The Sun.
London, England, 1832-02-14 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

His Honour the VICE-CHANCELLOR was occupied the
whole morning with arguments on pleas and detnurrers
none of which possessed any points of public importance.

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

Sittings at Guildhall, before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE,
and a Common Jury.

SMITH V. JONES.

Sir JAMES SCARLETT and Mr. BALL appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. J. WILLIAms for the defendant.
This was an action to recover damages for an assault
and false imprisonment.
The plaintiff, who was an old and infirm man, blind of
one eye and nearly deaf, was a plumber and glazier, at
Kennington, where the defendant also lived. There had
been for some time pig considerable ill-feeling between
the plaintiff, defendant, and the father-in-law of the latter,
a person named Tipping. On the 13th of May, 1830.
the plaintiff was near Tipping's house, when Mrs. Tipping
citne out and abused him; Tipping lifted up the window,
and also abused him, at the same time shaking a
stick at him ; directly afterwards the defendant came up,
seized the plaintiff by the collar, pushed him violently
against a fence, and struck him several blows. High
words ensued, and a policeman coining up, the defendant
gave the plaintiff in custody. He was taken instantly tii
Union-hall, and charged by the defendant with an as-
sault, and he was locked up until he found bail. Bail
having been procured, he was liberated. The plaintiff at-
tended at the Surrey Sessions, but the defendant never
followed up the prosecution. It was sworn by a number
of witnesses that the plaintiff never attempted to strike the
defendant.

Mr. WILLIAMS, i❑ his address to the Jury, said
that he would prove, on the part of the defendant, wh
had pleaded a justification, that the plaintiff first as
saulted the defendant, and created such a noise as to ex
cite the attention of the policeman to whom the defendant
gave him in custody. He then expressed his willingness
to let the plaintiff go if he would refrain from further
violence ; but instead of accepting that offer he put him-
self in a menacing attitude, and created so much disturb-
ance that the defendant was obliged to send him away in
custody.
Several witnesses were called to prove the facts as stated
by the Learned Counsel.
The case had not terminated when our reporter left.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

Mr. COLERIDGE having been appointed a Serjeant-at-
Law, took his seat within the bar as such, and received
the congratulations of his friends.

REETSON AND OTHERS V. FOSTER AND ANOTHER.

This was an action to recover 3,0001., the amount of
twelve bills of exchange, which the plaintiffs had put into
the hands of Messrs. Wood and Poole, bill-brokers, for
discount; that grin being pressed for money, pledged
these bill., along with a quantity more, with the defen-
dants, from whom they received a sum of money. The
plaintiffs considered the transaction was a collusion be-
tween these parties, as this took place on the Saturday,
the 22d of November, and on the Tuesday, Wood and
Poole stopped payment, and have since been made bank.
rupts. The case seemed likely to occupy the Court the
greater part of the day.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

GARTH V. HOWARD AND ANOTHER.

Mr. PLATT opened the pleadings.
Mr. Sergeant SPANKIE said that this action was
brought by the plaintiff, Captain Thomas Garth, of the
Hussars, to recover certain property, consisting of plate to
a considerable amount, from the defendants Howard, a
money lender, and Fleming a pawnbroker, which bad
been by them detained from him, without his authority.
Captain Garth is a gentleman well known in the world,
and is the son of the late General Garth, and had latterly
excited great attention. He had for some time been deeply
involved in difficulties, and of such a nature that be was
compelled to procure legal assistance. Unfortunately for
him he was induced to resort to the defendant Howard,
who had been known in the Courts of law for the last
ten years, and was the son of Howard of the well-known
firm of Howard and Gibbs. In /819, Howard persuaded
the plaintiff he was indebted to him a considerable sum,
and obtained from him a security for the amount. After
the security was given, Howard immediately acted
upon it, and levied an execution upon the Captain's
property, and after the sale had taken place upwards of
1,300/. came into the possession of the defendant. The
Captain's embarrassments continued in the latter part of
1829, and he was living near Windsor, and Howard, in
order to have an unlimited command over his property,
wished to get him out of the way altogether, and to effect
his purpose he wrote him a letter advising him to be off
to Scotland instanter, as the Sheriff's officers were after
him, and he would be soon in the jaws of a prison, and
that his utter ruin would inevitably be the result. The
Captain acted instantly upon Howard's advice, and pro-
, ceeded to Newcastle, and whilst there he was persuaded
to give him a power of attorney upon the whole of his
plate left him by the deceased General. The moment he
(Howard) obtained the power, and had full command of
Captain Garth's property, he immediately proceeded to
Dorchester and obtained posses%iion of the family plate con-
tained in his boxes, and eposited at the bankers for se-
curity, for whial he gave a receipt, and no sooner had
be got pcssession, when be deposited it in the hands of
the other defendant Fleming, who ad vanced upon it
the sum of 2001., and at the tine he was so doing, he was
indebted to Captain Qarth in the sum of 7001., so that
there could be no pretence for any authority for having
appropriated the property to his own use. The Learned
Serjeant concluded by s lying he should call his wimmes,
and he had no doubt but the Jury would give a verdict in
his favour. The Learned Serjeant then proceeded to call
his witnesses.
The trial was proceoi-c.g when our reporter left.

