The Sun.
London, England, 1859-12-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS .DAY.)

ROLLS COURT.
(Before Sir John Romilly.)
'MORE V. MOORE.-JUDGMENT.

His Honour the Master of the Rolls said—l am of opinion
that this legacy taken by the testatrix out of the residue of
her husband's property, being one-third, was a specific gift
to her, and that the application of it in the purchase of £6OO
Reduced Consols was a specific application of that part of
the residue. The £6OO Reduced Consols standing in her
own name, and transferred to her own use, I consider
to be an appropriation to her own use of that part of the
residue of the testator's property, and that she takes it ab-
solutely to that extent. It was so found in the case of Lee v.
Leo. The specific fund could not have been traced if she had
simply sold it out and mixed the price with her own money,
but she added it to the amount necessary to purchase the
£6OO 3 per Cent. Reduced Consols, and being a specific be-
quest the legatee must be entitled to take so much of the
share as will make up a third of the residuary estate, out of
the estate.
Costs out of the estate.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)
IN RR ERNEST JONES.
This was a meeting for consideration of the certificate of
this bankrupt, who is well known in the political world.
There was no opposition.

Mr. Murrough appeared to support, and attributed the
bankruptcy to the failure of a speculation—the Cabinet
newspaper—which would, no doubt, have been successful
had it not been for a malicious libel which was published.
That libel had excited great public attention, and a sub-
scription was being raised and money was coming in fast
until the name appeared in the " Gazette." No creditor
opposed, but, on the contrary, all sympathised with the
bankrupt. He (Mr. Murrough), therefore, asked for a
certificate of the first class.

His Honour said that he could only grant a certificate of
the second class.

Certificate of the second class accordingly.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Kerr.)

SERVANTGALISM-" A CATAMARAN"-TRAINER V. MILEY.

Plaintiff is a domestic servant, and sought to recover
wages actually earned, a month's wages in lieu of notice,
and board for a month. His Honour struck out the item
forlboard, and told plaintiff she could not recover that.
Mr. Beard (for defendant) said the wages actually earned
(16s. Bd.) had been, with costs, paid into court.
Plaintiff stated that in consequence of her having a few
words with the cook defendant summarily dismissed her.
Mr. Beard—Did you not shake your fist in tho cooks face?

Mr. Beard—Did you not call her a catarau ? (Laughter.)
Plaintiff—Yes.

Ilis honour—The right name is Catamaran.
Plaintiff—l did not call her very bad names.

Mr. Beard then contended that plaintiff having grossly
raisconductod herself could not reoover a month's wages.
The cook was called, and donied that she provoked
plaintiff, who called her a very vulgar name.
Mr. Maby said he heard of the quarrel, and sent plaintiff
away.

Ilis Honour thought that plaintiff was entitled to a
month's notice. In all cases of quarrels with and between
servants, it was the duty of the master to have a strict in-
quiry. The cook might have been as much in the wrong
as the plaintiff.

Verdict for plaintiff for the wages in lieu of notice.
THE LAW OF PARTNERSHIP.-MASH V. BOTWRIGHT.

This was an action to recover an amount fur herrings
delivered to a stall in Billingsgate.
Mr. Buchanan called the plaintiff, who said that ono
Cooper was in partnership with defendant, and had the
goods. Defendant had often paid parties for goods sup-
plied to Cooper. None of those parties were present.
Mr. Stammers, for defendant, elicited from plaintiffs that
defendant when asked for the money repudiated tho trans.
action.

Botwright not being present, an adjournment was
granted ; his II onour remarking that defendant ought to
be present.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

SAVAGE ASSAULT ON A WAITER AT A TAVERN,—
Auguste Lasselin, a tall, respectable. looking foreigner,
living at 24, Warwick-street, was charged before Mr.
Bingham with the following savage assault on Alfred
Pepperell, waiter at the White Bear, Piccadilly :
The complainant said that shortly after twelve overnight
he was ordered by his master to turn a female out who was
very noisy, when the defendant caught hold of his hand,
and thrusting one of his (complainant's) fingers into his
(defendant's) mouth, gnawed it for at least two minutes,
causing him great agony. A constable fortunately coming
up, ho was released from the defendant's hold.

Brown, 301 A, said ho saw the defendant fly at the com-
plainant like a tiger, and bite his finger. Ho was obliged
to throttle the defendant to make him looso his hold.

The defendant (in French) said, seeing the woman ill-
used he, like a man, interfered.

Mr. Bingham said—l believe you understand English,
and will take care to make you do so before you leave this
Court. You are charged with putting the finger of a
waiter into your mouth, and biting in the manner of a bull
dog or wild beast. The waiter was; putting out :a noisy
wcrnan, which ho had a right to do. The next time you
interfere on behalf of a woman you fancy is ill-used, don't
use your teeth ; and do not, at such a time of night, again
too readily interfere on behalf of women who frequent pub-
lic-houses at such a time.
Fined £3, or a month.

RETIREMENT OF ONE OF THE CLERKS.—Mr. William
Bishop, who has for upwards of 40 years filled the office of
ono of the magistrate's clerks at this court, has retired,
universally respected by all persons connected with the
court and by those having business to transact with him.
Mr. Edward Leigh, late third clerk at Boa-street, took his
place to-day for the first time at the clerk's table, being ap-
pointed to tho vacancy created by Mr. Bishop's retirement.