The Sun.
London, England, 1850-11-21 00:00:00

TURKEY.

It is stated in a letter From Constantinople of the
10th that the Austrian Government bad given its con-
sent to the release of all the Hungarian refugees in
Turkey, with the exception of Kossuth, but that the
Porte had declared that all must be released or none.
The refugees themselves were, it is added, of opinion
that all ought to be treated alike. The definitive
answer of Austria was expected with anxiety. Should
it be favourable, Percvl and Batthyani would, it was
said, take up their residence at Paris, and Kossuth at
London.

TATTERSALL'S-THIS EVENING

SIX O'CLOCK.

CRESTER CUP.
50 to 1 agst Montagne
50 to I:agst Rhesus
66 to 1 agst Elthiron
66 to 1 agst The Italian

DERBY.

5 to 1 agst Grecian
12 to 1 agst Mountain Sylph colt
20 to 1 agst Teddington
20 to 1 agst Newminster
20 to 1 agst Lamartino
30 to 1 agst Storm
40 to 1 agst Lightfoot
40 to 1 agst Bonnie Dundee
100 to 1 agst Curious

PAPAL AGGRESSION.—During this day a van has
paraded the streets of the metropolis containing several
characters grotesquely attired, and bearing an an-
nouncement that the Pope's Bull would be burnt in
Smithfield, by John Bull, who would afterwards ex-
communicate the Pope ; at the snme time calling on
those who attend to conduct themselves with order and
decorum.

LAW INTELLIGENCE:
VICE-CHANCERY COURT, Nov 20.
(Before Sir R. M. ROLFE.)
IN TUE MATTER OF DICKSON'S TRUST.

His HONOUR gave judgment on the petition of
Mary Eleanor Dickson. for payment of the inte-
rest of a legacy of 10,0001. bequeathed to her by the
will of her father, General Dickson. The question
was whether, in the circumstances, the bequest was
well revoked by a ccdicil, in which the testator,
speaking of his daughter Mary Eleanor, said,—
" Finding that she contemplates remaining in a Ro-
man Catholic convent, and becoming a nun, I conse-
quently hereby declare that, in the said event of her
carrying out her intention of taking the veil, be-
coming a nun, or continuing to reside in a convent,
or any way associating herself permanently with any
Roman Catholic establishment of that nature, she, would
forfeit all claim to a benefit from the said sum of
10,0001, and I hereby in that case revoke the said
bequest, and in order to prevent any portion of my
property from being applied to other purFoses than
the benefit of my familyi,,Lhereby exclude my
daughter Mary Eleanor Dickson from all rever-
sionary advantages from the said will:' The case
was argued early in the term by Mr. Betheli and Mr.
Fleming for the petitioner, Mr. James Parker for
the family of the testator, and Mr. Elmsley for the
trustees.

His flosiona said it was admitted that the lady had
associated herself permanently with a Roman Catholic
establishment so as to come within the terms of the
codicil, if, the codicil affected the bequest by the will.
The first question was, whether the intention mani-
fested by the codicil was a lawful intention. What
doubt could there be of that ? Independently of au-
thority there could be no ground for doubting that a
testator might lawfully impose as a condition of his
gift that his daughter should not take the veil, or be-
come a nuo, or declare that his bequest should not
take effect if she did so. But it was said that this
was prevented by a supposed rule of law, that if a
bequest be given absolutely in the first instance, and
then a condition be subsequently imposed, but without
any gift over, the subsequent condition, is to be re-
garded as anidle threat, aad to be ineffectual. He
thought that no such rule of law existed. The argu-
ment in support of the rule was founded on a supposed
analogy to the case of conditions in restraint of mar-
riage, which„in the absence of any gift over, had
been held not to affect the right of a legatee to an
interest previously vested in him. The principle had
been adopted from the civil law, 35 Pandect, c. 33,
et seq. This Court had considered itself bound to fol-
low the civil law, and where a testator had coupled
his gift with a condition that the legatee should not
marry, had held either that the testator did not
really mean to restrain marriage, or if he did, that
he had attempted to prevent what he had no right to
prohibit. The reasoning in those cases had oftei been
described as unsatisfactory. This was not a case
within the rule of civil law. It was not a question of
form. The decision of the case did not depend on the
condition being subsequent, but on the nature of the
condition. If the testator went beyond the condition,
and on the event happening bequeathed the legacy to
another party, or directed it to fall into the residue,
the Court then disregarded the doctrine of civil law,
and acted upon its own rules, giving effect to the gift
over. On the other hand, if there were no gift over,
and the condition came within the rule of the civil
law as restraining marriage, or directing that the
legatee should not dispute the will, the condition was
held to be ineffectual. But there was no prin-
ciple or authority which prevented a testator from
saying that a legacy given by his will should not take
effect upon the legatee taking the veil or entering a
convent. lie was of opinion that there was nothing
unlawful in the condition, and that the lady took no
interest in the legacy of 10,0001. The petition must,
therefore, be dismissed.

