The Sun.
London, England, 1826-12-02 00:00:00

DOE P. STOCKDALE.

This was an action of ejectment brought by the plaintiff on the
demise of John Winter, against the defendant, the notorious book-
seller of that name.—Verdict for the plaintiff.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dm 1.

TOILE V. JONEM AND Wit MDT.

Mr. Sergeant TAbbY stated the case. This was an action to
recover damages for a trespass committed on the house of the plain-
tiff, a farmer, near Enfield, by the defendantsi on Sunday the 15th
of October last. The plaintiff saw the defendants coining in a
gig towards his house, and suspecting what sort of guests he was
likely to have, he ordered Coleman, his servant, to bolt the door.
When they came to the house, Jones, who is a wine merchant in
London, considering himself, it was supposed, from his profession
a privileged man, took the liberty of plucking some grapes which
were growing against the house, and then they went both to
the dear, end firotinK it !oohed, forced it open. They then
searched the kitchen and parlour for meat, and finding none,
they went to the hen-roost, where they found a turkey-cock and an
old hen, which they killed and took away. The housekeeper,
who was in the house, thought it then high time to interpose, and
remonstrate with them for their conduct : instead of desisting,
however, Wright took a loaded gun, which was in the house, and
threatened to shoot her, and there was no knowing what mischief
might have bean done, had not the plaintiff fortunately, by acci-
dent, taken out the flint previously. Mr. Poile then interposed,
and they then insisted upon getting tea, which, for the sake of peace,
was given them, and they were at last, after remaining the greater
part of the day, prevailed upon to go away, but insisted upon
taking the fowls and the grapes. The Learned Sergeant had 110
doubt the Jury would award such damages to the plaintiff as the
defendants' outrageous conduct deserved.

John Coleman; the plaintiff's servant, and the housekeeper,
proved the above statement.

Mr. Sergeant VavaHAN then addressed the Jury in behalf of
the defendant ; he stated that the defendants were very young
men, and intimate acquaintances of the plaintiff's, and that they
had frequently visited one another ; he endeavoured to resolve the
whole matter into a youthful frolic.
The CHIEF JUSTICE then summed up, and reprobated in the
strongest terms the outrageous conduct of the defendants, and re-
commended to the Jury to award such damages as would teach a
lesson to all young men against such outrages in future. Verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages, 601.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Dec. 1.
(Before Sir a. NICHOLL.)
NARA,' V. THE DOWAOIR COUNTEIS OF BA REMORF.
In the matter of the goods of the late Lord Barrymore, admini-
stration was granted to his 'deters, the Countess Dowager Barry-
more, and Baroness Barry, without opposition. Application to
this Court was necessary, u Lord Foley and the other executors
named in the will renounced the trust.

SKITSON V. SRITTOI.4

Dr. PHILLIMORZ said, that this suit NMI brought by Ann Brit-
ton, who denied the validity of is will, alleged to have been exe-
cuted by her father. The testator, who resided at \Vantage, died
in November, 1525, leaving a widow, and an only daughter.
Soon after the testator's death, the widow took out probate, and
upon the application of the daughter, this probate was recalled,
the validity of the will being impugned. An application was put
in containing several articles, to prove that the will produced was
a fraudulent instrument, and had never been executed by the
deceased.

Dra. JIENNILIR and tustitmuton appeared in support of the
will, and objected to the admission of several articles contained in
the libel. it was pleaded, that soon after the marriage of deceas •
ed with Mary Britton, who was his second wife, and surviving
relict, they began to live unhappily together, and often quarrelled.
It was also pleaded that it was notorious that the deceased and
Mary Britton, in their quarrels, often resorted
birdss, and that
upon the death of the testator the opinion in the neighbourhood
was so general, that he came to his death by unfair means, in a
quarrel with his wife, that the Coroner had the body taken
up, and an inquest held. The holly, however, was WO
putrid for examination, and the Jury returned a verdict to the
effect that the deceased died by the visitation of God. This arti-
cle .
was objected to necause it conveyed a serious imputation upon
the widow, which there was no evidence to support. The alle-
gation went on to state that the deceased' was unconscious when
his mark was put to the will. A person named Bartholomew,
who was one of the subscribing
witnesses, said that the deceased
was dead, and a person named Davis replied, no, he is not, and
taking a pen, placed in the hand of the dead man, and made the
mark to the will. Davis then said to Bartholemew and Williams,
who were present, be was not dead, and we will stick to it. Bar-
tholemew and Williams had subsequently made declarations, giv-
ing this account of the transaction. The Counsel submitted that
these declarations were net evidence, and ought to be rejected.
In another article it was stated that the widow sent out a permon
to the public houses, to bring her an account of what persons said
concerning the will. The immateriality of this fart was stated as
a reason for its rejection.
Dr. PittLettioax (with whom was Dr. Adams) replied. He
said that the deceased left property to the amount of 3,6001., out
of which the will gave 200/. to the testator's only child.
Under all the circumstances, he submitted that the Court should
not include any of the articles contained in the allegation.
Sir J. Nicisotx said, that the allegation contained a strong case
of fraud, but as to the evidence adduced to support it, that must
he a subject for future consideration. The notoriety of the un-
happy differences between the deceased sad his wife could not 41-