The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-08 00:00:00

LA WIN TELLIGENCE

ROLLS' COURT, June G.
Lord Langdale was occupied during the early part of the
day is hearing consent petitions, of which there was a large
number on the list.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. REDDENFIELD.
Mr. Twiss, on the part of the Crown, applied for the post-
ponement of this cause, as well as three others under the
same title, till Thursday next. He stated that they would
be all embodied in a petition, and thus come properly before
the Court on that (the general petition) day.
The application was granted,
LOCKHART V. HARDY.
This case, which was part heard, came before the Court
for argument on one point, namely, as to the payment of a
sum of 1,000/. to the petitioners.
The arguments turned chiefly on the terms of the will of
the testator.

Lord LANGDALE, after hearing the arguments on both
sides, said this .was a matter of great importance, and he
must consider the point. If he could satisfy himself by the
perusal of the schedule and other documents in the case, he
should then give his opinion on the point before the Court.

RIVES V. THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.
Mr. TURNER, on the part of the defendant, said this was
a bill filed by an alleged legatee, who claimed, under an al-
leged will, as the personal representative. of the Princess
Olave, the daughter of Henry Frederick, Duke of Cum-
berland, a sum of 15,000!., which it was stated had
been devised to her by his late Majesty George the
Third. His Grace the Duke of Wellington lodged a de-
murrer to the will, and it would be his duty to state to the
Court the circumstances under which the claim was made,
and the grounds upon which his client had entered
the present demurrer. It was alleged by the bill of
the plaintiff that the will in question was duly exe-
cuted in 1774, that it bore the sign manual and was
as follows. [The Learned Counsel then read the will,
which it was stated was in the handwriting of his Ma-
jesty George 111., and stated that he bequeathed a sum
of 15,0001." to Olave, daughter of our brother Henry Fre-
derick, Duke of Cumberland, in compensation for
any losses she may have sustained."] The bill
then stated that at the decease of his Majesty George
the Third, his late Majesty George the Fourth became
entitled to the chattels and other property of his father, with
this liability of 15,000/. That legacy had not been paid to
the plaintiff. The affidavit of the plaintiff then set forth
that Lord Warwick told his Royal Highness the
Duke of Kent that he wished to communicate
some particulars respecting his brother to the Princess
Olave, who had an interview with his Royal Highness and
the latter nobleman. That after receiving a pledge from
her not to divulge what he was about to communicate Lord
Warwick informed her that she was the lawful daughter of the
Duke of Cumberland, and that there were papers in his pos-
session which fie had obtained from the Earl of Chatham esta-
blishing this fact. These documents the affidavit stated
were in her possession in the same state in which she had
received them, with the exception of the corners of some of
the sheets, which were torn off. The case came before
the Prerogative Court, and the judge rejected
the application, not on the ground that there
had not been a just cause made out, but that there
was no probate of the will alleged lodged in that Court.
The affidavit of the plaintiff then went on to state that
the late King George the Fourth made his will
in the presence of the Duke of Wellington and Sir William
Knighton, whom he appointed his executors; that the latter
was dead, so that his Grace was the only surviving executor.
It further stated that his Majesty George IV. died possessed
of the same property as his father, including this legacy to
the Princess Ulave. It was bjected by the noble de-
fendant that the Princess Olave was not the party men-
tioned in the will, and even that if she were, he
was not bound to comply with the present demand. The
bill then stated that Dr. Wilmott was present at the birth
of the Princess, and that his Royal Highness the Duke of
Cumberland never had any other daughter of the
same name. The Bill then prayed that en ac-
count might be taken of the personal estate of
his late Majesty George IV., and that the defendant might
be compelled to pay the legacy. It appeared that the
Princess Olave had made the plaintiff her heir, and she ac-
cordingly instituted the present proceedings, which his
noble client thought fit to resist. The Learned Counsel
then cited the Acts 3d and 4th of William the Fourth,
respecting legacies, the case of " Peck V. Horn," decided in
the Vice-Chancellor's Court, and the Book of Royal Wills, to
show that under the peculiar circumstances of the case the
plaintiff was not entitled to recover the legacy.
Mr. Turner had not concluded his arguments when the
Court rose.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 6.
(Sittings in Banco.)
HAMILTON v. THE QUEEN.
This was an application to this Court, upon a writ of
error from the Central Criminal Court, to quash the
proceedings in a trial against the prisoner, upon the
ground of error in the indictment. The then pri-
soner, now plaintiff, it will be recollected, was tried
not long back at the Old Bailey, and found guilty,
upon a charge of " obtaining money under false pre-
tences." The trial took place before Mr. Pollock,
and the precise terms of the charge against the pri-
soner were, that he represented himself to the prosecutor
' as Arthur Rowan Hamilton, a captain of the sth Dra-
goon Guards. The prosecutor, believing the prisoner to
be a captain in her Majesty's service, advanced him
5001. upon the strength of the representation. He,
however, was not long deceived—he discovered that he
had been imposed upon, and that the prisoner was not
only not a " captain" at the time that he represented, but
that he never was a captain, either in her Majesty's ser-
vice, or that of any foreign potentate, living or dew!,
reigning or deposed. The prisoner must therefore have
made some great mistake in stating that he was
Captain in her Majesty's sth Dragoon Guards. Pro-
secutor, more indignant at the imposition to which he had
been subjected than at the mere loss of his money, and
anxious to protect the public morals and public interests
against such doings, filed an indictment against the pri-
soner, the result of which was a verdict of "Guilty" upon
the finding. Against that verdict and the whole of the
proceedings, the prisoner now appealed upon a writ of
error, the assigned error being alleged to consist in the
use in the indictment of the words " then a captain."
Mr. BALLANTINE appeared to support the prisoner's
plea, and addressed the Court upwards of an hour. The
learned gentleman argued with much ingenuity, urging
upon the Court, that although the prisoner was not a
captain at the moment, or exact time of the day laid
down in the indictment, yet he might have been a captain
on that particular day ; in other words, that he might
have been a captain in the morning, although not a
captain in the evening ; that nothing was more
possible, nothing more common. In the course
of his argument, the learned gentleman resorted
to numerous technicalities, entrenched himself in every
available position to extricate the prisoner from the em-
barrassments of his situation, and concluded by sub-
mitting that the indictment contained error on the face
of it ; and by hoping that the Court would give
judg-
ment in favour of the prisoner.

