The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-09 00:00:00

JUDGMENT.

The late Mr. Thomas Sanderson, in the testing clause of
his will, declared that his will (which consisted of five folio
pages) was written on this and the four preceding
pages to which his name was subscribed, and
the fifth page, to which his name was also sub-
scribed and his seal attached. After his death the will
was found in his repositories with his name torn away
from the first four pages of his will, and his name was
scored across with cross-bars on the fifth and last page of
the will, but his seal attached thereto remained entire.
.The
question raised was, whether under these circumstances,
there was a cancellation of the testator's will. His honour,
the Vice-Chancellor, in delivering judgment said, that the
answer to the question raised rested entirely on the inten-
tion of the testator ; did the testator, at the time he tore his
name from the will, intend thereby to cancel his will. His
Honour referred to a letter written by the testator to Mr.
Foster, in which he stated his intention to revoke the pre-
sent will and make a new will on account of the death of
five of the legatees named in this will, and looking to the
authority of the decision in the case of Price v. Price, and
also the case of Onion, his Honour was of opinion that
there was here a clear revocation of the testator's will,
and that his real estate was in a state of intestacy, to be
taken up by his heir-at-law. Costa of all parties to be.paid
out of the estate.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Before Lord Campbell and a Special Jury.)

SCULLY V. INGRAM.—THE SADLEIR FRAUDS.
Mr. Bovill this morning opened the case on the part of
the defendant. It was an action brought by the plaintiff,
Mr. Vincent Scully, an Irish barrister and a Queen's coun-
sel, and formerly M.P. for the county of Cork, against Mr.
Herbert Ingram, the proprietor of the Illustrated London
News, and M.P. for Boston, to recover compensation in
damages for fraudulently representing that he (tbe defen-
dant) had purchased an estate called Castle Hyde, in the
county of Cork, ffom the late Jehn Sadleir. The facts of the
case are fully disclosed in the subjoined short statement.
Mr. Vincent Scully (the plaintiff) was a connection of the
late John Sadleir, whose gigantic frauds are already well
known to the public, and who terminated his career by
suicide, on Hampstead-heath. In 1851 Sadleir was in-
debted to Scully in the sum of £9,000 for money lent, and
Scully having by him ready money to the amount of
£lO,OOO, was desirous to invest the whole in the purchase
of an estate in Ireland, through the Encumbered Estates
Court. The property of Castle Hyde, in the county of
Cork, was put up for sale in December, 1851, and Sadleir;
by direction of Scully, purchased it for £19,425. Sadleir
bought it in his own name, in trust for Mr. Thos. Eyres,
of Bath, the plaintiff's uncle, representing to the plain-
tiff it would re-sell better in the market if it appeared
that the purchaser was an English gentleman. After-
wards the plaintiff tried to get his £9,000 from Sadleir,
but failing to do so he authorised him to re-sell the estate,
and Sadleir had got a purchaser at
apr
defendant.ofi profit
loefi
expected w
h ho tae6Totro e t
int
ttohh hee person m
plaintiffyi consented to this arrangement,
and
purchase would be completed. Sub-
sequently the plaintiff was persuaded by Sadleir to stand as
candidate for the county of Cork, but in order to give him
a status in the county hewas desirous to possess some landed
property within it. Sadleir having told him that his friend
Ingram would readily re-sell the estate, the plaintiff entered
into negotiations with him on the subject, but as Ingram
demanded more than he would give they were broken off.
After Sadleir's death it was found that Ingram never had
purchased the estate, and that the plaintiff was virtually
owner of it, and could have asserted his rights by moving
the Encumbered Estates Court in the usual way. It was
also discovered that Sadleir had mortgaged the property,
first of all to the Albion Assurance Society for £50,000,
and secondly, to Messrs. Backhouse, of Darlington, for
£89,000. So far as the plaintiff was concerned, therefore,
the
omalipdenhsaetionnomin damages
sought to
for lending himself, as
aagainst ai
recoverensstta
ate
Mr.
.hm irretrievablyels
Ingram,
ganrad,thefthe g p
jury
C
i e
plaintiff,
alleged, to the misrepresentation that he was the owner of
the property, when, in fact he never had any interest in it,
even to the extent of a farthing.
The case is not expected to terminate before to-morrow
afternoon.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)

PARTE.-SINGULAR APPLICATION.

At the Fitting of this court, his Honour was asked to
give judgment in a case in which the adjudication had
been disputed—the case had also been before Mr. Commis-
sioner Holroyd.

