The Sun.
London, England, 1833-01-28 00:00:00

DAVID V. FROWI).

Mr. PEMBERTON and Mr. LYNCH appeared in
this case for the plaintiff. The bill was filed by
Mary David, claiming, as next of kin to a gentle.
man named Williams, to be entitled to the residue
of his personal estate. The estate of the intestate
had been administered and distributed, under the
orders of the Court, among the defendants, who
had been found by the Master to be the next of kin;
and the present bill was filed for the purpose of
having it refunded for the benefit of the plaintiff.
The intestate died in January, 1828; before the
22d of February, in the same year, Mr. Frowd, a
solicitor in Serle-street, procured administration to

be granted to him of the personal estate, which
was sworn at about the amount of 5,0001., and on
the day after letters of administration were granted,
a suit was instituted by the defendants for having
the property distributed, when a decree was made
by consent ; and it was not till afi er that distribu-
tion had taken place, that the plaintiff was enabled
to institute such proceedings as were necessary in
order to establish his right to the fund. Being in
rxtremely indigent circumstances, and receiving
parish relief, she had been in the habit of receiving
from the intestate small sums of 2s. 61 and 3s. 6th
from time to time, for her support. She was now
90 yews of age, bed-ridden, and unable to read or
write, and resided in a remote district of Glamor-
ganshire, where the intestate had lived. On his
death, it seemed, she did entertain a notion, know-
ing that she was a near relation, that she had some
claim on his property, but she understood it could
nor be divided for twelve months. Under these
circumstances, the present bill was filed, and the
material question was, assuming that the plaintiff
could establish her title as sole next of kin, whether
the distribution of the fund, under the order of the
Court, was sufficient to conclude and bar her right.
The question was one of great importance, and the
precise point had never occurred.

• His HONOUR said the prayer of the bill should
be granted. His Honour then referred it to the
Master, to inquire whether the plaintiff was the sole
next of kin, or one of the next of kin to the intestate.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 26.

THE KING V. ATTWOOD, ESQ.

In this case, which was not concluded on Satur-
day when our reporter left, and in which a rule Nisi
had been granted for a quo warranto, calling on Mat-
thias Attwood, Esq., to show by what authority he
held the office of Master of the Merchant Tailors'
Company, the Court ordered the rule to be dis-
charged.

COURT OF 'EXCHEQUER, JAR' 26

LOGAN V. ALDER.
This was an action on a bond, tried befere(
Baron Bo!land at Guildhall on Friday iast'j
the following evidence was given. The ban
produced, in the body of which the defendol,
described as William Roland Alder, of Thorne;
house, in the county of Durham, and it apPea,,,
be executed by W. R. Alder. The subs".
witness was called, and proved that he saw BPI
execute this bond, but he did not know who,
person was, having never seen him before n"r,
that occasion. The Learned Judge not dey
this to he suffic;ent evidence of the identity
d4endant with that of the person who e%ecut,
moved for a rule to show cause
nonsuited the plaintiff. Mr. WATstho
should not be set aside, and a verdict
the plaintiff. lie contended that a printa Pie (I
was made out; but Mr. Baron BAYLEY satda9r'
ea,, under smiilar circumstances, was Pet'
the Court, and that therefore the postea 511°-;
main with the officer until the decision of
Mr. WATSON afterwards applied for a "e",
on payment of costs, and the Court said 08`,,,
would grant a rule Nisi, if rendered necessary
CICCV
decision of the case under similar • 19°,
already in Court.
why tit:lost:10i!