The Sun.
London, England, 1823-06-09 00:00:00

From the LONDON GNZETTE, June 7.

NOTICE To CREDITORS.

ALL Persons having any Claims or Demands
1-1 on the Right Honourable JOHN EARL of EGMONT,
or upon his Son, LORI) VISCOUNT PERCEVAL. are re-
quested forthwith to send au Accotint thereof (in writing) to
us, with the amount of their Claims, and the Date and Par-
ticulars of their respective Securities, in order that an ar-
rangement now in progress to secure and discharge the same
may be carried into execution.

June 6, 1823.

VINES and ADEN', Solicitors.
6, tuue•buildings, Lincoln's Inn

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JUNE 7.
CLANDESTINE MAURIAGt.--.RAMSAY V. RAMSAY.

Mr. SUADWELL stated this was a petition, praying that the
Master might be directed to review his report. The circum-
stances of the case were, that a Miss Ramsay, an infant ward
of the Court, had married a Mr. Smith, also a minor ; she was
entitled to 5,0001. stock on obtaining the age of twenty-five.—
It was referred to the Master to inquire and report what
would be a proper marriage-settlement. He had reported that
the infant ward was to have the dividends of the stock for her
life, and in case of her decease before het husband, that he was
to be entitled to the dividends for his life, the capital to go to
the issue of the marriage, and in default of issue the infant
ward to have the right of diposal by will. The part of the
settlement that the petition objected to was, that the husband
should take the dividends for his life, and the right of the wife
to dispose by will.
Mr. HART contended that the Master had taken the right
view of the case, by giving theappointment to the infant wars
in case there was no issue, by which means he secured to her
the good treatment of her husband during her life.
The LORD CHANCELLOII.—" I am of opinion that the in-
fant ward ought to have the dividends during her life, with the
capital to the issue of the marriage; that the husband ought
not to have the dividends for his life, and, in default of issue,
that she ought to have the disposal by will to her husband, or
any one else; such a
.power may greatly add :o her happiness.
It has become more incumbent on this Court to be careful in
making settlements in such cases as this, as one branch of the
Legislature seems to be of opinion that all marriages of minors,
whether by license or not, ought not to be disturbed, which will
compel parties to abide by settlements made by this Court, or
the Court of Exchequer."
Prayer of the Petition granted in part.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE 7.
THE KING V. SAMPSON ISRAEL.

The LORD CIIIEF•JUSTICE informed the Common Ser-
geant that the Judges had considered the objections which he
had raised on a former day to the indictment for perjury, on
which this defendant was convicted, and were unanimously of
opinion that they were groundless. They therefore refused to
grant a rule to show cause why the judgment should not be
arrested.

APPLICATION FOR A MANDAMUS.
Mr. COMMON SERGEANT moved for a writ of mandamus,
directed to Dr. Wooll, of Rugby, commanding him to issue his
warrant for the apprehension of certain showmen for continuing
a nuisance in the public street of that place. He made this
application on behalf of a solicitor, residing in Church-street,
Rugby, who was much incommoded by an exhibition of wild
beasts in caravans stationed before his premises. He had ap-
plied to Dr. Wooll for his warrant to arrest the offenders, but
the Doctor had refused, and had stated that the beasts were
exhibited by his express permission. He therefore prayed that
the Doctor might be required to abate the nuisance.
The LORD CHIEF JusTicE—The interference of the Court
would be of much avail, for beasts, keepers, and caravans
would probably have departed before a warrant could be put in
force. He recollected on the western circuit that the Court was
almost blockaded by caravans of this description, and the
Judge directed their removal; but they did not obtain much
benefit by the measure, for the caravans were posted in the
street where they lodged, and they 'could get no rest from the
noise of the animals.—(A laugh.)
Mr. Common' SERJEAN't -hoped the Judges who were so
incommoded would know how to sympathise with his
(A laugh.)—The motion was refused.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUNE 7.

RIGHT OP FEES.--IMPORTANT TO THE PROFESSION.