His Honour said that he wished to confer with Mr. Com-
missioner Holroyd before he gave his judgment, and that
learned commissioner could not attend before 12 at the
earliest, but he (his Honour) would wait up to the closing
of the Court, if necessary.
The solicitor for the petitioning creditor intimated that
the case would not admit of delay.

His Honour asked what was the cause of such an extreme
pressure, and was answered that property of very consider-
able amount was involved, and might be seized on by a
mortgage at great loss to the estate.
His Honour said he would not decide at the moment; but
his present impression was that the adjudication should be
confirmed.

The case was ultimately adjourned until tho sitting of
the Court, to-morrow.

EX PARTE

.-A CITY FAILURE.

A petition, under the Private Arrangement Act, was pre-
sented by Mr. Weston,.from Mr. Wells' office, Moorge.te-
street, on behalf of a gentleman, stated to be of great com-
mercial importance in the city. The requisitions of the Act
having been complied with, protection was granted. The
figures of the account did not transpire.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE--(THIS DAY.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE OF ROBBERY BY THE
PORTER OF THE CARLTON CLUB.—William Smith, a re-
spectable looking man, hall porter at the Carlton Club, was
charged with stealing a purse containing one sovereign, one
half sovereign, a crown piece, &c., the money of Sarah
Franklin.

Mr. Edward Lewis, of Great Marlborough-street, ap-
peared
for the accused.
The prosecutrix said she resided in the York-road,
Camberwell, and that she was a " gay woman." On the
previous day she had spent some hours with the prisoner at
public-houses, and on leaving him at nine o'clock at night,
near St. James's-square, she missed her purse. She then
spoke to a constable, and went to the club-house and asked
the page for the prisoner, but was told he was dressing.
She however waited for him, and on his coming down she
asked for her purse, and told him if he did not give it up
she would give him into custody, and on his refusing to give

..
it up, she gave him into:custody.
Mr. Lewis subjected the prosecutrix to a long cross-exa-
mination, in the course of which she said—She knew he
had been at the club-house some years. He had com-
plained of her going to the club. Had never been given
into custody for annoying him. Only once ; that was all.
Yes, twice. Never lost her purse before. Was out on
Monday night. Had a little to drink then. Did not tell
her landlady she had lost her purse then. Said she had
spent more money than she liked to do. Had lived with
the prisoner for two years as his wife, but left him. Was
sober when she left him on the previous night. Went into
a pastry cook's to buy a bun—left it on the counter. That
was because she was in a hurry. Had only been in three
public-houses with him.
A constable said, in going to the Club after the prisoner
was taken to the station, he was shown into the prisoner's
room by the steward, and in a drawer found a purse (the
prisoner's own), one sovereign and one half ditto, and a
crown piece and some shillings. The prisoner at once said
they were his, and he bore a good character at the club.
Mr. Lewis having addressed a few words to the magi-
strate, _ ._ _ - _ ..

Mr. Bingham said he should admit the prisoner to bail
in his own recognisances to appear that day week.

THAMES.

LEAD US NOT INTO TEMPTATION.—Three boys, rough
and dirty, who presented the appearance of having been
greatly neglected, and who gave the names of Ritchie,
Howard, and Macgennis, was brought before Mr. Yardley,
charged with stealing 3 lbs. of tallow candles, the property
of Mr. Cooke, a shopkeeper, at the corner of Grundy-street
and Crisp-street, Poplar.
The boys, who have been allowed to run wild about the
streets, committing acts of mischief and petty pilfering, took
advantage of a box of candles being exposed on the foot-
path outside the prosecutor's shop, to steal 3 lbs. of them,
with which they ran away. They were pursued and taken
into custody with the candles upon them.
The father of the prisoner Ritchie attexded on
behalf of his son, on which Pullen, a police-constable, No.
IGI K, said the man had been tried at the Clerkenwell
Sessions for fowl stealing, and acquitted, and was after:-
wards convicted of fowl stealing, and sentenced to three
months' imprisonment and hard labour.
Ritchie admitted the truth of the officer's statement, aml
said that six years had elapsed since his conviction, and he
had been working at his trade of a shoemaker and gettinz
his living honestly.
Mr. Yardley Amonished Ritchie to take more care of his
son, and ordered him to enter into his recognisances in the
sum of £2O for his good behaviour for three years, and said
that recognisance would be enforced if the boy offended.
again. He remanded Howard and Magennis until Monday
next. The magistrate then said it was highly improper for
tradesmen to expose goods for sale on the foc;tpa.tlis in froi