Sir WALTER SCOTT was presented to the
11ing of NAPLES on the 12th ult.
Mr..Toitx REEVE, it is said, had been en-
gaged in the celebration of the SSd anniversary of his
birth on the evening when he dived into the orchestra,

ARCHES COURT.--(THIS DAY.)

NEW ORDER 01' COURT.

Sir J. NICHOL directed the Registrar to read an ori!er
f Court which had been drawn up relative to the alter a-
ion of the terms.

The Registrar read the order. It stated, that in con-
sequence of the alteration made in the periods for the
terms in the Common Law Courts, the Official Principal of
the Arches Court, with the concurrence of Sir C. Robin-
son, &c. had ordered that the terms of the Ecclesiastical
Court should commence at the same periods as those of
the Common Law Courts, the remainder of Court days to
be fixed as at present.

PREROGATIVE COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

Sir JOHN lsticuor. sat as Judge to hear caus.es in this
Court.

LONG AND FEVER V. SYMES AND HAAINAN.

This was a suit of some importance as regards the
question of executorships, and what acts constitute an
executor.

Dr. LUSHINGTON appeared on the part of the plain-
tiffs.—He stated that in bringing this question before the
Court, he would state that the general principle of law
from the earliest period, relative to executors, had been
that when parties named as such in wills, intermeddled
with the affairs of the deceased, they were bound to per.-
form the duties of executors. The facts of the case were
these :—The deceased, Mr. John Fever, of Horsington,
i❑ the county of Somerset, left a will, appointing Me‘si,.
Symes and Hamnam executors, and they inserted an
advertisement in the Sherborne Gazette, desiring all debts
to be paid to them. After two years, however, the exe-
cutors came forward and declared they would not act,
finding, perhaps, the estate was embarrassed, and the
parties for whom be appeared, the plaintiffs in the suit, as
legatees under the will, now called upon the Court to pass
probate to the executors (the defendants), in order that
they might distribute the property. There could be no
doubt but that the inserting the advertisement and receivinq-
money, was intermeddling with the affairs of the deceased,
and that the executors named in the will could never give
up their trust.
Dn. ADDAMS, on behalf of Mr. Sytnes, contended that
the executors had intended to relinquish the duty inn the
first instance ; that his client had acted from kindness to
the widow, who was residuary legatee, and that he could
not be compelled to act.

Dr./STICI3OL, for Mre. Hamnam, pleaded a similar release.
Sir J. NICHOL gave judgment. The law was clear,
that while executors intermeddled in the affairs of a de-
ceased person, the parties must act. This doctrine was
clearly laid down in Swinbourne and Bacon. He need
not go one step further than the advertisement to be con-
vinced that the executors had intermeddled, and that they
must therefore administer to the will. lie should con-
demn the defendants in costs, not to be paid out of the
estate, at least till all the legatees had been satisfied.

BANKRUPTCY COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

'AWE V. AARON.

The arguments in this part heard bankrupt petition
were resumed this morning before their Honours, and
had not concluded when our reporter left. We shall give
the facts of the case in detail when the Court givrs
judgment.