The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-06 00:00:00

TULLOCH V. HARTLEY.

The bill was filed to have an account taken of an es-
tate in Jamaica. The facts are already before the pub-
lic. The cause came on for hearing before Lord Cot-
tenham, just before the commencement of the vacation,
when it was postponed on accour.t of the impossibility
of bringing it to a conclusion. The arguments of Coun-
sel will be resumed on this day, and we shall notice any
new points of interest which may arise during the
hearing.
(Befoe Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
LITTLE v. GREVILLE.

His HONOUR decided some of the points raised by
Counsel. The cause is to be set down for further hear-
ing next week.

TOMLIN V. TOMLIN

The bill in this case was originally filed by John
Tomlin and Thomas Minter Tomlin, who each claimed
to be entitled to one-fourth of the residuary estate of a
lady of the name of Elizabeth Kelly.
Mr. Russell appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Sharp
for the defendant.

Mr. RUSSELL opened the case to the following effect:
—The principal surs in dispute was 50,0001., due from
Thomas Belcey to his sister Elizabeth at the time of his
death. Previous to that period Elizabeth and Mary
Belcey and their brother Thomas had lived together,
Thomas having the entize management of the sister's
affairs, and the whole disposition of their pro-
perty. Upon the death of Elizabeth, on the 19th
of December, 1838, administration of her estate
was granted to Mary and Thomas Belcey. In the return
made to the Stamp-office Thomas Belcey charged him-
self as having cash in his hands belonging to the de-
ceased testator, amounting to 50,670/. ; which sum, by
the expenses of probate, was reduced to 49,0001. His
own and his sister's life-interest in it were valued upon
that calculation at 9,1401. 18s. 10d. There were a series
of accounts kept between himself and his sister
acknowledging her title to a moiety of the
bond for 50,0001. On the death of Elizabeth he de-
stroyed all the accounts relating to transactions between
himself and the deceased. Thomas Belcey died on the
3d of August, 1832, leaving by his will the whole of his
property to his sister for life, and after her death to
Robert Sacket Tomline. Mary Belcey died in 1835.
Letters of administration were taken out at 30,0001.,
by Robert Sacket and James Tomline, and pro-
bate duty paid for that amount. Shortly after Mary's
death, in a statement of account by Mr. Dearling,
who had acted as Solicitor for the deceased and
her brother during their life, it was admitted that
Thomas's estate was indebted to those of Elizabeth and
Mary to the amount of 50,000/. Matters stood thus in
September, 1835. Nothing seemed more easy than to
adjust the claims of the parties severally interested in
the estate. After some delay, however, it was sug-
gested by the defendant, Robert Sacket Tomlin,
that there must be some mistake in the ac-
counts. It was contended that upon the death of Eli-
zabeth, Thomas, instead of dividing the debt equally,
had taken the whole penalty of the bond, or had taken
the whole sum of 49,0002, as due from himself to the
estate of Elizabeth, when in fact only half that sum was
due ; although, in the accounts kept by him after the death
of Elizabeth, he gave credit to Mary for one half of the
bond. The Learned Counsel read a document, which was
put in, in the ha-ndwriting of Robert Sachet Tomlin, pur-
porting to lee a cop, of one formerly in the handwriting of
Thomas Belcey, sta.`ing that he had been mistaken in
his calculation of the due from himself to his sister,
and that in consideratiuNn of those mistakes his sister
Mary had agreed to releasse him from all debts appear-
ing on the accounts. Shortl'Y before his decease, it ap-
peared that the testator wisfhld to increase his property,
and Mary, the trustee of the bond, whose duty it was
to enforce payment, had destroj it. The account was
not questioned as between Maly .Belcey and her bro-
ther. The whole defence rested upon the statement that
the testator had charged himself with the whole amount
of the bond as due to Mary. The object of the suit was
to have it declared, that at the death of Elizabeth Bel-
cey, Thomas was indebod to her in the sum of 50,6701.,
the case of the plaintiff' sot being prejudiced in the
account to be taken by the act of Thomas Belcey,
in destroying the accounts oie' She debts due from himself
to the estate of his deceased 1, tinter.
Mr. COLVILLE followed on *he same side, and put in
a number of documents relating' t the suit.
The arguments are to be resin. led this day.

COURT OF QUEEN'S ,VI:',NCH, Dec. 4,
DODSWORTH V. PI LAD .
This was an action for an assault...lie plaintiff is the
foreman of Messrs. Mayne, Read, and go., wholesale
floor-cloth manufacturers, of the Dover-road. They
have also a warehouse in the Queen's Head-Ylard, Great
Queen-street, Lincoln's Inn-fie ids ; and in the month of
October last a lad, who was t urrYing some fLiod to a
mastiff-dog in the yard, passed' close to the door of a
kennel in which a dog belonging' to the defendant was
chained. The defendant's dog sell ed the meat and swal-
lowed it, and the defendant offered to pay the boy for it.
The plaintiff, who was looking on, yen tup to the defend-
ant and asked him why he did not; p ay the boy for it.
The defendant walked into the kern tel a nd shut the Rite,
and the plaintiff asked him why he did vot come out and
speak to him like a man, and appli ed to him the term
dog-stealer. The result was that t he dehmdant struck
the plaintiff several blows in the fax e, blackened one of
his eyes, and injured his arm. It ras for this assault
the action was brought. Se Teral a ritnesses were exa-
mined for the plaintiff, who deposed t co the above facts.
Mr. THESIGER, for the defen giant, submitted that the
Plaintiff was entitled to a very small measure of
brought the attack upon himself,
da-
mages for the assault, because it was eviident that he had
what his dog had
offensive expressions which he l tad applied to the de-
by th e insulting and
de-
fendant, who was ready to make every reparation for
using the word ,‘ '4: 1‘ ea
fl dog stealer," the
plaintiff richly s thie'f, c..eat, as
dine It pp ed to itiim that after
with. The deserved the puni: innent he had met
assault could n'ot, of cc Gtrse, be justified by
anyeressions which might be used!, but, in Vle present
instance, a verY small f did meet
the justice of the case amount 0 :Lni ages wot•
A servant. of the defendant, wh o wa s stated to be the
fokatthethe'usPit
proprietor of a canine depot for s pl ving noblemen
twhhel
plaintiff.ch he sa d
Hw a.esapi provoked bt
and gentlemen with sporting doc, ..,IPsaW • the assault,
so
al
it
ni nt g;ir languagecame ba
back
in half an hour, and wanted the deft, slant to come out
and fight. He was a witness at Bow- st,re •
et, in a case of
assault, in which Mr. Pardy was the defend It. Mr,
Pardy was fined V. a.
William Stebbing saw the plaintiff ts prating at the de-
fendant, and saying " Come out like a man,' e the
assault took place.
Another witness, named Thompson t, heard the plain. tiff
say, " Come out, you dog-stealer, an a fight like a man. "
Mr. JONES having replied, the Leal 'fled Judge summers'
up, observing that the case might ha ve been very easily
adjutl;cated before a Magistrate.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
mages 51.