The Sun.
London, England, 1848-12-11 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
CiV-MOF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 9.
(Befor. T
Justice WfcliTmAN and a Special Jury.)
PATENT SAWMILL—TUE QUEEN V. SMITH.
Evidence was adduced during the whole of the morn-
ing in support of the case of the plaintiff.
eSir F. TIIESIGER addressed the jury on behalf of/ the
defendants, after which the further hearing of the case
was adjourned until Monday.
The Court will sit at Westminster on Monday, in
order to proceed with this case. One of the Learned
Judges will sit on Monday at Guildhall to try causes.
The other Courts will also sit there.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Dec. 9.
BIRCH V. BIRCH.
This was a case of proving the will of Mr. Jonathan
Birch (who died in December, 1847), dated the 22d of
February, 1845, by Mr. George Birch, the brother of
the deceased, and one of the executors named in the will,
against Mr. William John Birch, the son of the deceased,
another executor, and also residuary legatee, and only
next of kin. The facts were these:—The deceased gave
directions to his son to draw the will in question, leav-
ing the amount of the legacies blank, which was done,
and the paper delivered to the deceased, after whose
death it was found duly executed, with the legacies filled
up in the deceased's handwriting, some in black ink and
others in red ink. The paper was enclosed in an enve-
lope, which had been opened and resealed. No infor-
mation could be obtained as to when the blanks were
filled up, and the subscribed witnesses were unable to
say whether the sums of the legacies had or had not been
inserted at the time of the execution. Under these cir-
cumstances the question was, whether any, and if any
how much, of the paper was entitled to probate. The
suit was an amicable one.

Dr. JENNER, for the brother, sought for probate of
the paper with those legacies only which had been filled
up in black ink, there being, he admitted, circumstances
which led to a presumption that those in red ink had
been inserted after execution.

Dr. R. PHILLIMORE, for the son, did not oppose pro-
bate of the paper to that extent, but left the question to
the Court.

