The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE
HOUSE OF LORDS, June 4.

The House sat to-day in a Committee for Privileges.
Among the Peers present were the Lord Chancellor,
Lord Brougham, Lord Cottenham, and Lord Campbell.
The Annandale Peerage counsel were heard on this
claim, and the further consideration of the case was ad-
journed till Tuesday next.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND sat to-day St ten
o'clock, but in consequence of the absence of counsel, and
parties not being ready, his Honour rose shortly after
half-past ten o'clock.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT June 6.
(Before Sir JAMES WIcIRAM.)
KIRK V. EDDOWES.

His HONOUR pronounced judgment in this case. He said
he did not expect that his decision would satisfy the parties,
and in the state of the authorities he had no right to expect
much deference to it. The case was this, Henry Eddowes,
the testator in the cause, by his will gave' ,his real and per-
sonal estate to his son, the defendant, John Henry Eddowes,
absolutely charged with an annuity of 1001. to the testator's
brother, Storor Edwards, for life, and with a capital sum of
3,0001. to his daughter, Mrs. Kirk, for her separate use, with
remainder to her children. The plaintiffs, who were children
of Mrs. Kirk, hadifiled their bill to recover the 14000/. The
right to 2,500/. was admitted; but John Henry Ed-
dowes contended that the remaining 5001. had been
redeemed by an advance made by the testator after
the date of his will. Evidence in suppiirt of the de-
fendant's case had been tendered by the defendant, but as to
part of it, it was objected to by the plaintiff. lithe evidence
were admissible, he thought it established that the testator
did, at Mrs. Kirk's instance and request, give her husband
5001., by giving him a note of one Warner, declaring at the
time he did so, that he gave it in part satisfaction of the share
of his property given to Mrs. Kirk by his will. The ques-
tion to be decided was, in fact, whether the gift by the will
was &deemed pro tunto by the gift of Warner's note. Where
questions similar to the present had arisen on two in-
struments • 'in writing, the law as to admitting evi-
dence was 'perfectly settled. The question in such cases
had been, what effect, if any, the second transaction
had in repealing the gift by the first. In the present
case, he thought the rule against admitting evidence
to prove the situation of the parties did not apply ; the ques-
tion was whether any other rule would exclude the evidence.
The defendant's evidence was not objected to, po far as it went,
only to show the gift and amount of Warner's note ; the ob-
jection referred only to the testator's declaration accompany-
ing the gift. Those declarations were the essence of the
transaction, and the truth of the transaction itself could not
be known to the Court without them. His Honour then re-
ferred to the authorities on the point, all of which, he said,
were in favour of the admission of the evidence in a case like
that. The circumstance of the 3,0001. being given to Mrs.
Kirk absolutely for life, for her separate use, with the
remainder to her children, made no difference. The
money waa given as a provision for herself and her
children, and was to be considered as a marriage portion
She requested her father to advance a part of it to her hus-
band, and, in acceding to the request, he made a declaration
as to his intention in so doing. Upon the whole, not inti-
mating an opinion that extrinsic evidence was in any case to
be admitted, to alter or vary an instrument, or to prove with
what intentions it was executed, and distinguishing between
ademption and revocation, he thought that in this case the
evidence was admissible.

.The case was referred to the Master to inquire in what
manner the 2,500/. was invested.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 6.
(Sittings in Banco,)
The Court was occupied the whole morning in hearing the
arguments in the case of Scott v. Van Sandon, which was a
rule to set aside an arbitration. None of the facts were of
any interest except to the parties concerned.

BAIL- COURT, June 6.
(Before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS.)
THF. QUEEN v. MOTT AND ANOTHER.

Mr. JAMES in this case moved for a certiorari to remove
two indictments for conspiracy from the Central Criminal
Court into the Court of Queen's Bench. The application was
founded on the affidavits of the defendants, who stated that
they believed the indictments were instituted by a person
named Crow, for the purpose of extorting money, and that
they could not have the benefit of Queen's counsel at the
Central Criminal• Court.
Motion granted, the defendants undertaking to try at the
sittings after the present term.

