The Sun.
London, England, 1835-02-14 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.

BAINBRIDGE V, GLAIR.
Mr. TINNEY, who appeared for the plaintiff, Mariannei
Allsop Bainbridge, opened this case on the supplemental
bill on Thursday last. ".,:he original bill was filed again.°
the defendants, the trastees under the testator's will, certain
legatees under the 'will, and the testator's heir-at-law. That
bill had been br,ught in, but his Honour the late Master ()fed
Rolls had tiered it to stand over, with liberty for the pl4nt`
to file a 'supplemental bill, for the purpose of stating a eelini9
deed. of confirmation. That bill had been filed, and now with
original bill was before the Court. The facts of the Of
were briefly as follows :—The testator in the cause, Mr'
Thomas Bainbrigge, of Wood Seat, in the county of Derby
a gentleman of large landed property in the counties of Derby
and Leicester, by his will, dated the 18th of July, 1818, ne:
vised the bulk of the large property to his natural gran'
daughter, the present plaintiff, with remainder to her issue, 0,
in default to the issue of the testator's natural daughter, tier
in further default to his own proper and right heirs. 11, e`
also appointed three of the defendants, Mr. Blair, in
Wood, and Mr. Hawthorn, the executors and trustees °
his will. The testator was a person of very eccentric 11:
bits. Having about thirty years previous to his de3ti,
been disappointed in love, he withdrew himself from seeig`i
and his family, went upon the turf, and subsequently re:
sided in a small village on the borders of Nee?iwood Fares
and associated with persons of the lowest condition of lifel
with his servants and those of the worst character $ll,
habits. His hatred of his family iuereased, and the 011
object of his affections was the child of one of his servan;
of which he was the reputed father. This child lie gave e°
education, and who herself had an illegitimate child toe,
only seventeen years of age. This natural grand-daught;
of the testator was the present' plaintiff. The execnW
proved the will. In support of his case, the Learned Of
tleman went at great length through a voluminous corrvi
pondence, and cited several cases.
, tbe
Mr. BICKERSTETH and Mr. WRIGHT appeared for
defendant, Mr. Blair, the acting executor and trustee °L
the testator's will, and who, as far as the case was ope°°'
took a similar interest as the plaintiff. ,
Mr. PEmßEßToNippeared for several of the le‘tateei
under the will.
rfo
Mr. SPENCI appeared for the defendant% t'he testat°
heir-at-law.
ar
HisHoNoua postponed the further rearing of the
gurnent until to-morrow (this day.)

COURT OF KING'S, BENCH•

(Concluded from our First FAT ition of yesterday.)
KING V. ANI?

.OS.
After the case for the prom:cationßU
had closed, objec, sov
were taken to the form of the driclaration by Mr. IVIAuLP
Mr. KELLY, and after a very ler.gthened argument, their Vol
ships decided that th'," declara'cion could not be sustained or
the jury under flu', direction of the Court acquitted tho
fendant.

EXCREQUER COURT.

PIERCE V. OUSELEY,

This was an action by a dress-maker, and lodging-11-1;
keeper against the defendant, General Ouseley, for sla°6oo
whereby the plaintiff had been injured in her reputa,
and prevented, in consequence, from letting her apart 111 r,
Mr. THESSIGER appeared for the plaintiff, and roe
CRESSWELL for the defendant. The details of this

have been frequently before the public. v nOL'
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damagfj?

BIRTH.
Sttoel4'
On the 13th inst., in Tavistock-square, Mrs. William e
of a son.

64'
London : PrintoA Published b_Alt/RDO YOTT' "' o_
112, S.l, at The Sus Moo No, 112, Strand, in toe
9g.l\l#4t,lire