The Sun.
London, England, 1833-06-12 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

This being the last day of Trinity Term, his Honour
the Vice-Chancellor proceeded with motions, but no case
of any public interest had come before the Court when
our reporter left.

ROLLS COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

RAYWORTH V. MARRYATT.

The arguments in this case, which was an application
for a new trial, were resumed to-day. The suit was in-
stituted by an alien at law for the purpose of impeaching
the validity of an instrument, set up as the last will and
testament of a person named Haycock, who was a grasier
at Market Harborough, and died possessed of conside-
rable property. The allegation in the bill was, that a so-
licitor, one of the devisees, had procured the will to be exe-
cuted,under which he himself took a benefit to a large amount
both as pecuniary and residuary legatee, unduly influencing
the mind of the testator, who it seems was subject to de-
lirium arising from irregular and intoxicating habits. At
the hearing of the cause an issue was directed for the pur-
pose of having the validity of the will determined by a
jury. The jury had found in favour of the will,
and the present motion was for a new trial of that
issue, on the ground of misdirection by the Learned
Jute to the jury. The principal grounds on which
it was insisted that a new trial ought to be
granted was, that the Learned Judge had over-looked
a question of law that it was necessary, in a case where a
person standing in the relation of confidential adviser, and
who conducted the execution of a deed or will under
which he cook a beneficial interest, should give direct,
clear, and decisive evidence that the testator had a precise
knowledge of the contents of the deed or will, and the ex-
tent of the benefit he was giving to his adviser, the Learned
Judge having proceeded on the presumption that
because the testator had signed the will it must be taken
that he bad full knowledge of its contents.

His HONOUR, in giving judgment, observed that he per-
fectly agreed with the statements of the Learned Judge
who tried the issue, that an attorney who had a prudent
regard for his own character would always avoid, if pos-
sible, the drawing of a will or deed under which he
was to derive considerable benefit, but be equally agreed
that there might ha circumstances in which an attorney
could not consistently avoid it; but an attorney so situated,
who had a prudent regard for his character, would take
carefto h ive clear and positive evidence of the intention of
the testator to make the gift. If he failed to use that precau-
tion, he must expect that the transaction would be viewed
with jealousy, and it would be the duty of the judge who had
to direct the jury, to call their particular attention to the
special circumstances of the case, but in the apprehension
of his Honour, it would not be the duty of the Judge to
tell the jury that they could not infer this knowledge of
the testator of the contents of the instrument from cir-
cumstantial evidence. His Honour had considered
toe summing up of the Learned Judge, who,
he thought, had fully discharged his duty in the manner
he had put the case to the jury with whose verdict he was
satisfied. With that verdict his Honour was equally sa-
tisfied, and he must therefore refuse the motion for a new
trial with costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH-(THIS DAY.)

THE HERTFORD ELECTION.-THE KING V. DUN.
COMM, ESQ.

Mr. TALBOT appeared en the part of the Marquis of
Salisbury, and Mr. Pemberton, Mayor of Hertford, the
prosecutors in two indictments for a libel against Mr. Dun-
combe, one of the candidates at the Lst election, to show
cause against a rule obtained by the defendant for the re-
moval of the venue from the county of Hertford to the
county of Middlesex, on the gi ound, as stated by the de-
fendant, that a fair and impartial trial could ❑ot be had
in the former county. There was another indictment
against the printer of the lii el, and a rule had been .Iready
made absolute for the trial of that indictment at Chelms-
ford, which was the next county town, and therefore, as
the witnesses would be all at Chelmsford, anti Counsel
were engaged there, be (Mr. Talbot) would have no ob-
jection to have the indictments removed there.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said that seemed reason-
able. He asked if all the three indictments were for the
same libel ?

