The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-13 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
TIOUSE OF LORDS, lrqrrh 12.
The House sat to-day to hear appeal.;. The Peer 6
were the Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, Lord Cottenham,
Lord Campbell, and Lord Kenyon.

THE DUKE OF BF-AUFORT v. TAYLOR, NEELD, AND OTHERS.
This case 'came before their Lordships upon appeal from
the decision of Lord Cottenham, when Lord Chancellor. The
principal question in the case was, whether in the exchange
of certain lands between the Duke of Beaufort and Mr. Neeld,
a certain wood in Wiltshire, called Durnley Gorse, was in-
cluded? The Noble Duke contended that it was not;
that his land-steward, Mr. Wedge, was not authorised
by him to part with that portion of his land, and that, there-
fore, he was not bound by his acts. On the other hand, it
was contended that the acts of Mr. Widge were the acts of
the Duke, and that he was bound to abide by them. The
Vice-Chancellor of England, when the case came before him,
was of opinion that the Duke was not bound by the acts of
his land-steward, and ordered accordingly, and from that de-
cision the parties appealed to Lord Cottenham, then Lord
Chancellor, who discharged the orders of the Court below,
and from that decision the present appeal was brought.'
The Solicitor-General, Mr. Loftus Lowndes, and Mr. Camp-
bell, were counsel for the appellants, and Mr. Bethell and Mr.
Parry appeared for Mr. Neck!.
The arguments occupied their Lordships the whole of the
day.

VICE-CHAN'CELLOR'S COURT, March 12.
The Vice-Chancellor of England did not sit in his Court
to-day, in consequence of Mr. Bethel' being engaged in the
House of Lords.

SHERIFFS' COURT, March 12.
(Before Under-Sheriff BURCIIELL and a Common Jury.)
At the sitting of the Court this morning, the following un-
defended cases were disposed of. In each case verdicts for
the plaintiffs were given :—Hudson v. Murray, Shaw v. Wil-
liams, Spragg v. Atkinson, Taylor v. Burrage, Yarndall v.
Lass, Byrne v. Mills, Teddie v. Pratt.

SECONDARIES' COURT, March 12.
(Before Secondary KENNEDY and a Common Jury.)
DANN V. TREMALNE.
CAUTION TO TRADESMEN.-Mr. Medina, a solicitor, ap-
peared for the plaintiff; Mr. Thomas for the defendant.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a ladies' shoe-
maker, residing in Charles-street, Soho, to recover from the
defendant, a married woman, the stun of 3/. Bs. 6d., for goods
sold and delivered. The question was whether Mrs. Tremaine
was a married woman or not, at the time the debt was in-
curred, and even supposing she was a married woman at the
time, that under the peculiar circumstances in which the
debt was incurred, the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict.
Mr. Pails, clerk to the parish of All Souls, Marylebone,
produced the register of the marriage of the defendant to her
husband, in the year 1831. They were married by license,
she being a minor at the time.
Mr. T. M. Watkins, Mrs. Tremaine's brother, proved
several letters written by the defendant's husband, and ac-
knowledging the debt. Mrs. Tremaine was not living with
her husband. He was at present residing, and has resided
for some time past, in New York. He believed that he did
not allow her anything for her maintenance, or for that of
her children.

