The Sun.
London, England, 1861-11-07 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 7, 1861.

LAW IN2ELLIGENCE—(This Day.)

COURT OF PROBATE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
STAINES V. STEWART AND OTHERS.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

This was a suit instituted to try the validity of a will
made by Mr. Mathew Staines, deceased, and whether such
will was legally revoked.

Dr. Dean, Q.C., appeared for the plaintiff, the only child
and heir at law of the testator, who pleaded revocrtion, and
Dr. Phillimore represented the defendant and the families
who propounded the will.

It appeared that the testator was about 72 years of age
when he died at Bristol, in December last, and the will in
dispute was executed in Oct., 1858, by which the family of
the defendant Stewart was appointed residuary legatees. Ho
had for some time assumed the name of Richard Broughton,
assigning that his reason for doing so was to avoid being
importuned about money matters by his son. In 1853 he
formed the acquaintance of a German named Siebert, and
he also contracted an intimacy with a person named Blohn,
who was the sister-in-law of Siebert, and she lived with
him until his decease, at which time he was a widower,
having one child, who was the real party intimated in the
suit. In the course of the evidence it was positively sworn
that the testator had stated to Blohn and Siebert
that he had been forced to make the will
by Mr. Stewart, but that it was his intention
to revoke it. Having obtained the document from Mr.
Stewart, he tore it up in the presence of Blohn and Siebert,
in September, 1860, and desired Blohn to burn the frag-
ments. She, however, refused to do so, fearful of unplea-
sant consequences, and the pieces were replaced in a box
from where it had been taken. After the decease of the
testator the will was found, and afterwards propounded by
the defendants, Stewart and Jones, as the executors.
Dr. Phillimore addressed the Court on the part of the
defendants, contending that the will had been legally
drawn up by Mr. Stewart. The learned gentleman, at the
conclusion of his arguments, called a number of witnesses.
The case had net concluded when we went to press.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

(Before the Lord Chief Baron, and Barons Martin, Bram-

well, and Channell,)
ADAMS V. THE MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. Overend said this case was tried in Liverpool, when
the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff with £l5 damages,
and he had to apply to the Court for a rule to set aside the
verdict, on the ground that the damages were excessive.
The defendants had, previous to the commencement of the
trial, paid £lO into court, but the jury gave £5 in additiOn.
The plaintiff was a dealer in earthenware, and the action
was originally brought against the Midland Railway Com-
pany for the non-delivery of six crates of earthenware,
which the plaintiff had sent to them from Chesterfield for
conveyance to Limerick. Three of the crates were delivered
at the proper time, but the other three did not at that time
come to hand, and the plaintiff alleged that in consequence
he had lost their sale. He went to Liverpool to make in-
quiry respecting the goods, which, however, ultimately
arrived at their destination, but ho contended that, as the
six crates did not arrive at ono time, the three that were
detained became useless to him, and he sued for their value.
The crates were addressed " A. L., to be left till called for,"
and it was contended that that was a good and proper
direction, as goods of the plaintiff, had, with the same ad-
dress, reached their destination in duo course. The com-
pany resisted the demand,!as the three crates were delivered
in a very short time after they were due, and made an offer
to pay the plaintiff the expenses he had been put to by his
journey to Liverpool and tack, but he refused such terms,
and laid his expenses altogether at £5B. The result of the
trial was that the jury gave a verdict against the company,
and it was to set aside that decision that he made the
present application to the court.
Rule granted to show cause.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day).

ROBBERY AT THE ALHAMBRA PALACE.—John Smith,
a tall man, wearing a light coat, who refused his address,
was charged with attempting to steal a watch, of the value
of £6 Gs., from the person of Mr. William Joseph Kelly,
who said ho was from Newcastle-on-Tyne, but was at pre-
sent staying at the Clarendon Hotel, Arundel-street, Strand.
Mr. Lewis, jun., defended.

Mr. Kelly said he was at the Alhambra the previous
night, and while standing up looking at the performance
he felt a tug at his watch, and saw it in the prisoner's hand,
which he had placed under his arm. The prisoner tried to
get away, but ho prevented him by pulling at the chain,
which was still attached to the watch.

In answer to Mr. Tyrwhitt, Mr. Kelly said the chain was
also attached to his waistcoat.

Mr. Lewis having put some questions to Mr. "Kelly, Ser-
geant Ward, 298 A, said he took the prisoner into custody
at the entrance to the Alhambra. The prisoner refused his
name and address, and on examining the watch ho found
the bow had been twisted.

Mr. Lewis said there were always large crowds at the
Alhambra, and he thought, under the circumstances, the
prosecutor might have made a mistake. The prisoner had
instructed him to say that the hand prosecutor saw was
somebody else's hand. Another circumstance in the case
was that the watch was never severed from the chain.

Mr. Tyrwhitt—lt appears to me that the ingenuity of
the prisoner is equalled by the ingenuity of his advocate.
I consider it an ingenious robbery, done by a clever fellow,
who is defended by a clever counsel.
Mr. Lewis said he understood the prosecutor wanted to
go into the country, and there was no violence used.
Mr. Tyrwhitt remanded the prisoner for a few days.