Mr. Sergeant Pr:Lt. moved that the rule obtained on a former
day against the Clerk of the Nirar ran ts of the Common Pleas
Court should be made absolute. The officer in question had
refused to pass a fine for an attorney, on the ground that the
said attorney had not paid his " arrearages" of eight pence a
Tenn, for 25 years, such fee being legal.
Mr. Sergeant LENS was heard against the rule, and Mr.
Sergeant Pc x. I. this morning proceeded in the further argument
of the question.
The Loki) Cum, JUsTreE said,
he considered the fee a
legal one ; but then came the question how its payments should
be enforced. It appeared that
attornies had, to avoid paying
fees, acted secretly in the name of other attornies, and the
Court then ordered that all arrearages should be paid in the
way pointed out by the order, namely, by Michaelmas Term.
It now appeared that the
officer had acted conformably to
ancient usage. Without it could be shewn that there was any
culpable omission on the part of the officer to procure his fee,
which did not appear, the rule ought to be discharged, and he,
for one, was of opinion the officer had acted rightly.
Mr. Justice PAIIK was of the same opinioh. 'Fite measure
alluded to by Mr. Serjeant
Pell could not be carried into ef-
ect, fur then came tht inconvenience observed by Mr. Justice
Burrough, of the officers being obliged to run to Durham or
distant parts of the kingdom to g
Clerks' Office they refused to pas:, any business till the fees
were paid. The beamed Judge observed,
their fees
if
Inan t
attorneyhe Six
passed, because
oetr,:,
of his was to tell him he could not get his fine
he refused to pay a fee of Bd., he should not much longer act
in that capacity.
Mr. Justice Buttuouatz was of the same opinion with his
Lordship and his Brother Park. Forinerly even prisoner* suf.
fered imprisonment until they paid fees.
Rule discharged, without costs.

PREROGATIVE COURT, JUNE 7.
i(EVEX. v. BROAD•

Sir Join; Nicitoi. in this case pronounced the judgment
of the Court. It was a question as to the validity of a will.
The parties were the daughter-in.law anti the eldest (laugh-
ter of' Charles Revel, coachman to the Bristol mail, who was
killed in December, 1819, by the fall of a wall, leaving
behind him property, real and personal, to the amount Of
3,000/. fie left a widow, one son, and 'several daughters.
The son died soon afterwarwards, leaving a widow, who now
claimed the property in right of her husband. Soon after the
death of the coachman, a will was alleged to have been found
by his widow, leaving a provision for her, and the bulk of his
property to his eldest daughter, and cutting off his sou with a
shilling. This will was said to have been found upon the re.
moval of a chest of drawers. The date of it was April, 1817.
Its validity was disputed on behalf of the son's widow. The
handwriting was described as forged, and it was denied that it
was found as was stated. A broker, who said he had been called
in to appraise the goods soon after the death-of the deceased,
deposed, that he had removed the chest, and found no will
nor sealed parcel, which he must have done had it been so
depositetl. It was also alleged that the paper on which the
supposed will was written, had not been manufactured until
after the date of the writing. This statement was met by evi_
dence that the will was in conformity with the expressed in.
tendons of the deceased, who was offended ht his son's marrying
the present claimant, and that he had frequently said he would
cut his Non oft.; but it appeared that although the testator often
complained that his son was a racketty chap, he frequently gave
him sums of money, and in other ways manifested affection for
him. . .

The Learnd JUDGE said the writing in this will had evi-
dently been painted ; the first letters of the deceased's name were,
a constrained hand, and that
on comparison, tlifl'erent from that in the other signatures to
authenticated documents signed by him r the hand-writing too
aepfpoetalrmedn twohebeceaurler thoughvlrairte,hetter
if
he
chose.
As
to
the
find.
ing of the will, it was extraordinary that it should be found, not
in the house or the room where thatleeeesed slept, but in the
bed-room of his wife, with whom lie had not cohabited for a
long time, and that it should be found ton by one who had a
direct interest in the fabrication. The broker „who had re.
moved the chest and row no instrument, watt disinterested, and
there was no reason to doubt his evidence. The most singular
piece of evidence was that relative to the paper on which the
will was written, and upon this the Court were of opinion
that it had been most incontestibly proved, that whilst the
will was dated in April 1017, the moulds on which the paper
was made were not fonmed until June in thit year, that the
paper was not made until Juue, nor issued until August, and
probably not sold until October. The Court were therefore of
opinion, that the validity. of the will was by no means sustain.,
ed, and decreed letters of administration to the widow of the
eldest son, with costs.

Lord Chamberlain's Of/icc, June 5, 1823.
The Lord Chamberlain of his Majesty's Household has ap-
pointed the Rev. Daniel Hatton Chaplain in Ordinary to his
Majesty, in the room of the Rev. Doctor Hugh Pearson, pro.
moted.

Lord Chamberlain's (Vice, June 5, 1823.
The Lord Chamberlain of his Majesty's ousehold has ap-
pointed Thomas Barry, Esq. one of the Gentlemen of his Ma-
jesty's Most Honourable Privy Chamber.

BANKRUPTCIES SUPERSEDED.
T. Gilbert, jun. Long.acre, coachmaker —R. Pullham,
Leeds, merchant.