Robert Bell, an accountant, examined—He served a copy
of the writ on the defendant, at her residence, 6, Randolph-
street, Camden-town. He gave her the writ, and she said,
" I am a married woman now ; I have been married since I
had the goods."
Mr. Medina addressed the jury for the plaintiff, and con-
tended that, under the circumstances which had been de-
tailed in evidence, the plaintiff was entitled to their verdict.
The SECONDARY differed from the view taken by the soli-
citor for the defendant. He admitted the case was one of
considerable hardship to tradesmen, but they should ascer-
tain who were the parties to whom they were supplying
goods. A married woman was not liable at law for goods
supplied to her.
The jury, who coincided in the view of the case taken by
the Secondary, gave a verdict for the defendant.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—Ourham, March 7.
(Before Mr. Baron ROLFE and a Special Jury.)
TOPIIA.II AND WIFE V. M'GREGOR AND WIFE.
This was an issue out of Chancery, to try the validity of a
will, executed in favour of Mrs. Topham by her former hus-
band, Mr. Wrightson. The peculiar nature of the case, and
the large amount of property depending on its decision, have
excited very great interest in this county. The Court was
crowded at an early hour.
Mr. Knowles, Mr. Wortley, and Mr. Addison, appeared for
the plaintiffs ; Mr. Fitzroy Kelly (who had been brought
down specially in this case), Mr. Martin, and Mr. Crompton
conducted the case for the defendant.
Mr. KiiownEs stated the case for the plaintiffs. They
were, he said, called upon to vindicate their claim to certain
property, to which Mrs. Topham had become entitled under
the will of her former husband, a Mr. Wrightson. The case
was a very important one, not only on account of the amount
of the pmperty, though that was considerable, but on account
of other considerations, and other and still higher interests
involved in its issue. The cause must necessarily be a long
one; but it would not, he was assured, be to the jury a tedi-
ous one, as every point would receive at their hands a full
and patient consideration. The testator, Mr.Wrightson, was the
son of an attorney, but he himself, for some time, at all events,
before his death, was of no particular profession, though in
his earlier years he had held a commission in the North
York Militia. He resided at Haughton, in the neighbour-
hood of Darlington. He had no children, and his mode of
life, from his limited means and other circumstances, was
necessarily quiet and retired. While there he became ac-
quainted with Mr. Newborn, a solicitor at Darlington. Mr.
Wrightson's sister, now Mrs. M'Gregor, and one of the de-
fendants in this cause, had been acquainted with Mr. New-
born long before, and it was through her that the introduc-
tion took place. The acquaintance, however, between Mr.
Mewburn and the testator never became intimate. It con-
tinued, indeed, strictly of a professional character—that
merely of solicitor and client. In the summer of 1829 Mr.
Wrightson removed to the town of Darlington itself, and
towards the end of that year a circumstance took place which
made a very great difference in his circumstances and pros-
pects. There died in that year a lady of the name of Garth,
who resided at Cockerton, near Darlington, and by her will
she bequeathed to Mr. Wrightson a very considerable pro-
perty. This was the Ist of December, 1829, and immediately
after her death, indeed that very day, lr. Wrightson removed
to Cockerton, and he resided there until the following year,
when he died. Mrs. Garth at her death had in the house a very
large stun, amounting to about 4,0001. in notes and gold, aid
the immediate removal of Mr. Wrightson to Cockerton was
thought necessary for the purpose of protecting the property.
At Cockerton, Mr. Wrightson found two persons who
had for a great many years been in the service of Mrs. Garth—
George Hind, who acted as bailiff, and Jane Fenny, who had
been a servant. These persons. had been left each a consider-
able legacy in Mrs. Garth's will, and they continued to dis-
charge the same duties as before in the household of Mr.
Wrightson. As a necessary consequence of so large an ac •
cession of property, Mr. Wrightson had occasion more fre-
quently to consult his attorney. There was the probate of
Alit Garth's will to take out, certain rents of which Mrs.
Garth was only tenant for life to be apportioned, and various
other business to transact. Among other matters were two
estates, one the Newhall and Fowlaw farm, which on Mrs.
Garth's death came to Mr. Wilkinson, the pleader, of the
Temple ; and another, Buttstield, the reversion of which
was in a Mr. Grevtille. Application was made to Mr. Mew-
burn by Mr. Wilkinson for his deeds, and after some corre-
spondence (which the Learned Counsel read in detail), it
was arranged that Mr. Mewburn should at an early day go
over to Cockerton, and examine and arrange all the deeds
belonging to Mrs. Garth's estate. On the 26th of December
Mr. Mewburn wrote to Mr. Wrightson, saying, that if he
had no engagement Mr. Mewbum would have the pleasure of
coming over on the Tuesday following, spending the day, and
going through the deeds. Mr. Wrightson, at a former in-
terview, had requested he would, when he came out, dine
with him, and take a long day at this business. To this
letter Mr. Mewburn received a reply, stating that Mr. and
Mrs. Wrightson would have great pleasure in seeing Mr.
Mewburn, as they had no engagement. On the 29th Mr.
Mewbum went over to Cockerton. He was engaged the
whole day in the examination of the deeds. He stayed din-
ner and tea, and in the after part of the evening some conver-
sation, the subject being introduced by Mr. Wrightson, took
place about his making a will. It was by no means an im-
probable occasion for such an idea to occur to him. The
late death of Mrs. Garth, and the occupation in which they
had just been engaged naturally suggested it to him. It -was
natural, too, that in making such an arrangement, his wife
should be the principal object of his bounty. Except his
sister, Mrs. M'Gregor, lie had no immediate relation. She was
married, she had no children, she resided at a distance, and
there had not been between her and her brother any great cor-
diality. Wben the subject of the will was first mentioned, Mr..
Mewburn thought it would of course be one of considerable
length, from the limitations usually introduced in such
cases where property to so considerable an amount was to be
disposed of. Mr. IN rightson, however, said it would be very
short, as he intended to leave all to his wife. The Learned
Counsel then went on to state the mode in which the will
was executed, as subsequently detailed by Mr. Mewbum. It
was attested by Mr. Mewburn, and the two servants, George
Ilind and Jane Fenney. Mr. Wrightson died in December,
1830, and Mrs. 'Wrightson entered into possession. In 1831
she became the wife of Mr. Topham and the two persons,
Fenney and Hind, continued in her service fur a considerable
time. Year after year passed away, and it never occurred to
any one to throw any doubt on the validity of Mr. Wright-
son's disposition of his property until so late as the year
1842, when a bill was filed by the present defendants. Mrs.
M'Gregor, formerly Cordelia Wrightson, was married to Mr.
M'Giegor a year or two before the making of the will, and
had for many years resided in Edinburgh. When a party
files a bill of this sort in the Court of Chancery, he is, as
a matter of course, entitled to an issue, and the
validity of the will is left to be decided by a jury.
There would be two main points in this case ; one was the
will signed by the testator in the presence of three witnesses.
On this point they would have the evidence of Mr. Mewbtu;n,
the first attesting witness. If the other witnesses to the will
were called to give other testimony, lie would again have to
address them, and to comment upon that evidence. The
second point would be, was the testator capable of making a
will? He hardly thought his Learned Friend Mr. Kelly,
after the evidence that would be laid before them, would
deny his capability, though it might perhaps be sought to I
show that some considerable time after the rule was made,

