the ensuing term.
And his Majesty further directed; that should the Lord Chief
Justice be engaged during such period in sitting at NW Prins,
then the rest of the Judges should sit as directed, and dispose
of all such business as to their Lordships should appear fitting
to be considered in the absence of the Lord Chief Justice.
The LOUD CHIEF jtISTICE.— The gentlemen of the bar
will take notice, that, in obedience to his Majesty's commands,
I will sit at Nisi Prius, in this place, durin the time men-
tioned in his Majesty's warrant; and my learned Brothers
will sit in a room adjoining, to dispose of such motions and
other business as may remain undisposed of at the conclusion
of the present Term.

COURT
.OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 19.
4LEXitign}.:l2 v. DIXON.
This Hasa notion for an attachment against a witness named
Creighton, for contempt, in having neglected to appear on the
trial of the cause on the 4th QC attly last, although summoned
by the Court; in consequence of the loss of whose testimony,
the rdaintilt had been obliged to withdraw his record.
Mr. Serjeant T. now appeared to show cause against
the Rule obtained in this case, and contended that it could not
he supported, as the subptena which required the attendance of
the witness on the 2d of July, although dated 18th June, had
not been served upon him until the 3d.
In reply Mr_ Serjeant VALIGUAN said, the subptena bore
date as usual, the 18th Jull'e, being the last day of Term, and
required the attendance of the witness in Court every day during
the sittings.
The Court held, that the witness having been served with
the subpasna on the ad, requiring his appearance on the 2d of.
July, it was probable he imagined it was then too late, and had
consequently not attended.—Rule,discilarged, without costs. I

TIWETELL V. BEAL/1416NT.
Mr. Serjeant VatratiAN.—.My Lords, I hope your Lord.
ships will allow me for a moment to call your attention in this
case. Your Lordships will recollect it was an action by Thom
mss Thurtell against the defendant, to recover the value of some
property destroyed by fire. A rule was obtained in the present
term by my Brother Teddy, to show cause why the verdict
should not be set aside and a new trial granted. Now, my
Lords, what I hive to request is, that you would allow the case
to be called on before the close of the term. There is now, my
Lords, us was stated on it former day, an indictment for con.
spiracy against the plaintiff in this action, referring to the very
case out of which this rule arose, and that may come on to
be tried before the next term, I need not mention whist
a prejudice such a rule as this, hanging over the head of the
plaintiff, will he calculated to excite; indeed, a great deal
of prejudice has been already excited. The public press ham
taken this affair up, and has teemed from day to day with
statements calculated to pollute the very sources of justice it.
self. 'hope, my Lords, you will, under these circumstances,
allow the case to come on this term. I have the less difficulty
in making this request, as the rule itself stands very high on
the list at' motions for new trials.
Mr. Serjeant PELL (who is engaged alone with Serjeant
'Vaughan in the ease) followed on the sante side, and earnestly
urged the Court to allow the case to conic to a hearing this
tem. •

arr. Justice BlinnOuoll,—llow do we know which way
the facts of the case may lead us to divide ? Without cell:ring
an opinion one way or other, for the facts are not
,yet before us,
may not the decision which this Court might be induced to
come, be as likely to prejudice your client, as the suspense by
suffering the rule to stand over ? But we do not think that the
party for whom you apply can be prejudiced by any thing
which has hitherto passed in this Court.
Mr. Serjeant Vitt/ oulae--My Lords, with great stibmission,
we do think that the parties may be prepdiced by the delay.--
A great deal of prejudice has gone abroad on the case. It may
perhaps become ground of theatriCal representation ; and I be.
hove that in fact part of it has become so already.
tlir. justice PARK---Me cannot take upon ourselves to given
decision on so important a case as this, in the present state of
the Court. (At present only two of the Judos sit daily. The
Lord Chief- Justice and Mr. Justice Richardson Are absent.)—.
Perhaps before the end of the term, the Ceurt may be in a cone
ditiou to bear the case; but under the circomstunce of his lw.
ing been tried by one of ourselves (the Learned Judge himself),'
we cannot at present proceed with it. If it were a case which
had been tried by any of the Jittiges of the other Courts, we
would do our best with it ; but there being now only two Judges
present, one of whom tried the case, we cannot allow it to come.
on.

Air. Justice Buttnotratr.—l cannot think the public can be
so weak as to be prejudiced on any side of the question by what
has already passed in this Court.
Here the subject dropped.
rt.LISTON V.
Air. Serjeant 'PADDY 'informed. the Court that the plaintiff'
in this case was willink tel. act upon the recommendation giten
from the Bench yesterday (see Tur. SoN of yesterday), and to
stay all farther proceedings.
There being no other business ready, the Court rose at one
o'clock.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Nov. W.
• *lowest»: CLPIMITSON.
In Itloive!.Numine we noticed the opening dads case, and
the arguments alCOunsel on each side: This day,the Learned
Judge (Sir J. NttatoLL) proceeded to deliver his judgment.
The question turned on an alleged codicil to the will of a