BANKRUPTS.
W. Pitcher, Salisbury-square, carpenter, to surrender June
14, 21, and July 19, at ten, at the Court of Commissioners.
Attorney, Mr. 'Vincent, Bedford-street, Bedford-square.
W. Sedgley, jun. Dudley, Worcestershire, grocer, June 21,
28, and July 19, at twelve, at the Court of Commissioners,
London. Attorney, Mr. Hindinarsh, Crescent, Jewin-street,
Cripplegate, London.
J. Hurry, Liverpool, ship chandler, June 28, 28, and July
19, at one, at the George Inn, Liverpool. Atturnies, Messrs.
Taylor and Roscoe, King's Bench-walk, Temple, London;
and Messrs. Lace, Miller, and Lace, Liverpool.
S Lowe, Newman-street, painter on glass, June 17, 24, and
July 19, at one, at the Court of Commissioners. Attorney,
Mr. Clabon, Mark-lane.

J. Tate, Adam.street, Adelphi, coal-merchant, June 10,
17, and July 19, at one, at the Court of Commissioners. At-
tornies, Messrs. Hodgson and Burton, Salisburystreet, Strand.
B. White, Maiden Bradley, Wiltshire, farmer, June 19,20,
at the White Horse Inn, Wincanton, Somersetshire, and July
19, at the Lamb Inn, Hindon, 'Wiltshire, at twelve. A ttor-
ides, Mr. Dyne, Lincoln's Inn-fields, London ; and Mr. Ring,
Wincanton.

J. Buckle, Scarab Mill, Yorkshire, miller, July 1,2, and
19, at ten, at the Unicorn Inn, Ripon, Yorkshire. Attornies
Mr. W. Spence, Threadneedle-street, London and Mr. W.
Downing, Ripon.
A. West, Ramsey, Huntingdonshire, grocer, June 15, at six,
16, at ten, and July 19, at five, at St Ives, Huntingdonshire.
Atturnies, Mr. Oeo. G. Day, St. Ives • and 31essrs. Long and
Austen, Holborn-court, Gray's Inn, London.
. _

J. Corney, Beauchamp, near Ongar, Essex, shopkeeper,
June 14, 25, and July 19, at twelve, at the Court of Commis-
sioners. Attornies, Messrs. Harvey and Wilson, Lincoln's
Inn-fields ; and Messrs. Henley and Baker, Ongar, Essex.
'l'. Annett, Livepool, stone-merchant, uly 1,2, and 19, at
one, at the George Inn, Liverpool. Attornies, Messrs. Lowtin
and Nicholson, Lansdown-place, Brunswick-square, London;
and Mr. Thomas Leicester, Liverpool.
R. Whitehead; Norwich, bombazine-manufacturer, June 23,
26, and July 19, at four, at the Bowlinwgreen Inn, Norwich.
Attornies, Messrs. Parkinson and Staff, Norwich; and Messrs.
Taylor and Roscoe, King's Bench-walk, London.
DIVIDENDS.

June 28, W. Green, treet, Clerkewell, iron-
monger--June 28, H. Benham, High-street, Southwark, iron.
monger—June 28, W. Peet, ironmonger-lane, merchant--
June 28, B. Bennett, Little-Dean, Gloucestershire, nailor—
June 28, E. Monk and J. Hodgskin, Maidstone, grocers._
July 28, J. and It. Day, Camberwell-green, stone-masons—
June 28, T. and J. a Payn, Cateaton-street, warehouse.
men—June 28, J. Roberts, Stoney-Stratford, tanner—June
28, W. W. Deschamps B. S. Morgan, and P. 111"rag-
gart, Suffolk-lane, merchants—June 30, T. George, Leeds,
merchant—June 28, J. Crucklen, jun., Enlield-Wash,
farmer—July 1, W. Rawe, Padstow, Cornwall, mercer---
—July 4, J. Hart, Edwardstone, Suffolk, maltster—July 1,
T. Vernon, Bath, picture-dealer—June 14, NV. Fothergill,
Cannon-street-road, ship-owner—June 23, C. Dunkin, Shad-
Thames, Horalydown, lighterman—June 28, S. Vertue, Mark•
lane, corn-merchant—June 30, T. Jones, Abergavenny, tan.
ner —June 28, E. Tucker, Deptford, tallow-chandler—July 2,
11. Thomas, Liverpool, merchant—July 22 G. Dorset„L Sohn.
son, J. Wilkinson, W. Berners, and J. Filson, New Bond.
street, bankers—July 5, T. Hall, Old C,ompton.street, Soho,
woollen-draper-.-June 28, A. J. L. Vieira and A. M. Biaga,
Tokenhouse-yard, merchants.
CERTIFICATES, Jvw 28.
J. Hammon, Great Portland-street, Oxtbrd-street, plumber
—J. Hellicar, Andover, Ilnendraper—J. Smith, Newbury,
baker—J. Sprent, Gosport, builder—W. Atkins, Chipping
Norton, mealman—T. Keay., South Shields, grocer—T. Lum.
min, ist Bridgeton!, Notunghamshire, maltater—B. Barge,
Clifford-street, Bond-street, wme,merchant--S. Mace, Nor.
wick, grocer—J. Jameson, Little Queen-street, St. Giles's,
coach-maker—J. Taylor, Flora-street, draper—D. Nash, Fins.
bury-square,livery-stable-keepzr.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

