The Sun.
London, England, 1828-03-15 00:00:00

LONG V. COCKERELL.

In this case, which was part heard on Thursday,
Mr. BICKERSTETII was heard on the part of the plaintiff,
against the application to dissolve the injunction, and after
a few observations from Mr. SITGDEN, his Loanstur
ordered the injunction to be dissolved without costs.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.

BIDDULPH V. HUGHES.

This cause was set down in the paper to be spoken to.
The question in dispute to-day, appeared to be, whether
one of the many bills filed in the progress of this suit, which
commenced so far back as 1797, ought to he allowed to re-
main on the file. On the one side it was insisted, that
this bill, which professed to be an " original bill" was in
fact, a supplemental one and ought therefore to have been
filed as a " supplemental bill."—This question was very
ably and warmly argued for nearly an hour, by the learned
gentlemen.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR was clearly of opinion that
the difficulty might be got over by the introduction of four
new words into the Bill. He thought that if the bill was
stated to be filed "by way of supplement," instead of ap-
pearing to be as it now did, an original bill, the objection
would be sufficiently removed, and the case might he set
down for hearing.
In consequence of the absence of the leading counsel,
Who were engaged before the Lord Chancellor, his Honour
rose at twelve o'clock.

PREROGATIVE COURT.
KIRKCUDBRIGHT V. KIRKCUDBRIGHT.

In this case Lady Kirkcudbright propounded an instru-
ment, dated November, 1824, as the will of her husband,
the late Lord Kirkcudbright, which was opposed by his
brother, the present Lord Kirkcudbright.
Dr. PIIILLIBIORE appeared for Lady Kirkcudbright,
and stated that the late Lord had always treated his wife
with the greatest kindness and affection, although they lived
separately, as he was a man of lax principles in respect to
women, and kept up an illicit intercourse with a female of
the name of Charlotte Bicknell, who had formerly been a
domestic servant in their• family. In July, 1825, Lord
Kirkcudbright delivered the will in question to her Lady-
ship, and she deposited it with a person of the name of
Rudd, in whose custody it remained till the death of the
testator. In April, 1827, he became anxious to return to
her Ladyship, and wrote her to say he wished a reconciliation.
On the 13th of April of that year he was received back again
and her Ladyship behaved to him with the tenderest affec
tion. It appeared that in July, 1825, Lord Kirkcudbright
had executed another will, which however he subsequently
destroyed, and the Learned Doctor said that the question
for the Court to determine was, whether by destroying the
will of 1825 the testator meant to give effect to the will
of 1524.

Dr. JENNER, for the present Lord Kirkcudbright, as
next of kin to the deceased, contended, that by executing
the second will the testator clearly intended to revoke the
will of 1824. It was proved that Lady Kirkcudbright
had declared that the late Lord wished to get up the will
of 1824 to be destroyed, but that she prevented him. 11;
told the man of business employed to prepare the
will of 1825, that he meant to revoke that of 1824.
The difference, however, between the two- wills was
not very material; the first left Lady Kirkcudbright the
whole property of the deceased, and the second only varied
from it in so far as it left a legacy of 5001. to his paramour
Charlotte Bicknell. Dr. Jenner maintained, that the late
Lord and her Ladyship lived very unhappily together, and
in some of their altercations they came to blows, and his
Lordship's person skewed marks of her Ladyship's teeth on
one or two occasions.

Dr. LUSHINGTON follower' on the same side, and main-
tained that this ease presented a question which had never
yet been definitely settled, which was, whether, where a
prior will is revoked by the execution of a subsequent one,
the destruction of that subsequent will operates as a re-
vival of the former will.

[We left the Learned Gentleman contending against this
proposition.]

THE FUNDS-(THIS DAY).

CITY, TwszvE O'CLOCK.

Consols, which opened this morning at 824, shortly im-
proved to 831, buyers, but have since been 831, bnyers and
sellers alternately, at present they are buyers ; this im-
provement in the appearance of the market may be at-
tributed to the Jobbers, who, from the scarcity of money
stock, finding they have sufficient en their hands for time,
are desirous to cover their accounts for the latter period,
and by this means induce the former holders to sell. An
intimation, it is reported, has been given by the Porte,
through the Dutch Ambassador, expressive of a more con-
ciliating tone, but it is doubtful whether this feeling has
not come at too late a period to render it of any avail under
present circumstances. Exchequer Bills remain at 57 8,
and India Bonds 87 8 pm.

The Foreign Funds have had a corresponding rise with
Consols, particularly Russian, which are now 86 ; Bra-
zilian have also felt the benefit, and are 61 4 ; Danish,
60-.} 1 ; the other Foreign Securities do not appear to have
any material alteration from yesterday.
The arrival of the Goldfinch packet from Brazils, the
sailing of which was known yesterday, having on board a
large remittance in gold foe the Brazilian Mining Company,
has not made any improvement in the Shares, which arc
still 47 9 in. ; Real del Monte, 70 60 dis.
Three per Cent. Consols, 83i, buyers; Ditto, for the
Account, 83k, buyers ; Four per Cent., 100 ; India
Bonds, 87 8 pm. ; Exchequer Bills, 57 8 pm.

TWO 0' CL 0 CX.
Consols for the last hour have been 83i I, with trifling
business, and no prominent feature.

THREE 0' CL 0 CK.
Consols, 83k, buyers. No business.
FOUR O'CLOCK.—CLOSING PRICES.
Consols 83 if Danish
Do. for Ac. 83 Greek, 1825 171
Brazilian Bonds 611 Mexican, 1825 321
Buenos Ayres 32 • Peruvian
Chilian Do. 25 Russian 86
Columbian, 1824 24 Spanish, 1821 10:1