The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-17 00:00:00

HOLLAND V. CLARK.

His HONOUR was occupied during the greater part 01
the day in hearing the arguments in this cause, which
were not concluded at the rising of the Court.

THE NEW ORDERS.

Just before his Honour rose,

Mr. SIMPHINSON applied to the Court to issue an order
to the Sergeant-at-Arms, to bring Alfred Collett to the
bar, for neglecting to comply with an order which had
been served upon him, to pay money into Court. By
the 11th New Order it was provided that, in such cases,
the party should be brought to the bar on the ground
of contempt.
His HONOUR said that, as the case was the first of the
kind which had occurred, he would defer his decision
upon it until to-morrow.
(Before Vice -Chancellor WIGRAM.)
MEIIX V. BELL.

Considerable discussion having arisen at the bar in
reference to the situation and rights of the several parties
to the suit, his Honour made the following addition to
his decree:—" Declare that Bell is entitled to stand in
the. place of Henry Jordan during his life (provided he
remains a widower) in the event of his surviving his wife,
and declare that he is entitled to a lien on the fund to
that extent. Declare that the fund subject to the inter-
est of Bell, belongs to the trustees of the settlement made
on Mrs. Jordan's marriage upon the trusts of that settle-
ment. Let the fund be transferred to the trustees of that
settlement, and let the cash in Court, or stock, arising
from dividends invested, be paid to Mrs. Jordan, and if
necessary, let the Master ascertain how much of the fund
in Court has arisen from dividends accrued since the
fund was transferred into Court. Declare that this order
is without prejudice to the claim of the trustees to be re-
imbursed their costs out of the trust fun d."

'rho COURT was occupied until its rising in hearing the
urther arguments in this cause.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 16.

(Sittings at Guildhall, before Lord DENMAN and a
Special Jury.)

CRAIG, BART., AND OTHERS V. FENN AND OTHERS.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Stephen Light—l am night porter alternate nights

with Horton at Hatchard's. I sometimes let Mr. Talbot
in two or three times a week. That was pretty regular.
He was sometimes the worse for liquor. He never re-
quired any assistance to go to his room. He always
took his candle himself. He was able to take care of
himself. I thought him a little the worse by the violent
knockings at the door.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL addressed the Jury for the
defendants, and commented at great length upon the evi-
dence given by the several witnesses for the plaintiff's.
He believed it had been established saisfactorily that Mr.
Talbot was addicted to drinking, and that his habits
were anything but temperate and moderate at the time
the insurance was effected. He also read the depositions
of a Lieut. Pine, of the Royal Navy, who was on terms
of intimacy, and,who stated that in the middle of the-year
1837, Mr. Talbot was frequently intoxicated. •
The following witnesses were then examined :
Sir Wyndham Anstruther—l knew the late Mr. Tal-
bot for eight or ten years. In July and August, 1837, I
was staying at Margate. I called two or three times a
week on him, and dined perhaps ten or fifteen times. I
left him generally between seven or eight o'clock. HQ
drauk beer freely at dinner, and Port wine afterwards,
and some times brandy and water. He was always the
worse for the wine drinking during that time, and some-
times drunk. I went to St. Peter's with him ; he had
drank a little before and after he got there ; he drank
malt liquor, brandy and water. He became very trouble-
some, and I got him out. He refused to go home, and
said he would :go down to Newbold's, a public-house,
and said he would have some more brandy and water.
He was then decidedly drunk. I saw him again at the
gardens, and he was theli tipsy, and was calling for more
brandy and water. I saw him drink bottled porter be •
fore dinner ; about one o'clock. I called on him one
afternoon after dinner. He was sober, and there were
as many as half a dozen bottles of porter opened. He
drank a good deal of it, and was evidently affected by
it. He sometimes called on me at Margate after
dinner ; sometimes he was the worse for drink. He
used to call for more, and one time he drank to excess.
On another occasion he was also very much affected by
wine.

Cross-examined—l was never drunk in my life. I
often drank as much as Mr. Talbot, but very little ap-
peared to affect him. He was very talkative after he had
had some wine.

Wm. Blake, clerk to the defendant's solicitors, proved
that Mr. Pine was at present at Malta.
George Fox—l live at Broadstairs. I assist my fa-
ther, who keeps flyes and chaises. I knew Mr. Talbot
in 1835. I occasionally drove him. I have frequently
gone out with him of a night to the lowest public-
houses, and he there drank a great deal. The liquor had
a very great effect on him. I never saw him go sober
from a public-house. I have gone to his house often, and
drank with him there. He used to drink porter, wine,
rum and water, and other things. I have met him at the
Dolphin public-house, where he has treated the whole of
the company. If he was not tipsy when he went there,
he was sure to get intoxicated. I never saw any altera-
tion in his manner all the time he was at Broadstairs.

Jesse Roome—l kept the Dolphin public-house at
Broadstairs. Mr. Talbot was in the habit of frequenting
my house down to September, 1837. lie was there some-
times successive nights, and sometimes not for three or
four nights. He mostly drank ale ; on one occasion
punch. I never recollect him to have left my house sober.
George Fox was sometimes with Lim, and sometimes a
tall gentleman.
John Hillar—l saw Mr. Talbot at the Nelson and at
the Rose Inn, Broadstairs, in 1836 and 1837. I saw Mr.
Talbot in the front room; there was wine, spirits, and all
on the table. Mr. Talbot was drunk when I left at 9 or
10 o'clock. I saw him about the second week in October,
1837, and between June, July, and October, in the same
year.
William Smith—l am a sawyer. I have seen Mr. Tal-
bot at the Dolphin in 1836, and twice in 1837, about Au-
gust or September. On one occasion he drank nothing,
but was drunk. A fortnight afterwards he came and
called for a pot of ale. He appeared to be drunk then.
John Brown, a carpenter, gave evidence to a similar
effect.

A letter from Mr. Farren to Mr. Caulfield, dated the
2d of November, 1837, was then put in and read. It
stated that the Asylum Company had ascertained that
Mr. Talbot's habits were not temperate and moderate at
the time the insurance was effected, and stating that they
would not consider the, contract binding, as it was based
upon misrepresentations-. Mr. Caulfield's answer, and
some further correspondence on the subject of the insu-
rance, were also wad.
Mrs Gardner—I rent the house in Broadstairs which
Mr. Talbot lived in. I used to let him in at night. He
was generally tipsy. I saw no particular change down
to the time Mr. Talbot left. Fox sometimes came and
went into the drawing room. 1 think Mr. Talbot went
to bed oftener tipsy thati sober.
Mr. CRESSWELL replied.
Lord DENMAN summed up.
The Jury retired, and after an absence.of three quar-
ters of an hour, returned into Court with a verdict for the
defendants.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 16.
BURDETT v. JOHNSON.
This was an action brought to recover the ♦alue of
necessaries supplied to the wife of the defendant.
The formal proof of the supply of the goods having
been given,
Mr. J. JARVIS, for the defendant, met the case with