- -
THE QUEEN V. THE CORPORATION OF SANDWICH.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL in this case moved for a manda-
mus to compel the Mayor, Aldermen, and Corporation of
the borough of Sandwich to pay certain costs attending the
application fora mandamus made on behalf of Murillion,
who had been town-clerk of the borough. This gentlemen
had been removed by one of the political parties of the
borough, and he applied to the Corporation, under the Mu-
nicipal Act, for compensation. They having decided
that he was not entitled to it, an application was.
made to the Lords of the Treasury, who decided that
Mr. Murillion was entitled to sixty pounds a year. Not being
satisfied with this, he applied to the Court of Queen's Bench
who decided that the Lords of the Treasury had no power to
grant compensation where the Corporation had decided that
none was due. Mr. Murillion afterwards applied to the Cor-
poration, who decided that ho was entitled to 60/. a year.
On application to the Lords of the Treasury a second time
they, on fuller investigation, decided he was entitled to 112/.
a year. The present application was to compel the Corpora-
tion to pay the costs of the former mandamus, which was
decided in January, 1842. There were two objections which
he (the Solicitor-Ci'eneral) felt bound to mention to the Court.
One was the length of time which elapsed since the decision
of the former mandamus was given. The other objection
was, that the Court did not grant the mandamus in the
terms it was prayed for by Mr. Murillion.
The Court considered the second objection was fatal.
Rule refused.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 6.
(Sittings in Banco.)
BORON V. THE IiON. CAPTAIN_ DENMAN.

This case which occupied the Court during the whole of
yesterday, when it was adjourned until to-day, was resumed
at the sitting of the Court.
It was an action for trespass brought by a subject of the
Queen of Spain against the lion. Captain Denman, for seiz-
ing, taking, and releasing a number of slaves, and seizing and
destroying certain bills of exchange and various articles of
merchandise, the property of the plaintiff, at Galinas, on the
coast of Africa. .

