The Sun.
London, England, 1840-08-11 00:00:00

BEAUMONT BARONY.

The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment in this'ease,
recommending their Lordships to report 'to her. ,Ma-
jesty that Miles Stapleton, Esq.,, was the senior, and
the Earl of Abingdon the second coheir to the barony.
muNito .v. ItUNRO, AND THE COUNTESS OF DAL-
. HOUSIE 344pbwar.r.:
The LORD CHANCELLOR and 'Lord BROUGHAM
gave judgment in thee -Caseg, which related to the
lqws' of-legitimation and domicile in Scotland, reversing
the j-udgments of ,the Courts below.,;

DOE V. VARDREL.-WRIT OF ERROR.
Lord BaouuffAxgave, judgment in this case in favour
of theAleferkdantt in error.
VIE EARL OF HARDWICRE F. SIR C. tiOnL AS.
Lord Buotr;,,m.uu also gave judgment in this case,
which was heard a short time since, upon appeal &ma
the decisioh of the present Lord Chancellor, when
Mister of'the Rolls. The question in this -case was
whither gift of the:residue of, his• property by the,
will of Capt. Yorke, .was revoked by the second codicil
to that will. The judgment of the court below , which
was in favour of the respondent, was ordered to be re-
versed.

JACKSON v. JACKSON, AND ABERNETDIE V. FORBES,
Stood on tile paper for judgment, but the decision
in neither was given.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT—GuIIvFoRD) MONDAY, AUG. 10
(Befotc Lord MAMMA mid a gpeeial JurY.)
()or og,rkiE..prinsE or MASON 'U.,.54 DLER:—EJfiCT-
:
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to re-
cover possessioh of an estate, called the Clemoner Hill
estate, at Haz!emere, in this couuty, and the circum-
stances under which the claim has been prosecuted have
excited some interest.
Mr. 'Sergeant Channel! appeared for the plaintiff;
Mr. Thesiger and Mr Clarkson for. the defendant.
Sergeant CHANNELI addressed the jury, and said
that his client, Mr. Masco, sought ,to recover the pos-
session of some property of which he censidered,he had
been unjustll deprived. The property in question for-
merly belonged to a lady named Osborne, an.d'it subse--
quently came into the possession of another pa'itY named '
Darby, from whom his client Claimed a title by'will.
The Learned Couniel then called Witnesses, but he
failed in niai(ing out any thing. like a claim.
Lord ABitiamt:Brother Channell, this will not do.
Sergeant CHANNELL—My Lord, I- an' afraid I
cannot carry the case any further.
Mr. THESIGER—We can show that Mr. Sadler had
held 33 year's possession of the property, and a title
from Charles the Second.
Lord AartioErt--;•The plaintiff must be called;there
is no case of .title whatever made out by the plaintiff.
The next was a similar action by the same-plaintiff,
against another party, to recover possession of some
property by ejectment: •
When the case was called on, the Officer: of the•
Court stated that the record in the action had 'been
withdrawn.
A criminal indictment against Mr. Potter, the soli-
citor , to Mr. Sadler, and the Under-Sheriff for the
county, preferred by the plaintiff Mason, was then
called on, and a Special Jury having been sworn,
Lord ABINGER inquired whether there was any Coun-
sel engaged for the prosecution? .
No answer was returned.
Lord ABINGER then directed John Mason, the prose-
cutor, to be called, and he soon afterwards came into
the Court, and his Lordship told him that if -.he
had no Counsel hc, might conduct his case himself if he
pleased.
Mason, who is an elderly man, 'said ho should do so.
The charge against Mr. Potter was that of con-
spiring With another, pefson to prevent the execution of
a writ of ejectment, obtained by the plaintiff Mason,
entitling him to be put in possession of the estate re-
ferred to.
Mr. Thesiger and Mr. Clarkson appeared for Mr.
Potter.
Mason was then sworn, and hestated as, follows
We got a writ of execution, which was handed over to
the Sheriff, but Mr. Potter refused to execute it.
Lord AIIINGER—WeII, you must prove that he had
the writ, and that he refused or did not execute it.
Mason—l shall do that. I have got plenty of wit-
nesses. (He was then about to leave the box.)
Mr. THEsrota.:---Stop, stop, Mr. Mason, I must ask
you a question 'or two before you go. In the first
place, did not this writ you _speak of refer to the pro-
perty to which the-Jury have just now declared by their
verdict you have no right or title whatever ?
Mason—l don't know anything about that, but I.
know that I got the writ.
In answer to further questions, he stated that an at-
tempt had been made to obtain possession of the same
property by writ of right, but that was abandoned.
,The writ in question, he also admitted, bad been after-
wards set aside by the Judge.
Mr. THEsIGER—Pray, Mr. Mason, when you ob-
tained this,writ , of judgment did Yoh nat'enine down and'
set the bells ringing, and say that yOti bad recovered
your property ? MasouL-No, I was not such a fool as.
to do that.
. Mr. THEsma—Now,' Mr': Mason, tell .us whether
you have ever been in possession of this preperty, or de-
rived any rent or profit. from it ? Mason—Of course not,
I been kept out of my rights. -
Lord ABINGER then asked the witness whether he
understood him to say that the writ upon which the pre-
-seat indictment was founded had been afterwards set
aside?--He replied that it was, through a witness having
been brought forward who perjured hireseif.
His LORDSHIP then said that put an end to the
case ; however, if' the writ was not valid, the Sheriff.
was not bound to execute it. The jury must,-there-
fore, return a verdict for the defendant.
Mr. THESIGER then addressed the Court, and said
he hoped that in, justice to Mr. Potter, who was a,.
gentleman of high character and station in the country,
he might be permitted to sly a few words in explana-
tion of the circumstances out of which the present pro-
•ceedings arose, in order that it might not be supposed
that there was the least shadow of foUndation for the
charge that had been inade' ogainst him.' An indict-
ment for conspiracy, was a most sericlus charge, and
it was absolutery necessary that Mr. Potter's character
should be 'cleared from the' imputation thus thrown
upon it. The property in question had been purchased
by Mr. Sadler in 1807, and had been in bis undisturbed
possession until'lB34, when the'plairitiff thought proper
to obtain a writ of right, and after. putting Mr. Sadler
to great expense, he 'abandoned the !proceedings. Mr.
Sadler was put to most ruinous expenses, for no costs
could ever be obtained ; and although every means
were taken to push the plaintiff On to trial, in order that
he might show his title, he avoided doiag, sn, Par-