Mr. JOY, on the part of the defendant, said they were.
Two indictments were at the instance of Mr. Pember-
ton, the Mayor, against Mr. Dunconibe and against the
printer, and one at the instance of the Marquis of Salis-
bury against Mr. Duncombe. He objected to the re-
moval to Chelmsford of any of the indictments, on the
ground that it was considerably farther from Hertford than
Middlesex was, anti the expense would be consequently
much greater. lie had affidavits both from Mr. Dun-
combe and the printer, which showed that the latter had
been led to believe that he would be exonerated if he gave
up the name of the author of the placard, and that
he gave up Mr. Duncornb,.. They had, however, pro-
ceeded also against the printer, which was exceedingly
unfair. One of the objections made to removing the trials
to Middlesex was, that the Middlesex list of causes was
already overloaded, and great delay might therefore take
place before the trials could come on; but, on the part of
Mr. Duncombe, he would offer no obstacle to the trials
coming on during the sittings after the present term ; or
it that were not agreed to, ko inconvenience would arise
from any delay. The libel merely charged the Marquis
of Srbsbury with an unconstitutional interference with
the rights of election, and with creating fourteen days'
leases to enable his Lordship to exercise an unconstitutional
interference and influence in the right of voting ; and
it charged against the Mayor that he permitted a num-
ber of active partisans of Mr. Duncombe's opponents Lords
Inges rie and Mahon to be encamped in his field ; that
was nut denied by the Mayor's affidavit, but it stated that
they were there without his knowledge. The Learned
Counsel would therefore submit, whether it would not be
better to allow the prosecutors a little time to consider
whether it would not be better to forego the prosecution
against the printer.
Mr. TALBOT on the part of the prosecutors said, he
desired to have no time.
Mr. JOY then submitted that the venue should be
changed to Middlesex. The Court would find it was
sworn that the Marquis of Salisbury, from his connections
and extensive property in the county of Hertford, hail
very considerable influence there, and that he had for his
solicitor Messrs. Nicholson and Longmore, who were
active partisans of Lords Ingestrie and Mahon, the late op-
ponents of Mr. Duncombe ; it was also sworn that one of
those solicitors was under-sheriff for the county, and the
other town-clerk for the borough of Hertford.
The COURT were of opinion that as one trial hail been
fixed to take place at Chelmsford, it was but reasonable that
the others should take place there also. The Court could
give no opinion as to the expediency of withdrawing pro-
ceedings as against the printer. If the counsel on both
sides could not agree upon changing the venue to Chelms-
ford, the rule must be discharged, thereby leaving the cases
where they were now—viz., in the county of Herthord.
Mr. JOY said he would rather prefer Hertford to
Chelmsford.
The rule was then discharged.

THE FATAL DUEL AT EXETER-THE ICING V. SIR JOHN

JEFFCOTT ANI) OTHERS.

Mr. EARLE moved on the part of two of the defendants,
Mr. Mid, ird and Mr. Holland, who, with Sir J. Jeffcott,
and Captai❑ Halstead, had been charged by a coroner's
inijoi,it;on with the wilful inurili.a. f Dr. Henni•, at
Exeter, for a rule to issue for a writ of certiorari,
directed to the Coroner, to remove the inquisition into
this Court, from the jurisdiction of the city of Exeter ;
and also for a rule calling on the prosecutor t) show cause
why a writ of certiorari should not issue to remove any
indictment that might be preferred against the defendants
in the city of Exeter in th,t jurisdiction, in order to
have it tried at the assizes for the county of Devon. The
affidavits of Mr. Mitferd and Mr. Holland stated that
they had been committed to the County Gaol,
that the offence was committed partly in the county,
but completed in the city; that was that the
deceased received his wound on Haldon Hill, in the county,
and died i❑ the city. The jury, in finding their verdict
of wilful murder, expressed their regret that they were
obliged to include George Halstead, because it appeared
to them that he exerted himself to effect a reconciliation
between the parties. It was further stated, that Dr.
Hennis was well known and highly respected in Exeter;
and that considerable prejudice and excitement prceailed
against the defendants; that on the walls of the town
this question and answer were posted:—cc Who mur-
dered Dr. 'Tennis, Mitford, and Hollan 4." . There were
also representations of gibbets, with two persons
hanging, who, the defendants believed, were intended
to represent them. The affidavits of three of the
inhabitants were confirmatory of the opinion, that
from these proceedings and the state of excitement and
prejudice, the defendants were not likely to have a fair and
impartial trial at the quarter sessions for the city of
Exeter.

The Couwr were of opinien that rules nisi should be
granted to both the applic ttions.
Mi. GAaiBIeP. then, on behalf of the defendant Capt.
Halstead, who was confined in the county gaol, for a writ
of habeas corpus to remove him into the city gaol; in older
that he might be tried at the city quarter sessions, which
would take place six weeks earlier than the assizes,
and be was desirous of being tried there ; after