The Sun.
London, England, 1835-12-01 00:00:00

SHAW V. RHODES.

This was an appeal from a decision of the Vice-Chan-
cellor upon the construction of the will of the Rev. Mr.
Hillier. The appeal had been heard by Lord Brougham
when he was Lord Chancellor, and his Lordship said he
would settle a case for a Court of Law, but the case was not
sent, nor would the respondents now agree to any case, but
insisted that the decree of the Vice-Chancellor was right.
Mr. BEAMES was heard in support of the appeal.
Mr. TRESLOVE was heard in support of the decree be-
low, and Mr. Beams replied.—Judgment was postponed.

KING'S BENCH.-MONDAY.

JOHNSON V. HUDSON AND MORGAN.

The plaintiff was a butcher, living in the Edgware-road ;
the defendant a green-grocer, residing opposite to him. In
1829 the defendant had been tenant to the plaintiff, occu-
pying at that time a house next door to him, but some dif-
ferences had arisen, and the defendant had received notice
to quit. The defendant then took the house which he
now occupied opposite to the plaintiff, and from that time
to the present the greatest had been exhibited by
him towards the plaintiff. In March or April, 1834, the
defendant had been absent from home for a short time, and
returned in May, and then had commenced on his part a
course of vexatious 'conduct towards the plaintiff, such as
was rarely heard of, and which, as the plaintiff desired to
live in peace and comfort, he had been compelled to take
this method to put a stop to. The defendant had printed
1,000 copies of songs alluding to the plaintiff, and which,
as he happened to be a fat man, were called " The
Bloater," and " The Lunatic Bloater," and had hired men
to sing them about the streets. They were all written in
the most doggrel verse, but they were calculated to render
the plaintiff ridiculous, and annoy his family.
The Jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages 301.

COMMON PLEAS.-MONDAY.

HAY AND ANOTHER V. ELGOOD.

The plaintiffs are respectable house-agents ; the defend-
ant is also a person of respectability. In the coffee-room
of the City Mart a circumstance arose which excited the
anger of the defendant, and he applied the word thieves to
the plaintiffs, who demanded an immediate retraction of the
term, which not being promptly- given, the present action
was commenced, and some time after proceedings were
taken the plaintiffs received a letter from the defendant, con-
veying what they considered only a qualified retraction. They
thought more was due to their character. The accusation
had been made publicly, and they demanded an equally
public disavowal of any imputation being cast on them by
the obnoxious epithet.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE here suggested that a Juror
should be withdrawn. The parties having assented, it was
done accordingly.

PREROGATIVE COURT-MONDAY

SARWOOD AND WALLIS V. RIPPON AND RIPPON.

It will be remembered in this case that the testator, Mr.
Thomas Rippon, late chief cashier to the Bank of England,
died on the 13th of August, 1835. A variety of testa-
mentary papers were left by the deceased, of which those
more particular'y before the'Court bore date severally June,
1827 ; April, 1834 ; and June, 1834. On a former Court
day, probate was refused to the will of June, 1834, on the
ground of non-execution, under circumstances which did
not, in the opinion of the Court, account for such defect ;
and the paper of April, 1834, being a draft of the will of
June, was now propounded by the same parties. This draft
was signed by the testator, and was endorsed with the fol-
lowing memorandum :—" This, in case of my death is to
be taken for, and is, my last will, which, however, I intend
.to write out fair, when I have time and leisure." The al-
legation propounding this draft now stood for admission,
and was opposed by
Dr. ADDAMS, who, on behalf of the executors under the
will of 1827, contended that the meaning of the memoran-
dum evidently was, that in case of his sudden death the
paper should become his will, but not othefwise.

Dr. LUSIIINGTON, for the admissibility of the allega-
tion, urged the extreme care with which this draft was pre-
pared ; that it was, to all intents and purposes, a deliberate,
revised, and re-considered draft. He trusted the Court
would grant probate to the paper.
Sir HERBERT JENNER rejected the allegation, and de-
creed probate to the will of the Ist of June, 1827.