It was subsequently admitted by the counsel on
both sides to be a case in which all the parties should
have their costa cut of the fund ; and that if it should
appear that any dividends had become due before the
lady entered the convent, those should be paid to her

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, Nov. 20.
CROWN CASES RESERVED.
_

(Before the LORD CHIEF BARON, Mr. Justice WIGHT
MAN, Mr. Justice WILLIAMS, Mr. Justice TAL,
rounD, and Mr. Baron MARTIN.)
QUEEN V. BIRD AND ANOTHER.

It will be in the recollection —of that
these prisoners were tried before Mr. Justice Tal-
fourd at the last spring assizes at Exeter, for the
murder of Mary Ann Parsons, when they were ac-
quitted. They were, however, subsequently taken
into custody, and indicted for having assaulted, cut,
and grievously maimed her.
The Solicitor-General and Mr. Rowe now appeared
Crown,
and Mr. Slade appeared for
Hobert Mr. Cox for Sarah Bird.
in support of the point which had been
on
mb err.t behalf
s Curtis
n oA rf
p t
i the h, e
iB rd,
a
reserved, stated that their Lordships would find that
the case which had been sent up to that Court, set
out that three different assaults had been committed ;
ggthghsad resulted from the said
had been inflicted by a
not stated that the castigations
either prisoner separately, or by
Therefore he should contend,
bfinthhioaoredtgenhgnbiten;chegoant
usthileunnbnf 1 certaincutie:it:ei
tted
wounds
wyflb
.oya s
that as there bad been no evidence adduced against
the prisoners that they had inflicted the said floggings,
at all events that part of the case ought to be
discussion, that portion of the case was
expunged.
.secondthe
Ist
After some
expunged.
avßicnyhgatrbhgeeiennlgl:thcseee.metrtileowdnitohf murder and felony,
Mr. SLIDE then went on to argue, that the pri-
and acquitted on an in-
dictmentos off ne enrc se h.
time for the same
to acquit of the felony, and
Victoria, cap.
85 , it was enacted that if any person shall be tried for
any offence specified in the Act,. or for any other
they could not be tried a
felony, it shall be lawful
return a verdict for the assault ; and that doctrine had
been laid down and acted upon by Mr. Justice Patte-
son, in the year 1842, in i, The Queen v. Compton,"
and also in " The Queen v. Birch," subsequently, so
that it was perfectly competent to the jury on the
first indictment to have found the prisoners guilty of
an assault, although they might have been acquitted
of the felony.
The further hearing of the case was adjourned till
Friday morning.

s omii:EyGqoE.
m; VENUE.
rE,J.
E.
with Nov.sHci7
.$) ta2Rvo:
(BCeporUEeRsTqT.IOOamFnAtisTALAND
BROCKBANK.
THE AIl
QUEENLARR: DI
1, •
waJsechhearßgerdoc,hubaponnh, otfworeiancfoocrkrn-asttiroenest: Newington,
adulterated his tobacco with various deleterious sub-
stances while in the course of manufacture, and also
with carrying on the business of a tobacco-manufac •
turer without licence, by which he had incurred
penalties to 1001. Dr. Bateman conducted the pro-
secution.
Dr. BATSMAN having stated the case on the part of
the Crown,
Mr. George Phillips said that he was a surveying
examiner-general and analytical chemist to the Board
of Inland Revenue. On the 2d of August last he
went to the premises of the defendant, in Peacock-
street, Newington, where he discovered a quantity of
unstoved tobacco that was grossly adulterated. Ano-
ther portion of stoved tobacco was also adulterated
in like manner, and a third quantity (a)so adul-
terated), known by the name of " box ends,"
was also secreted in some bales of genuine leaf
tobacco. The three parcels consisted of about
200Ibs. Upon analyzation of one parcel, he found it
adulterated to the extent of from 36 to 45 per cents
with terra japonica, fuller's earth, and red peroxide of
iron, and other parcels with similar adulteration to
about 30 per cent. This species of adulteration was
most injurious to the public and to the revenue. He
seized the whole stock in the course of manufacture,
and conveyed it to the Excise warehouse.