The Sun.
London, England, 1848-01-17 00:00:00

. . ....... .
LAW INTELLIGEN CE.
:COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 15.
(Sittings in Banco.)
EGERTON V. lIICENIOTT.
This was an action brought to recover compensa-
ti,n in damages for a malicious prosecution. The case
was tried in the sittings after last Michaelmas Term,
before the Lord Chief Baron, when a verdict passed
for the defendant.
The, paintiff, it appeared, was an auctioneer re-
siding at Stepney; the defendant was the landlord of
certain pit.,mises which were let to a person of the
n.tine of Edmonds. The tenant, being desirous to
dispose of the premises, agreed with cne Read to let
the swine, on certain conditions contained in a memo-
rand em of agreement drawn up between the parties.
Soru.-.! difference arose upon the construction of this
agree !lent, and upon the parties attempting to remove
the fixtures and goods from the premises, the de-
fendant gave the plaintiff and others in custody on a
charge of felony. The plaintiff was tried at the Old
B:ifley on a charge of conspiracy, but was acquitted.
Mr. Iluaarrair now moved for a rule nisi to set
aside the verdict for the defendant, or fur a new trial,
on the ground of misdirection of the Learned Baron,
he having; left it to the jury to decide whether there
w.,e.any reasonable or probable cause for giving the
partlei into custody.
The COURT decided, upon the construction of the
agreement, that they could, not disturb the verdict.
Rule refused.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Jan. 15.

(Before Sir H. JENNEB FUST.)
Several motions were disposed of to-day.
IN THE GOODS OF- MAIM BLTEMAN.
In thli case the testatrix was Mrs. Mary Bateman,
who died on the Ist of October last, leaving con-
siderable- property, and among it nearly 10,0001. in-
vest (el in Pennsylvania bonds. The will, which was
bo, the Court's direction ordered to be propounded (a
mere motion, for probate having been previously
male), was all in the handwriting of the deceased,
the left in it were very numerous; attesta-
tion ia defect was, that the paper was not signed in
due form as required by law. Civilians on the one
side urged the Learned Judge that where the inten-
tions of the deceased were so clearly defined the law
should not hold tight to the letter, as by so doing
injustice might be done to legatees, and the real in-
tention of the testator defeated. Contra, it was con-
tende.i that the Court had no course to pursue but, in
a case like this, to carry out the law.
Sir H. J. FUST, after stating the ordinary circum-
stances of the case, said there could not be any doubt
but that the paper before the Court was in the hand-
writing of the deceased. It contained a vast number
of legacies ; it occupied three sheets, and was most
carefully written. There was no signature of the
deceased on the third side, but there was on the fourth,
about half way down. The attestation clause was
very carefully drawn. The question the Court had
to decide, was such an execution as this valid under
the 9 h :section of the Act, which required that the
siffnature of the party making a will should "be at
the foot and end thereof," either by himself or her-
self, or by some party at his or her request. If the
Qourt would follow its own dictates, it would no doubt
come to a conclusion in favour of the paper, as there
was evidently no disposition of violating the law.
Were the circumstances of this sufficient to allow the
Court to pronounce for it ? The Court could not
allow parties to put their own construction on the
law. The deceased had not complied with the statute,
although she intended to do so. The cases of "Ayres
v. Ayres,, ' and " Willis v. Lowe," referred to by
civilians, could not be allowed to bear upon this. The
Court was bound upon principle to reject the allega-
tion, but it expressed a hope that tlae opinion of the
Superior Court should be taken upon the question.
The will was not signed by the deceased at the end
and foot thereof, and the Court must reject the idle-
,. gaVon.