The defendant pleaded, in justification, that he was the
Captain of her Majesty's ship the Wanderer, and was com-
manded by her Majesty, in pursuance of a treaty with
Spain for the suppression of the slave trade, to use the
force under his command for preventing that illegal traffic,
and that the slaves in question were natives of Africa, reduced
to slavery by force, and duresse, and that it was illegal, and
contrary to the treaties, to traffic in slaves, and that the
plaintiff had procured and become possessed of the slaves in
question for the purpose of carrying on the above trade,
and of having them transported beyond the seas. As to the
bills of exchange, and other property destroyed, as
alleged in the declaration, the defendant pleaded that
by the plaintiff for the
of carrying on the traffic
purpose andisitiß'shlaypersipecrotnywtriatwhri.t'a- tsitioec'tjillilileeteelpietrdioovnisions of the treaties, &c.,
and that the defendant acted by command of her Majesty in
destroying the said bills of exchange and other property. To
ed, that the place where the
not within the alleged
odpfl
trespasses Majesty
efle7ienriteahi
el t r,oeep oi
committedof w a g
Spain, or of her Britannic
Majesty—nor was it on the high seas, but upon land on the
coast of Africa. To these declarations there was a demurrer.
Sir
andhon Thomas Wilde
thatyesterdaye the
appeared to support the de-
murrer, defendant was not liable to
an action in a court of law, and argued at some length that
he was entitled to judgment on the demurrer.
Mr. Kelly, for the plaintiff; admitted that if there was no
Act of Parliament to justify the seizure and destruc-
tion of the plaintiff's property, it could not be justified
at law. The treaty between the two countries offered
no justification for the trespasses complained of, and
were committed where the treaty did not apply ; and
that it could. • have no effect beyond the dominions of the
Queen of Spain and the Queen of England. It was mon
d bills oefstr exchange,
tliem. lie further contended,
strous to suppose that because the plaintiff intended to trade
a British officer was at
likesrltayt:et
os wseizeitl and i
that the pleas were bad, and that tke judgment must pass
for the plaintiff in the demurrer.
At the sitting of the Court this morning,
Mr. Baron PARKS suggested to Sir Thomas Wilde the
alteration of the pleas respecting the authority under which
Captain Denman acted. He merely threw out this 'sugges-
tion for his consideration. He might take time to consider,
and bring the case before the Court again.
Sir T. WILDE said he would avail himself of the opportu-
nity which the Learned Baron had afforded him, and resume
the case on Saturday.
THE RUNNING REIN CASE.
COL. PEEL. V. WOOD.
The Learned Counsel on behalf of the parties in this case
respectively applied to the Court to frame the issues, and to
decide between the parties, also who should be the plaintiff
and the defendant in the action now pending, and where the
case should be tried, whether in the county of Surrey, in
which the venue was laid, or in Middlesex.
Mr. PLATT, who with Mr. JAMES, appeared for Mr. Wood,
said, that •no difficulty would arise in respect to the wording
of the issue. The question of dispute was, that " Running
Rein " was net of the requisite age at the time when he ran
for the Derby stakes.
After a good deal of conversation between the Learned
Counsel,
• Mr. Mamas (on the part of Colonel Peel) applied to the
Court to have the issues to be tried framed in the following
Manner, in which the Court agreed to:—Whether Running
Rein was foaled in the year 1841, whose sire was "Saddler,"
and whose dam was "'blab." And that Mr. Wood on the
trial be at liberty togive in evidence the declarations of Abra-
ham Leivite Goodman, if it can be shown that he is interested
in the stakes. The time and Court in which the case should
be tried was then argued. Mr. Martin contending that if
the action was tried in Middlesex, a great saving in expense
would be effected, and that great expense would be entailed
on the parties if it were tried in the county of Surrey.
• Mr. Platt and Mr. James contended that the action ought
to be tried in Surrey, where the cause of action arose, where
the witnesses resided, and where there was every probability
of the parties having a fair trial.
The Learned Barons having consulted for some minutes,
Mr. Baron PALM: said that he thought the case ought to
be tried in Middlesex, and that one of the Barons would try
it in the sittings after term, but he could not name the day
on which it would be taken.
Mr. Ours: then applied, on behalf of Messrs. Weatherby,
who held the stakes, which originally amounted to 3,6001.,
but which, since the commencement of the action, have been
considerably augmented by various large sums which they
have received, to be no parties to the action, and to be allowed
their costs.—The application was acceded to by the Court.

SHERIFFS' COURT, June 11.
(BeforeMr.Uuder-SheriffliENNEDY and a Common Jury.)

BLACKMORE V. FORTY.
This was an action brought to recover the sum of
41. 14s. 6d., fur nine weeks' board, lodging, and washing,
to which the defendant pleaded the general issue, and
that she was under age at the time the necessaries were
supplied. The latter plea, however, was given up.
Mr. Ryland appeared as counsel for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Ballantine for the defendant.
The circumstances out of which the action arose are
of a somewhat singular nature. The plaintiff is a car-
penter, residing at No. 24, Palace New-road, Lambeth,
and the defendant is a young lady, who came of age on
the 14th of February, 1843, and under her grand-
father's will became entitled to the sum of 9161. 12s. 9d.
Three per Cent. Consols. She \vas educated for a go-
verness, and resided with her mother, a widow, at
Richmond, up to 1837, when she was apprenticed to
Miss Richardson, of Blackheath, as a teacher, with a
premium of 1001. She possesses very considerable per-
sonal attractions, and the plaintiff's son, William Robert
Blackmore, who Is as shopman to a pawnbroker at
itichraond, fell in lo ye with her at first sight. Up to