Sir 11. JENNER FEST said it would be a formidable
position to lay down, that if a will had been drawn up in
blank every one of the insertions must be attested, as
alterations, by the witnesses, and he was not prepared
to go to that length. He was of opinion that where a
will was so prepared, with blanks, and those blanks were
filled up in the testator's handwriting, the presumption
of law was that they had been supplied before the exe-
cution of the will. What reason could the testator have
had for evading the statute? Where a will was altered
after execution, he could understand that the testator
might wish to avoid the necessity of a re-execution. It
unfortunately happened in this case that there were
alterations in red ink as well as in black ink, and that
the envelope had been opened and resealed. He was of
opinion, however, upon the whole, that the presumption
was that the insertions in black ink were made before
the execution, and he accordingly decreed probate of
the will as originally executed, with the legacies in-
serted in black ink, rejecting all those in red ink.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
ALLEGED PLUNDER OF THE CHATEAU DE NEUILLY.
-,Eugene Saulier, otherwise Baron de &tidier, and
Marie Delonie otherwise Baroness Richmond de Bassain,
were charged with having unlawful possession of a large
uuantity of valuable property belonging to Louis
Philippe, ex-King of the French.
Mr. Bodkin, on behalf of his Majesty Louis Philippe,
said—lt having been recently communicated to the King
that some articles of great value had been brought over
to this country, and were in the hands of persons who
were endeavouring to turn them into money, by offering
them for sale, and inquiry having been made, there
seems to be no doubt that they are part of the per-
sonal property of the King, and that they were stolen
front the palace of Neuilly at the time of the revolu-
tion. A communication was made to the police by
M. Grelliere, an interpreter, employed by the per-
sons before you, and a third person, who Is in such a
state of health that he cannot be brought forward.
A warrant was issued from this court, and executed on
Friday evening, by the police, at the Prince of Wales
Hotel, Leicester-street, where the two persons before
you, and a third, who has not been removed from bed,
have been staying there for some time. Whether the
two persons here are entitled to t'•-:e title of Baron de
Scalier and Baroness de Bassein, and the third person
also entitled to the rank of baron, will, perhaps, here-
after appear. On the police officers going to the hotel
they found property to a great extent, but not of the
value which was expected to be found; for among cer-
tain other things missing there was a necklace valued at
10,0001., the property of the king, or one of his family,
but this could not be found. The officer seized some
articles which were in the room where the prisoners
were found. It will be necessary to have the clear and
positive testimony of the owner of the property, but
this cannot be produced to-day, inasmuch as the de-
fendants were only taken last night, and the property
found in their possession has not yet been submitted to
the parties most competent to speak as to the ownership.
Some of the articles which have been worn by the Queen,
such as shaves of great value, would prove their own
identity, as such articles were only to be found in the
possession of royalty. It will be proved that 500/. was
asked for one shawl, and that the parties had been on the
point of getting that sum. Under these circumstances
I Lave to ask the Court to allow the further examination
to stand over for a week, that I may be able to give
evidence to show that the seizure has not been made
without reasonable cause, and that an opportunity may
he afforded of submitting the articles to those who can
speak confidently to them.
Police-sergeant Thornton, of the detective police,
said he executed the warrant at the Prince of Wales
Hotel. He found the property in the rooms occupied by
the prisoners. He found the diamonds on the bed, and
other property in various places. In the room where
the property was discovered witness found a third
person, lying ill in bed. That person was not re-
moved. Witness also found a number of papers,
which he took possession of. He also took two rings from
the prisoner, which the prisoner himself took off, his
fingers, and he also took two more rings from his breast.
The female prisoner endeavoured to secrete a tablet
book, which she took from a box.
F. Shaw, another constable, accompanied the last wit-
ness, and corroborated what has been just stated. Wit-
ness found the painting now produced concealed in a
sitting-room occupied by the Baron.
General Alfred de Chabannes was at present residing
with his Majesty Louis Philippe, at Richmond. Had no
doubt whatever that the picture now produced was part
of a larger picture which was at the Palace of Neuilly.
With respect to the jewellery now produced, witness be-
lieved all the articles either belonged to Louis Philippe
or to some of his family, and that they had been taken
from the Palace of Neuilly or the Tuileries.
Mr. Bodkin said this was all the evidence he should
tender for the present. A question of ownership hardly
arose just now. He should have some further proof of
identity ready by next week, if the court would allow a
remand.
Mr. Wontner, for the accused, said, even admitting
that the property was found in the rooms taken by an
elderly gentleman, now confined to his bed, he contended
that the case was not within the jurisdiction of a ma-
gistrate. It was clear, even if the articles in question did
belong to Louis Philippe at one time, they were left be-
hind at the Chateau de Neuilly, or the Tuileries, at the
time of the revolution, when the King took flight to this
country. But he was quite prepared to show how the
present owner came by the property, and that the pro-
perty could not be considered as belonging to the COunt
de Neuilly. The bills of parcels relating to the purchase
of large quantities of jewellery had been taken away by
the police. From these papers it would be proved that the
old gentleman now at the hotel had bought jeweller),
extensively. at Paris. There were bills from the most re-
spectable jeweller's shops to the old gentleman for
3,000 r., 5,000 f., 10,000 E, and 18,000 E, showing thereby
that large sums of money had been laid out by this in-
dividual in the purchase of jewellery and other valuables.
It appeared that M. Grelliere obtained information that
certain valuable property was in the hands of a gentle-
man, an exile, who was residing at the Prince of Wales
Hotel ; he gave information to the police, and the con-
sequence was, that all the valuable articles in his posses-
sion had been taken possession of by the police. The
owner was bedridden—in fact, paralysed—so that the
police were unable to remove him ; but they attached a
constable to him, and because they were unable to get
the ;master they took every one who was with him,
whereas with as much justice they might as well
have taken General Chabannes and called on him to
account for the possession of the property. Ho con-
tended there was no evidence of possession to bring the
parties in custody within the operation of the Act of
Parliament.
Mr. HARDWICK said, the defendants had been found
in a room, in which was property unlawfully obtained.
The Act of Parliament authorised the detention of all
persons so found.
Mr. Bodkin observed that the present proceedings were
not instituted to inflict the smallest punishment appointed
by the Act of Parliament, but to take out of the hands
of the present holders property of this great value. He
did not object to allowing the defendants to be released
on bail.
Mr. 11Annwicx decided that the property (said to be
of the value of 20,000 L) should remain with the police,
and that access should be given to the documents when
required.
The defendants were liberated, on giving sureties to
appear on Saturday.
SOUTHWARK.
;7:CHARGE...OF FRAUD.—M. Everitt was charged with
defrauding John Culley of 451.
The complainant, being about to commence business,
had an interview with the prisoner, who agreed to let
him a baker's shop in the London-road, with fixtures,
for the sum of 45L, at the same time producing written
receipt, and guaranteeing that the rent and taxes were
all paid up to that day. The money was accordingly
paid, and the complainant took possession, but had not
been many days in the house when rent and taxes were
demanded of him, and it was then ascertained that the
prisoner, for the purpose of defrauding the complainant
of his money, had forged the receipt to make it appear
that all rent and taxes were paid up to the time of the
transaction.
The prisoner was committed.
MR. DUNN'S BAIL REFUSED.—Mr. Dunn, whose term
of imprisonment in the Queen's Bench Prison, for an-
noying Miss Burdett Coutts, expired on the previous
day, attended for the purpose of entering into sureties
to keep the peace for two years, which he was adjudged
to find at the expiration of his sentence. He then called
forward two persons named Moon and Boucher, and
offered them as his sureties; but the former was rejected
by Mr. Seeker, in consequence of the evasive answers
he gave in the course of his examination.
Mr. Dunn complained loudly of the rejection of one
of his bail, observing that Mr. Moon had sworn himself