The Sun.
London, England, 1828-11-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov S.
Tool) V. THE MARL OF WINCHELSEA.
Sir J. SCARLETT stated the case. This was Rut
i;Aue from the Court of Chancery to try whether the
will of Johu, Duke of Roxburgh, who died on the
13th of November, 1804, was duly and properly
attested.

Sir Coitus Trotter, on the evening before the
Duke of Roxburgh's death was at his Grace's house,
in St. James's-square, where he was requested- to
stay for the purpose of attesting his will. The wit-
ness remained in an adjacent room while Mr. Dun-
das was preparing the will. The door which com-
municated between the bed-room and the writing-
room remained open while the witness was there,
Mr. Dundas went backwards and forwards between
the rooms, taking his Grace's instructions. Wit-
ness remained }here a couple of hours, or perhaps
longer. Went into the Duke's room for the pur,
pose of seeing the will executed.. Mr. Winter, the
apothecary, was there, and the Duke's servant.
Spoke to the Duke, who expressed himself grateful
to the witness for having remained to 641 late an
hour in order to see his will executed. His Grace
signed his name to the will twice. Mr. Winter
and the servant were there all the time. Witness
thinks that he himself attested the will in the ad-
joining room. -He then left the house immediately.
It was past midnight when he went away.
Mr. Mundell examined—ls agent to several
Writers of the Signet in. Scotland. It is not
usual, by the law of Scotland, to haVe more than
two witnesses to a will. A teal is not necessary to
a will by the law of Scotland. It is very unusual
to put a seal,to a will in Scotland, but very usual in
England.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, for the defendant,
contended that the will was not properly attested.
No witnesses were called for the defence.
The Jury, heving been charged by-the LORD
CHIEIF Juane'', after a short deliberation, returned
a verdict for the plaintiff, thereby finding that the
will was duly executed.

THE ZING V. PAGE.
Sir J. SCARLETT stated that this was a prosecu-
tion
.for perjury, instituted under the following cir-
cumstances :—The defendant, Page, who is an old
man of 73 years of age; had been for many years
employed as bailiff by Mr. John Lambert Beddel, a
farmer in Essex, now deceased, and in that capacity
had, particularly for the latter years of his life, con-
ducted the business of the farm. The brother of
the deceased, who is the prosecutor of the present
indictment, shOrtly before the death of the latter,
found great• difficulty in procuring access to him,
through the difficulties thrown in his 'way by Page,'
and when, at last; he did obtain an interview with the
deceased, he succeeded in obtaining his authority to
Page's dismissal. Page, on his removal, amongst
other property, which he alleged to be his own, made
an attempt to carry away a box containing title deeds
and other securities. The prosecutor, however, de-
tained the box, believing that the securities were the
property -of his 'brother, who died ten days after
Page's dismissal. Page subsequently brought an
action of trover to recover the- box. ' The prose-
cutor in conseqUenee filed a bill of injunction to re-
strain the defendant from proceeding at law until he
had established his claim •to the property. In his
answer to this bill the defendant stated that he never
received any money from his deceased master, or
any person for him, for any purpose other than the
business of the farm. This statement was affirmed
by an affidavit filed by the defendant, upon which the
perjury was now assigned. The Learned Counsel
said he should prove to the satisfaction of the Jury
that the defendant did receive money to be laid Out
for other purposes than those of the business of the
farm, and that several securities, taken out in his
own name, were so taken out by desire of his late
master, but bona fide for his (the deceased's) use.
Witnesses were then called to prove these facts;
after which, the Jury, after a short. deliberation, re-
turned a verdict of Not Guilty.
The COURT did not rise till nearly half-past seven
o'clock.

SMITH v. JONES.

In this case, which was tried on Friday, the 'Jury
retired to cousider their verdict, and, after remaining
in deliberation for 30 hours, returned a verdict for
the defendant.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MARYLEBONE.

John Forrest, a workman in" the employ of Mr.
Sloman; a talloW-chandler, in Charlotte-street, Port-
land-place, was charged with the following fraud :
appeared that the prisoner was authorized by
Mr. Sloman to collect in debts the beginning of last
week, and having received the sum of 201. in cash
he absconded, leaving Mr. Sloman's horse and-cart
tied to a. lathp-post in Oxford-street. Mr. Sloman
pursued the prisoner to Bristol, where he was taken
into cuitody, efter having spent the whole of the
money of which he had defrauded his employer.--
He was 'committed for trial.