The Sun.
London, England, 1835-12-18 00:00:00

HARD,h'ICKE AND OTHERS V. GELLARD.

This was an action brought by the assignees of a bank-
rupt named Shoobridge, formerly a tailor in Cheapside, to
recover from the defendant compensation for goods sent out
by the bankrupt to the defendant at Hobart Town, Van
Diemen's Land. After the case had been stated, the plaid
tiff's Counsel proposed to put the bankrupt intcpthe witness
box.

Mr. Shoobridge was accordingly sworn, and then examined
by the def6ndant'S Counsel, with a view to raise an objec-
tion against his admissibility as a witness. He stated that
he had been twice a bankrupt, once about fourteen years
ago, and once in last December. He had not paid so much
as fifteen shillings in the pound under his last bankruptcy.
He had obtained his certificate under the second commis-
sion. He had released any surplus which might be pro-
duced by his estate,
Sir F. POLLOCK objected that he was not admissible as
a witness, because of the interest which he had in the
result of this cause.
Mr. PLATT, for the plaintiffs, contended that the wit-
ness was admissible. .

The Jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

COMMON PLEAS.-THURSDAY.

VOURDIEU AND OTHERS V. ROWE AND OTHERS.

This cause was resumed this morning at the sitting of the
Court.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Mr. Sergeant WILDE
having addressed the Jury at great length for their respec-
tive clients, and the case being closed on both sides,
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE charged the Jury, who then
retired, and, after a long consultation, returned to the Court
at seven o'clock with a verdict for the plaintiffs (the repre-
sentatives of Gudgeon)—Damages, one :billing.
The effect of this verdict, of course, is to entitle the re-
presentatives of Gudgeon to two-thirds of the money in the
Court of Chancery, while the representatives of Dodson
can claim only one-third.

EXCHEQUER COURT.-THURSDAY.

ALEXANDER V. VANE.

This was an action for money paid on account of the de-
fendant, and fur work and labour done.. The defendant
was proprietor of the Age and Ariel Brighton coaches, and
had employed the plaintiff, who is proprietor of the Barbi-
can Repository, to keep the horses and turn out the vehi-
cles in proper style for he road, for a specific sum. The
plaintiff had also taken the defendant to a harness maker
of the name of Paliser, of whom he purchased upon credit
the harness required for his teams, the plaintiff guaranteeing
the debt to Paliser. Subsequently 31/. Is. 6d. was paid by
plaintiff to Paliser, that sum having been left unpaid by the
defendant ; and for this, and divers charges for horse keep,
&c., the action was brought.
The action went off upon a verdict for the plaintiff for
31/. Is. 6d., with leave given by Mr. Baron Gurney to
Mr. Thessiger to move the Court in banco for leave to en-
ter a verdict for the defendant. _ _ .

This was the last cause in the list for these sittings.

PREROGATIVE COURT.

MORGAN V. THOMPSON.

In this case the testatrix, Mrs. or Lady Ray, died on the
Ist of September, 1834, having executed two testamen-
tary papers bearing date, one in 1827, and the other in Ja-
nuary, 1833, Mr. James Thompson' being the sole execu-
tor under the first, and Mr. William Morgan, a school-
master at Barnet, at whose house the deceased had resided
from July, 1832, to the time of her death, being executor
and largely henefited under the second. It had been alleged
on the part of Mr. Thompson, that the deceased had, in a
moment when she was not of sound mind, destroyed the
will under which he was appointed executor, and that the
other will now propounded had been obtained from the de-
ceased by compulsion, Mr. Morgan having taken posses-
sion of her person, and kept her in custody at his house.
Dr. PHILLIMORE did not object to the general tenor of
the allegation.
The King's ADVOCATE, on the part of the Crown, would
not interfere.

Sir H. JENNER must admit the allegation.
STRETTELL V. STRETTELL.

This was a case of propounding a paper containing the
substance of the will of Henrietta Strettell, who died at
Geneva on the 16th of August, 1831, aged 19, promoted
by Dashwood Strettell against Thomas William Strettell.
The deceased on the eve of taking a Continental tour ex-
pressed a desire to make her will, and accordingly, on the
30th of July, 1830, a will was executed by her and attested.
That will the deceased delivered to Mee Raikes, Esq., her
guardian, and then proceeded with a sister and brother-in-
law to the Continent, where she died. The will had since
been lost or mislaid, and, though diligent search had been
made in the house of Mr. Raikes, all efforts had proved
unsuccessful. At one time it appeared the will had been
in the custody of a sister of the deceased.
Dr. BURNABY appeared to support the paper, and the
KING'S ADVOCATE against it.
Sir H. JENNEIt had no doubt that the will which was
executed by the deceased was in existence after her death,
but it would be premature to hear any discussion upon the
case until the sister's papers bad been searched. The case
must stand over until the search had been made.