The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-08 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 6.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius before Mr. Baron PLATT and
Common Juries.)
FESSENMEYEE V. ADCOCK.

This case, which has occupied the attention of the
Court during the last two days, and which was an
action brought to recover the amount of a solicitor's
bill of costs, for professional services alleged to be
rendered to the plaintiff, was again resumed to-day.
The evidence, which was of a very voluminous na-
ture, having been concluded,
Mr. CROWDER and Mr. MARTIN were heard in reply.
The Learned JUDGE, having summed up,
The jury retired to consider their verdict, and after
an absence of upwards of an hour, returned a verdict
for the plaintiff for the sum of U. 11s., the jury being
of opinion that there was no evidence to show that
the plaintiff was employed upon any other business
by the defendant than that for which charges were
made, amounting to the sum given in the verdict.
(Sittings in Banco.)
STAGG V. LORD MILTOWN.

In this case the Lord Chief Baron stated at the
sitting of the Court, that the Court had had an op-
portunity of consulting with Mr. Justice Coleridge,
and they were of opinion that the rule applied for
yesterday ought to be granfed.—Rule granted.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Nov. 6.

IN THE GOODS OF SARAN GLOVER, DECEASED.

The deceased, a married woman, in executing her
will under a power reserved to her by her marriage
settlement, signed it not with the name of " Glover,"
her then husband, to whom she had been married 10
years, but with that of "Reed," the name of her first
husband, deceased. The question was whether this
was a good execution.
Sir H. J. FJJST held that, as the deceased had signed
the will in the presence of two witnesses, the execu-
tion was sufficient to satisfy the law, which did
not require that the name signed should be the
party's legal name : a mark had been held to be
sufficient, although the party could write ; and a will
signed by a person "A. 8.," with his own name, by
desire of a testator C. D., had been admitted to probate
as the will of C. D.

TAPSTER AGAINST 110LTZTAPFL.

This was a suit of an amicable kind respecting the
will of Mr. Charles Holtztapfl, of Charing-cross and
Long-acre, engine manufacturer, by a legatee against
the children of the deceased, appearing by their
guardian, the widow declining to propound the will,
in order that she might not become a party, and that
her evidence might thereby be admitted under Lord
Denman's Act, though she had a large interest in esta-
blishing the will.
The COURT having suggested a doubt, at the out-
set, how far the evidence of the widow, for whose
individual interest the will was really propounded,
could be received in this case to establish an instru-
ment which gave her nearly the whole property,
Dr. HARDING, in support of the will, contended
for her competency, arguing that the statute was an
enabling statute, the declared object of which was to
remove obstructions to the discovery of truth ; that
she was not included in the exceptions mentioned in
the Act, not being a person " named on the record"
(this court was not a court of record), nor a person
"in whose immediate or individual behalf any action
may be brought or defended." If the widow's evi-
dence was excluded because she had an interest in the
result of the suit, the policy of the statute would be
contravened.

After hearing Dr. JENNER, contra,
Sir H. J. FUST was of opinion that the evidence
in support of the will was sufficient to establish it
without having recourse to that of the widow, and he
declined deciding the question raised, which, he
observed, he should be sorry to decide in such a case
as this, where all was clearly bona fide, and thereby
sanction the admission of such evidence in cases of
a very different kind. He was satisfied that this was
the will of the deceased, and he therefore pronounced
for it.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Nov. 6.
(Before the CBIEF COMMISSIONER.)
IN RE JAMES OSBORNE.

This insolvent, a traveller in the employment of a
tea company, applied for a protecting order.
Mr. Dowse opposed, and Mr. Nichols supported.
The insolvent, upon being examined, said his debts
amounted to 2,5201., of which 2,321/. were without
consideration, arising. from accommodation accept.
ances and liabilities in favour of a Mr. Kemp, lately
a grocer at Uxbridge, but now bankrupt. The in-
solvent admitted that he was to receive 1501. a year
from Kemp for the use of his name, with a prospective
partnership.
The CHIEF COMMISSIONER said this was too mon-
strous a case to receive the slightest favour from the
Court. Such a dangerous and dishonest mode of
trading could not be sanctioned, and he should there-
fore refuse to name any day for the final order.
Protection was asked for, but refused.
IN RE HENRY HUTCHINS.

This insolvent's petition was dismissed on accoun
of an omission in the description. _

(Before Mr. Commissioner LAW.)
IN RE JOHN EVANS.

This insolvent was opposed by Mr. Maskell, a
solicitor, who complained that the present proceedings
had been adopted for the sole purpose of getting rid
of his debt of 9/. 18s., a bill of costs for taking the
insolvent through the court on a former occasion. _ _

Mr. Commis;ioner LAW said that a case of this
kind, where the costs of the petition exceeded the
amount of the opposing creditor's debt, which was
almost the only real one in the schedule, was not very
worthy of consideration. I.le looked upon the present
proceEding as a device to avoid payment of Mr.
Maskell's debt, and upon his present impression he
should feel disposed to dismiss the petition, but would
give the insolvent the option of filing an amended
balance-sheet, or an instant dismissal.

Mr. DORCUM, the insolvent's counsel, chose the
latter course, and the petition was accordingly dis-
missed.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

GUILDHALL.

Samuel Jordan, a carman and horse-jobber, attended
before Mr. Alderman Moon, to answer the complaint
of the sergeant of the Smithfield police, for bringing
into the market, for the purpose of sale, a glandered
horse.

Sergeant White stated that his attention was drawn
to the horse by one of the policemen. He found two
horses tied to a rail, not in the part of the market ap-
propriated to the sale of horses, but in the sheep-
market. One of the horses was labouring under a
profuse discharge from the nose, and a little boy was
standing close to the horse's head. Its head projected
over the rail and partly on the backs of the sheep in
the pen. The sheep had been sold to a butcher, and
were afterwards fetched away to be killed. He untied
the horse, and while he was leading it across Smith-
field the prisoner came up and claimed it, stating that
he had sold it to Cross, a horse-slaughterer, and he
required it should be delivered to him. Cross was
there, but said nothing. Complainant persisted in
taking care of the horse, and led it to Atchelor's, a
horse-boiler, in Sharp's-alley, Cow-cross. The de-
fendant denied his right to take any notice of it, as he
did not bring it into the part where the horses are
exposed for sale. He was a frequenter of the market,
and he and others had a notion that they had a right
to bring their diseased horses into the sheep-market
for sale, and have the benefit of the little competition
in the knackers' bidding, instead of sending for the
knacker to fetch the horse, or taking the horse direct
to the knacker, in the old way.
Wallsgrove, a policeman, proved that he saw the I