tiler proceedings were taken, and by some means or I
other Mason obtaine,d a writ of ejectment, which he
placed in the hands of Mr. Potter, but that gentleman
feeling satisfied that it had been obtained by improper
means, declined to execute it, and proceeded to
London, where upon further argument the writ was
immediately set aside. The Learned Counsel proceeded
to state that the plaintiff had no r►;ht whatever to the
property he sought to recover, and the proceedings that
had been taken were solely for the purpose of harassing
and annoying the defendants.
Mason then said he had got witnesses he wished to
have examined in support of the charge against Mr.
Potter.

Lord ABINGER told him it was no use calling wit-
nesses ; he had put himself out of Court.
Mason—Ah ! this is the way I am robbed of my
property.
The Jury then returned a verdict for the defendant.
In the nuisance case, Ingram v. Collier, the Jury
stopped the examination of the defendant's witnesses,
and returned a verdict in his favour.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.

AN ASSIGNEE IN NEWGATE-IN THE MATTER OF THE

REV. FASHAM NAIRN.

Mr. WOODROFU, at the rising of the Court on Mon-
day evening, applied on the part of Robert Gray, who
had been assignee in this case, and committed to New-
gate for not paying into Court 8971, to take his case
into its merciful consideration. He said Gray was 75
years of age, and had been in the infirmary of the gaol ;
he was seriously ill. He was ready to sell an annuity he
had and pay 2001. into Court if he could obtain his dis-
charge. The Learned Gentleman hoped, if the money
was raised, the old man would be discharged. His wife
had an annuity of 501„ which could not be sold. He,
however, could raise 2004 on his annuity to pay into
Court. He had suggested that Gray should- petition
the Court, pay 2001. into Court, and take a judgment
for a breach of trust, but he was likely to die before he
could be heard.

Mr. Commissioner LAW declared that he would listen
to anything honestly done, and every assistance should
be rendered. He was not to say what should be done.
The matter stood over with the understanding that
the money would be forthcoming.—The Court sat till
seven o'clock.