J. Wilkinson, J. Hazledine, and W. Binns, itayley-bridge,
Lancashire, cotton-spinners—W. and G. Bardwell, .Bungay,
linen-drapers—J. and 11. Harris, Birmingham, plumbers—J.
Rigby and .1. Penlington, Liverpool, watch-manufacturers--
T., 11., R. W., and T. Wood, Leicester, hosiers, so far as re-
gards R. W. Wood—W. and H. Thomas, Coleman-street,
tea-dealers—H. Hopwood and P. Harwood, York, iron-
mongers—J. Marsters and J. English, King's Lynn, sack-
manufacturers—R. and J. Love, Manchester—G. and J.
Bartlett and H. Hoare, jun., Brixham, Devonshire, brewers
—T. Greenhalgh and J. Crawshaw, Nutt-Bank, Lanca-
shire, cotton-spinners—J. Ashton and J. Whatton, Liver-
pool, shipwrights—J. Clegg and T. Taylor, Manchester,
fustian-manufacturers-1L and J. Deakin, Dawley-Bank,
Shropshire, grocers—R. Young and W. Cooper, Preston,
joiners—J. and A. F. Staples, Old Bailey, capillaire-
mandfacturers —J. Clarke and L. Mouchet, Henrietta-street,
Covent-garden, upholsters—T. Hyde and J. Goode, Prince's-
Risborough, Buckinghamshire, drapers—D. Lambert and V.
Kingston—R. Smalpage and H.R. Vicars, Leeds, tailor.

- -
SINGULAR CASE.—The following singular case
occurred at Paris a short tine ago :—Two privates belonging to
the litianis, who were tipsy, were quarrelling in a narrow
passage with some of the citizens, who were equally tipsy,
when a third private of the same regiment came up, and for-
cibly dragged one of his comrades into the street, keeping fast
hold of him there to prevent his fighting. In the mean time
the other soldier, being nearly overpowered by his opponents,
drew his sword, when, unfortunately, one of them rushed upon
the point of the sword, and was killed upon the spot. The
town-guard was called in and arrested the soldiers. The Colonel
of the regiment to whom these men belonged, obtained a pardon
for them • but, owing to the confused testimony of the wit-
nesses, who confounded the actions of the diGrent soldiers,
the soldier who had been prevented from taking part in the
quarrel, was described in the pardon as the person who had com.
mitted the murder. This man was advised to confess himself
the murderer, or otherwise the pardon would be of no use,.
which he accordingly did on his examination. This avowal
made the matter worse ; for as it had been deposed that this
soldier had been detained in the street, the Judges concluded,
from his then confession, that he had killed the man, that he
must have done it intentionally, and not in self-defence. They
therefore refused to confirm th, letters of pardon, and the poor
man was on the point of bein condemned to death for an ace
which he had not committed, when his companion' who' was
really guilty of the murder, came forward and disclosed the
whole truth, producing witnesses to prove it. There are a
number of caious circumstances in this affair, with a mixture
of sincerity and heroism such as would give an air of romance
to the whole, if we did not know it to be a well-attested fact.
It is one among the interesting examples which have occurred
but too often, of the awful suite in which any, the best of'
characters, may be placed when it stands alone against the
testimony of others, and in the midst of suspicious circumstances.
—At the same time it should impress upon the mind of every
Judge and Jury the fallibility of human judgment, and the
necessity for the greatest care and circumspection's before they
venture to pronounce any man guilty without the strongest
possible evidence against him, even if it come from his own
mouth ; and also the duty incumbent on them to sift every .part
of the testimony, particularly, in these days when there have
been so many shocking instances of witnesses swearing away
the lives or reputations of men, whose characters, howeverpre.
eminent, have not been sufficient to save them from the united
evidence upon oath, of a conspiracy against them. Before
such evidence can be safely taken, the Judge and Jury ought
not to be content with the regular ordinary proof that the wit-
nesses are not bad characters,—they ought to be persuaded that
they lira good.—and, in the present times, that they are men of
sonic religion ; or what is an oath to thuetutitivieftthheery aarse
tboolsreir andeen
p artful enough to lay a plot, so well .
them front the punishment of perjury ?..-(British Monitor,
June 13.)