and in the latter part of the year 1830, he bad in some
de
wgrenenld a
fallenleNto thet habits
case
in h
of itnteoixr
hands,icat
ion a
nI d for In the
the
m meantime
he present
detain them no longer, especially as, in all probability before
the case closed, he would be under the necessity of again
addressing them.
Evidence to the effect stated by the Learned Counsel was
then given, and the Court adjourned.
March 8.
The case was resumed this morning, the interest continu-
ing unabated.
The case for the plaintiffs closed with the examination of
a few more witnesses.
Mr. KELLY then addressed the jury for the defendants,
impeaching the validity of the will, on the ground that it
was signed by the attesting witnesses, while it was a blank
merely; and secondly, that the testator signed it while in a
state of unsound mind from continual intoxication ; and that,
in short, the making of the will was the result of a conspi-
racy between Mr. 'lopham and his wife, and Mr. Mewburn,
their law agent.
Evidence at great length was given in support of the state-
ment of the Learned Counsel, and the Court again adjourned.
March 9.
This morning the further evidence in the case for the de•
fendants was resumed.
Sarah Pattenson was called,who deposed that Mr.Wright-
son was almost always drunk, and that on the day the will
was said to have been made she drove him out in a pony gig,
and that he said to her that he wished to get away from the.
quill-driver (Mr. Mewburn) and Mrs. Wrightson, who were
always teasing him to make a will, but that he would not
sign his death-warrant.

Other witnesses were called, for the purpose of showing, by
inference, that the signature to the will was a fabrication, and
that the person who had written the testator's name had done
it hesitatingly, and with a slowness itoplying imitation. It
was shown on the other hand, that the real signature of the
deceased (attached to some notices to quit) partook of the
same character.

At the close of the defendant's case,
Mr. Kalowize replied in an able speech. Ho admitted