Mr. C. CLARK, for the Queen, contended for the
validity of the indictment, maintained that there was no
error in the framing of it, and that it was to no pur-
pose to dispute about " the time of day," at which the
prisoner might have been a captain, and might not,
the fact being that he never was a captain, either in
the morning or in the evening.
The Learned Gentleman was proceeding step by step
to supp,rt the indictment, but had not spoken more than
a quarttr of an hour, when
Tne COURT expressed itself satisfied, and gave judg-
ment in the case, deciding that the indictment was per-
fectly good, and that there was no error in it. The
Learned Judges respectively delivered their opinions,
Mr. Justice Patteson, and Mr. Justice Williams con-
ourr:ng with Lord Chief Justice Denman.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 5.
BARKER V. LMHIE.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover the
amount of an account for insertion of advertisements in the
Morning Herald, of the Direct Birmingham, Leicester, and
Boston (with branches to Stamford and Peterborough)
Railway.
Mr. K-NOWLES said the plaintiff was a gentleman holding a
high position in the city of London as an advertising
agent,
and the defendant was a medical gentleman residing in
Saville-place, or row, at the west end of the town, who, in
addition to bis professional duties, acted in the capacity of a
provisional committeeman of the Direct Birmingham and
Leicester Railway, and therefore rendered himself liable for
the debts incurred by the plaintiff.
The secretary to the company was first examined ; but
he was unable to swear that the defendant had given other
than a conditional consent to become a member of the com-
mittee, or that he had not said " that if his friend Block
thought well of it he would do so," that friend Block having
subsequently erased his own name from the list of committee •
men.
Mr. Baron PaolKE stated that it was not possible to make
a man liable unless it could be proved that he had given his
consent to serve, and had acted as a committeeman. That
proof in the present instance the plaintiff had failed to give,
and therefore he should submit to a nonsuit.
According to his Lordship's directions, a non-suit was en-
tered.

Mr. MARTIN, who appeared for the defendant, said that
he bad every reason to believe that the action was not that
of Mr. Barker, who was a man of great respectability, but
that it was one instigated by certain members of the com-
mittee against his client.

COURT OF BAAKRUPTCY, June 6.
(Before Mr. Commissioner FONDLANQUE.)
IN LE STONE.
This bankrupt, who had carried on business as a wholesale
laceman and warehouseman in the City, came up to pass his
last examination, which had been twice adjourned.
Mr. REED, solicitor, appeared on behalf of the assignees
and other creditors to oppose, on the following grounds :
He said that the bankrupt had himself sued out the fiat on
the 18th of March last. Up to March, 1845, he had carried
on business in his own name, and on that date he had issued a
circular to the parties with whom he dealt that he had taken
his clerk, Mr. Wm. Everett, into partnership, and that the
business would be carried on under the firm of Stone and
Everett, and the principal creditors, Messrs. Stagg and Man -
tell, at their joint request, renewed over-du.i accounts of
Stone to the amount of 1,000/., taking bills of the new firm.
Business was carried on up to the time of the bankruptcy, in
the names of Stone and Everett, but since then the bank-
rupts had positively sworn that there was no partnership,
This was highly important to the creditors, as there were
other debts claimed by relatives of the bankrupt, to the
amount of 1,0001., which had been received by Stone be•
fore the alleged partnership, and they would share the divi-
dend arising out of the property and goods supplied on the
faith of the partnership, whereas they ought only to receive
a dividend under the separate estate of Stone.
wag M r.
notL Loa
isTuDbi,
escotl iefoirt oirn
gfourirtyh ea
tbatnhkerupprtu,secontended
urnagttnh;Rseaiirorttsnbiwtilelhirapaitr.ss
met()
aor ieslrteyci accountto
iknowin
his whetherpower.
Thehe otherbank bankrupt
questionhad mightrender
beeed broughtthe bes t
forwardhuianpnatwtheuaenenQrdsuthhehi
eepen, t
vwtbankrupt.abisaiedjso3ibeen
eeatedphupabltyi
decidedetdhh eifsorern
nephew,
certificate,puiahsseexwna:John
o plo3ah,
In that case John Reay had carried on business as a wine-
Reay, at least his name was used in the firm, and a circular
issued, but it was decided that he had no interest or property
in the goods.
rn:d
said The Learned COMMISSioNEA asked if that case had been
oat to the world as't3a
reported?
liparitrerEßhe said
as th
Mr. LLOYD said he was not prepared with it as an autho-
rity, but the case was very
well known.
The Learned
ssno doubt he was liable, yet he might not
be a partner.
The Learned Cominssimixft said the official assignee bad
whaatbilf a man held himself
e.
Mr. LLOYD Lea
pointed out some very curious discrepancies in the accounts,
yet they balaueedl and that always looked like fiction ; yet