The Sun.
London, England, 1848-12-06 00:00:00

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

T. R. Denny and D. Sturdy, Battersea-creek Mills
and Hope Wharf, Upper Ground-street, Blackfriars,
millers—J. Gilbert and J. S. Webb, Beaminster, Dor-
setshire, surgeons—W. Chew and F. Wardle, Notting-
ham, cotton agents—D. Daniels, G. Cooper, and R.
Cooper, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, paper stainers—E. B.
Collard, J. Beazley, and H. Sarsfield, Liverpool, metal
dealers—T. Docker and G. Smart, Birmingham, factors
—J. Oliver, sen., and J. Oliver, jun., Bury-street, St.
James's, plumbers —T. Leshingham and C. F. Lye,
Cook's-court, Carey-street, Lincoln's Inn, law stationers
—P. 13reen and E. Devereux, Castlebridge, Wexford,
merchants—T. H. Anthony and J. Anthony, jun., Man-
chester, woollen manufacturers—S. Dodd and E. Top-
ham, Manchester, warehouseman—R. R. Horner and C.
Harvey, Gloucestershire, attorneys—J. G. Swainson and
J. Swainson, Liverpool, woollen drapers—T. Laurence
and W. Laurence, Maidstone, Kent, grocers —J. E.
Warden and R. Ovington, Liverpool, brokers—J. Lodge
and T. Booth, Huddersfield, fancy waistcoat manufac-
turers—C. Page and N. Page, Ware, Hertfordshire,
maltsters—W. J. Monsell and J. 11. Thompson, Park-
street, Camden-town, hair dressers—E. M. Williams, T.
Shepherd, H. J. Evans, and W. Meredith, Ynishir, Gla-
morganshiref coal merchants, (so far as regards the said
E. M. Williams)—S. Edwards, W. Edwards, and F. T.
Selby, Spalding, Lincolnshire, attorneys, (so far as re-
gards the said W. Edwards)—R. Neal and G. W. Sharp,
Red Lion-square, Bloomsbury, accountants—J. Curtis,
S. Curtis, and G. Curtis, Finsbury-street, St. Luke's,
curriers, (so far as regards the said J. Curtis)—F.
Curtis and C. Chubb, Yeovil), Somersetshire, hair
dressers—T. A. Jackson and W. Little, Sheffield,
woollen drapers—W. Inglis and D. Inglis, Dorset-street,
Salisbury-square, licensed victuallers—A. Westley and
T. N. Kerr, Biggleswade, Bedfordshire, millers.

INSOLVENT PETITIONERS.
Thomas Burnett, Portsea,/Taalpshire, tailors.

James Tapper, Portsmouth, bak.r.
William Mosey, New Romney, Kent, bricklayer.
George Simpson, jun., Scarborough, Yorkshire, firmer.
Thomas Corlass, Keighley, Yorkshire, cotton spinner.
William Wilson, Scarborough, Yorkshire, butcher.
George Harris Saylor, Scarborough, Yorkshire, working
jeweller.
James Oakford, Swindon, Wiltshire, poulterer.
James Griffin, Bristol, licensed victualler.
Thomas Tucker, Bristol, carpenter.
John Gerrish, Tankaras•close, Bristol, beer retailer.
Thomas Millet, Bedminster, Bristol, licensed victualler.
Edward Lewis, Bedminster, Bristol, licensed victualler.
John Henslow Wellington, Bristol.

Joseph White, Wordsley, Staffordshire, engineer.
George Micklewright, Wem, Shropshire, druggist.
Peter Trumble, Lockwood, Yorkshire, painter and gilder.
Leander Moulding, Speenhamiand, Berkshire, butcher.
George Oringe, Paddockbrow, Yorkshire, cloth dresser,
George Smith, Huddersfield, cooper.
Isaac Newton, Weston-super-Mare, Somersetshire,
cabinet maker.
John Firmin, Worthing, Susses, pianoforte tuner.
James Hannibal, Salford, Lancashire, upholsterer.
SCOTCH SEQUESTR A.TIONS.
_ .

J. Anderson Glasgow, carter, ci.ttle-dealer, and cow
feeder, to meet within the Crow Hotel, Glasgow, Dec. 8,
and Dec. 29, at one.

T. INPlceand. Glasgow, share dealer to meet within the
Buck's Head Hotel, Glasgow, Dec. 12, and Jan. 2, at one
J. Couper, Crosslees, Renfrewshire, carter and cattle
de filer, to meet within the Saracen's Head Inn, Paisley,
Dec. 9, and Dec. 30, at one.
D. Baxtcr,Cupar-Angus, vintner, to meet within Ross's
Cupar-Angus, Dec. 8, and 20, at one.
J. Laidlaw' Glasgow, share broker, to meet within the
Globe Hotel, Glasgow, Dec. 8, and Jan. 8, at twelve.
R. Swan, Glasgow, victualler, to meet within the
Globe Hotel, Glasgow, Dec. 9 and 30, at twelve.
W. Turnbull, Govan, spirit dealer and house factor, to
meet within the Comrie s Royal Hotel, Glasgow, Dec.
12, and Jan. 16, at one.
J. Rain, Dumfries, brewer, to meet within the Com-
mercial Inn, Dumfries, Dec. 11, and Jan. 4, at two.
S. Airth, Old Aberdeen, boot maker and leather mer-
chant, to meet within the Lemon Tree Tavern, Aberdeen,
Dec. 9, and Jan. 13, at twelve.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEENS BENCH, Dec.s.
_ _ .

