The Sun.
London, England, 1835-10-27 00:00:00

A

VICE-CHANCERY-(THIS DAY

GOLDSAIIDT V. GOLD,S7.IIDT. before°
Mr. KNIGHT stated in this case which came
agreed
Court upon demurrer, that the parties' had
there should be no discussion. The facds were
these :—The late Mr. Daniel Eliason, by h.'s will' gage;
bulk of his property to his wife for life, and a fter herer
he directed that it should be distributed arcong
phews and nieces, as she should by will or 7,estaulevti
writing only, attested by two witnesses, appoilit ;
B:01
default of appointment, the property was to go 1°
the nephews alone. Mrs. Eliason after the deauctlo ,°Ol
husband, sent for her solicitor to give him instr:4s)
prepare her will. She gave instructions cent' o'J
to the power, and she appointed to meet berialfil
tor in a few days ; before that time arrived, she bautif
into such a state of health as to render her incirrde
of doing anything, and she died without anything befog'
towards the completion, further than the instructitlit
had given to her solicitor. That gentleman was also rt
papers careful search had been made among his papers f('lt
original instructions for the will, but they cou 0,
found. Upon an affidavit of these circumstaucet,
Ecclesiastical Court had granted probate
ment of the will which had been made by Mrs'rEntio
solicitor from the instructions he had reeeicTecl °Doe
but which, in consequence of her state of heal th, I'7 ibu
been executed by that lady. Under this sta.. e °id
the present bill Lad been filed by the two nephew V,15,60
the property in defaalt of appointment against the .es;t
claiming the funds. Th 6 executors admitted the fat''qol
lished by the probate, and only question vies,
under these circumstances the Court thought it 0°
to have before it all the other iephews and niecto
the Court thought it necessary, the parties would inf
Of the Is;
add them to the record, but that would be attended

great expense. ot'
The VICE-CHANCELLOR—If the executorsd -
sist upon it, Ido not see the necessity of it. ,toy
Mr. KNIGHT said the executors were only an%i°'
their duty.te
The VICE•CHANCELLOB—I think under the eI,EO
stances, it would be a wilful squandering of the proPerrio
make all the nephews and nieces parties. His 11°.11° toV,
ordered the demurrer, which was for want of partiesVO'
overruled, and decreed that the plaintiffs (the two 110
*ere entitled to the property.

Ino.1••=1...1
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COVIII.

(THIS DAY.)

OLD COURT.
(Before the RECORDER.)
Win. Reynolds, a miserable looking object, 10510,0
for stealing on the 30th of September 31bs of miltt"'spilY
of a goose, and I ilbs of beef, the property of Georg! otit
The prisoner was stopped at half-past 5 o'clotltropee
morning in question, by a policeman, with the .o,'
„.
named in a bag. It had been stolen from a lard ?"1'
area in Oxford Terrace.—Guilty. Sentence, 3 10°

prisnnment and hard labour. of
Win. Kent and Henry Jervis were indicted fo.f
500 lbs. of lead, value 41., the property of Wr°'
The indictment further charged Kent with having ,
been convicted of felony.
Policeman 76 P, said on the 26th of September,'o4,i
the prisoner at Clapham Rise, with a truck, .Jerv'scid.:
ing, and Kent pushing. It contained a quantitY4,,,
and a looking glass.;,He followed them, on seeing Whje,if
left the truck and ran off. They ran into a gentlettoali
ni
den. He saw them there, and with the gentleads,
ance took both into custody. He went to the prod
house at Forest Hill, where he found that the lac' lobed
truck fitted to a piece from which a quantity ha 00
cut. The looking-glass was claimed by Mr. Keats
property.
act 11/1
Mr. Keats said the quantity of lead found, es,
responded to what had been taken from the buildiPPVl
looking glass was his property ; it was in a Summer
which was open ; the lock being broken. c
Richard Walter, an inspector of police, produ,c7,At
07
tificate of the conviction of Kent for felony in WA"
Surrey Sessions. re"