• (Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice WIGLITMAN
and a Special Jury.)
ROWCLIPFE V. BARNARD GREGORY,
- - -

This was an action to recover compensation in da-
mages for an illegal trespass.
The defendant pleaded not guilty, that the plaintiff was
not possessed, and that the house in question was the pro-
perty of the Rev. Mr. Tyler, the rector of St. Giles's.
It appeared from the statement of Mr. Hum frey that the
plaintiff had carried on for some years,as also bis father,
the business of a builder and plasterer, at 23,
Crown-court, St. Giles's, and that the defendant
claimed possession of the house; that he employed a
number of workmen to rase the house to the ground.
This was accordingly done aft-r various short delays.
The plaintiirhad in consequence been a loser, and clsimed
damages to the amount of 3001. or 4001. for the injuries
he bid sustained.

It was proved that the house wal pulled down, except
tbo lower part, and that ail the Inateriali, after the
house was pulled down, were taken to Grcgcry's pre-
mis,s close at hand.

Mr. Edward Roberts, a surveyor, stated that it would
take about 3571. to repair the house. The ground floor
would require 401. or 501. to repair it.
Mr. MONTAGUE CHAMBERS, who appeared for the de•
fondant, said that on August 18, 1789, the Rev. Dr. Put-
ner, the then rector of St. Giles, granted a lease for 61
years to Edward Rowcliffe, the father of the plaintiff,
and when it expired the present rector, the Rev. Mr.
Tyler, the property being church property, entered
into as agreement with Mr. Gregory, by which
he agreed to repair and rebuild the houses in
Dudley-court, which showed that the defendant was
acting under the authority of the Rev. Mr. Tyler.
He also contended that even if Mr. Tyler was not en-
titled to the possession of tho entire house, be had an
undoubted right to the upper part of it, which alone had
been pulled down. Mr. Gregory had given notice to
Mr. Roweliffe before he commenced the pulling down,
and workmen were engaged at ss. a day, in order that
they might be particularly careful in not doing damage
to the lower part of the house, which alone was occupied
by the plaintiff. The lease of the plaintiff having expired,
he was a trespasser, and the defendant, he contended,
had a perfect right to pull down the building, which had
already been condemned by the overseers of the parish.
Evidence in support of the defence was then adduced,
which went to prove the material facts set up by the
Learned Counsel.

The leases and other documents were put in. The
property had formerly belonged to the late Dowager
Ducheijs of,Dualey, and,it4was given by her for the use
of the rector of St. Giles for the time being.
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN summed up, and the jury
found a verdict for the defendant upon all the issues.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Dec. 5.
MATHISON V. MAGRATH.
In this case the late Colonel Melville Gore Mathison's
will is concerned. That gentleman, when at Enniskillen,
proposed marriage to Miss Eliza Magrath, but before it
was solemnized he was taken ill, when he made a will,
by which he bequeathed the whole of his property to
his mother for her life, and then to Miss Magrath, say-
ing, if anything should happen to him he wished to pro-
vide for her. The will bore date the 14th of March,
1833, and the marriage took place the following Novem-
ber, and four children were the result. It appeared the
colonel died, leaving his father and mother with his
widow and four children his survivors. The mother,
through her proctor, now asked to have probate granted
to the will of her son, under which she took a life in-
terest.

Dr. HAGGARD opposed it on the part of the guardian
of the children, who were minors, contending that the
will was revoked by the subsequent marriage and the
birth of the children. A great deal of legal acumen was
displayed in the learned advocate's argument, and the
following cases were cited:—Fox v. Marston, Israel
v. Roden, Walker v. Walker, 2 Curteis, 864. The
learned civilian then referred to the last edition (4th) of
Mr. Justice Williams's work in support of these cases,
and contended that the will must be revoked, and the
children provided for.
Dr. R. PHILLIMORE, on the part of the life annuitant
under the will, contended that the will was good in law;
that the widow and children were provided for under
that will, though it would not take effect until the death
of the mother of the testator. He contended that the
case of Fox v. Marston, and Israel and Roden, decided
by the Privy Council, did not apply to this case, and
Quoted the case of Marston v. Roe, decided in the Ex-
chequer by Mr. Justice Tindal. He argued that the
will before the Court was in a very different position,
for it was made in contemplation of the marriage, and a
provision was made for the wife, and therefore for the
children also.

The Learned JUDGE asked what might be the posi-
tion of the children if their mother married again?

Dr. R. PIIILLIMORE allowed that might change the
position of the case. In continuing his argument, the
Learned Counsel referred to the case of Brown v.
Thompson, where the party made a will before mar-
riagewroivi ireng and
futurepforw thhegealvaed
ybiwrthhotebeacaemheildt.helntetshtaattoirn's.
stance the will was not revoked.
The Learned JUDGE thought the estate having been
left to the lady and her heirs accounted for it, as the
child was heir to the estate upon the demiso of its
mother.
Dr. R. PIIILLIMORE, in continuation, said that the
case of Walker v. Walker, which had been quoted by Dr. Haggard, he held to be an ex parte one, and did not
therefore bear upon this. He contended that the testator
had no intention to alter this will, feeling it to be a final
disposition of his property, and did not therefore attempt
to mher.
The Learned JUDGE thought, after so many decisions
on this question, it had been settled. The question is,
did the marriage amount to a revocation of the testator's
will? The case of Fox v. Marston did not appear to be
in point.—Judgment deferred.