Kent, in his defence, said he was on his way to -
1,0:
when a man asked him if he wanted a job, and be, Olt'
gaged to assist the other prisoner with the truck,lorosfai
he was to get s. 6d.; when Jervis ran away, be rra se
him for his money. He had been transported °to!:
years, and it had ruined his health ; but ever sides O 1
turn, he had earned his living in an bonast bard
manner, as was well known to the inspector. tthey
Mr. Walter was recalled. He knew nothing 1:" I
soner, except from frequently seeing him ;:n comilal.V
thieves in Camberwell. He had seen the pr: sonars di

pany the day before the robbery. e
°
Jervis made the same defence. He had beer', d
by a man to take the truck to Peckham ; but 8,05;
looked hard at them they were to leave it. ge ,
meet him there, and then pay him. If the lead Was
the prisoner Kent knew nothing of it. ,fi9
The case having been summed up, the Jury at °ll-:
both the prisoners Guilty.
Mr. Walker was recalled, and said the prisonel
together. Three or four of the Kent family lia•
transported. . ifit4
lige prisoners were called up for judgment, tvis
was sentenced to be transported for life, and ,
seven years. •st V
*e
Kent denied the whole of the case proved 4°l 0 of,
and received his sentence in tears, and protestatil to
wish to leave England, if his wife were permit°
with him.
el°
tb
Mr. Walter was again recalled, and said be ktpri
the prisoner was a married man, and had been irr
health for a considerable time after his return. ,007 d,
The RECORDER said he was afraid he was doch:he
but he would take the responsibility of altering ""
tence of transportation to seven years.

NEW COURT.
feis
(Before the COMMON SERGEANT.) hts
Julia Neele, twelve, and Mary Anne Neele, t`.."
of age, were indicted for stealing a pair of half-b°,°;te
Os., from the shop of Thos. Francis Travers, O.
,00
street, Smers's-town, on the 2d October. fibr,h6
The prisoners were seen by the prosecutor in I.!' stot
the day in question ; and a pawnbroker proved
'-
~60F
elder prisoner had pledged the boots with him otr
evening. itel
The Jury found Julia Neele guilty, and acq°' ift
other, who appeared to be a mere child. 050
The pawnbroker said there were nineteen or twe
of shoes and boots pledged with him in the Dam' s ber'v
prisoner, but he could not say they were pawned b ieferej
The COURT reprimanded the pawnbroker veil ditto
for taking so much property from mere children, '
making inquiry as to how they had come by it. .etrt,
Jane Jones was indicted for stealing a pair of store
a candlestick, from James Carter, of Exmootw
Clerkeuwell, on the 28th September. ied,r
It appeared that the prisoner had been accomP 'll,clP"
her husband, and under the direction of the Lear*"
for
geant the Jury acquitted her.
,1* 40°
Humphrey Perry, aged thirty-two, was 'Asti
stealing a circular saw, the property of James 0 1,
Guilty. stev,
John Blewit and Ellen Enright, were indicted Csoo'
ing two chairs and a basin, from Anne Walker, of A
place, Stepney, on the 27th September. ,
The prosecutrix left her house early in the morni°4; 10
;
to a public-house in the neighbourhood for some belt
her return she found that the articles in question ba!otlie
carried off, and met the prisoners having property
possession.

The Jury acquitted the prisoners. 1,00
Ester Coster was indicted for stealing three blan"ii.
a pillow, the property of Charles Stote, of Clerkenw,
The prisoner lodged in the prosecutor's house awl r 4
the property.— G uil ty. eitic°s
Rachael Galliford was indicted for stealing P
the property of Mary Anne Sherrin. be
00. fer
It appeared that the property belonged to he
Sherrin, and on this informality the jury, under t .bt
tion of the Learned Sergeant, acquitted the prisoner; ~e4O
Garrett Dowling was indicted for stealing tweninoo
yards of merino, value 2/. 45., from the shop of
fpm
Silverwood, of Oxford-street.
A witness saw the prisoner carry off the prePertaile Prir
the shop door. He was taken into custody with
perty in his possession.—Guilty. A of

John Kemble originally introduced in the rj too;
Hamlet the new reading, and altered the emphasis
struction of the line which stands in the true "self 71
thus—" Did you not speak to it ?" addressing hinlojenti
Horatio, his fellow-student, companion, and COl3.,epsi,l,°
r.
friend, " Did not you speak to it ?" George Ste ;10. t
his variorum edition of Shakspeare, protests agf
Kemble's innovation, and contends that the drift ° eked
let's question is, whether his father's shade had hee%ileg
to, and not whether Horatio, as a particular or Pr'
13$r
person, was the speaker to it.
WHO IS THE PARTNER.—At the R.,evisklirq.:
risters' Court, held for the East Riding of "r;viuge'ille
elderly farmer, who had been objected to, after r- for
qualification, was cross-examined by the Att°r°6o.oo tells
opposite party in the following manner :-- Fr,,ires, /1
me, Sir, have you not a partner in this farm ?" .
the answer. Attorney—" Why, I thought °°,, i4o,n 'be°
suppose your partner pays part of the rent? nge or
the farmer. Attorney—" That is indeed st"' caritt,
tell me, Sir, what is the name 01. your party er
Why, if you want to know, my mild dalne
ner I mean." r. the fa'