The Sun.
London, England, 1821-12-12 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, DECEMBER 11•

MACKENZIE V. MACKENZIE.
The point at issue in this cause was whether certain snms•
devised in a codicil to plaintiffs, to whom legacies had been left
in the will, were to be added to the legacies, or substituted fos
r
them. Mr. William Mackenzie, the testator, had made hi
will in England, and had afterwards added a codicil in Florence,
where he died. In the codicil he stated that he had made a will
of which he did not recollect the date, and confirms every part
of it. In the will he had left a specified sum to his reputed
son, Alexander Mackenzie, by Margaret Lincoln, to be paid
to him on his arriving at the age of 24. . He had also left speci-
fied sums to his sisters, his nieces, &c. Theresidue he had de-
vised to his brother, Lieut.-Colonel Mackenzie, (of Fairburn, in
Ross-shire,) if he should survive him ; if not, he had directed
the residue to be divided among the other legatees. In the co-
dicil he left the same sum to his son, and to the other legatees,
but with some variations respecting the payment of interest.—
The present suit was therefore brought by the legatees, against
Lieutenant-Colonel Mackenzie, to obtain payment of the lega-
cies comulatively.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR gave judgment this morning in
favour of the plaintiffs. There was not such a similarity in the
devises as to induce a belief that the testator had intended to
substitute the legacies deviied in the codicil for those devised in
the will.
EX-PARTE CARROLL IN RE HOWARD AND OIRRS.
Messrs. HART, BELL, MONTAGUE, and ROSE, successive-
ly argued in support of the 'prayer of the petition, which was,
that the Court would direct the Commissioners to admit to proof
the petitioner's debt 013,2071.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR repeatedly interrupted the Coun-
sel, and said the course of argument assumed was not relevant.
The sole question was, whetner the Commissioners had done
right or not in refusing to allow the debt of 13,2071. on particu-
lar bills produced by'Mr. Carroll, when Mr. Carroll refused to
answer their question, " When another account between him
and.the bankrupts, open and still subsisting, had been last ba-
lanced ?" The general principles respecting the gOin,g into an
investigation "of all accounts before any specific debt could be
admitted, had nothing to do with this question. The CoMmis-
sioners had exercised their judgment most soundly upon this
occasion, in refusing the debt till the question should be an-
swered. There was no declaration by Mr. Carroll that the ba-
lance of thd subsisting account was in his favour. ,
Mr. HortNE applied to the Court for an order that Mr. Car-
roll should pay the expences of this proceeding before the Court
—first, hceanse thejudgment of the Commissioners had been
improperly appealed against ; and, farther, because the petition
contained nothing but what was irrelevant, and calculated to-cast
imputations upon Mr. Shaw.
M essrs..TRESLOVE and BLARE supported the application.
Messrs. HART and M ONTAGUE contended that the question
of costs should be reserved, and that the petition should not be
dismissed, but an order made for. Mr. Carroll to go again before
the Commissioners.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR dismissed the petition with costs,
without prejudice to Mr. Carroll's right to go before the Com-
missioners And prove his debt.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DEC. 11.
Sittings at Nisi Prins, before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.
BOUTILLER V. THICK.
This was an action upon a bill of exchange for 1001. The
plaintiff sued as trustee of a certain Society called the " Na-
tional Union Fire and Life Insurance Company." The de-
fendant, who lived in Throgmorton-street, was an agent to the
Society. It appeared, from the cross-examination of the plain-
tiff's witnesses, that the " National Union" was a kind of
sharing company; every insurer became a member, and par-
ticipated in the profit or loss of the scheme. -
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL called a witness to •sliew that
Mr., Thick was himself an insurer with the company ;
sub-
mitted, upon that proof, that the case was out 'Of Court. The
company was the real plaintiff in the cause, and the defendant
himself was 'a limb of the company; could a man be plaintiff
and defendant in the same suit ? The Court would not compel
a man to' be felo de se of his own interests; and the defendant
(if the present action stood) would, in fact, be suing himself.
The LOUD CHIEF JUSTICE expressed himself unwilling
to nonsuit.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL submitted that his objection
was tenable. It was not the case of one part of a company. su-
ing another part ; but here the whole company affected to sue ;
and certainly the defendant, who was a portion of the company,
could be no_party -(as plaintiff) to the bringing of the action;
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, that he would reserve
the point, and allow Mr. Solicitor to move it.
The Soracyrou-GENER.A,then went on to skew a set-off.
The defendant, ai agent to the " National" CoMpany, had
made, it appeared, sundry disbursements; and among others
there was a charge of 201. for a fire alarm of most extraordinary
powers. This machine; according to the printed bills circulat-
ed by the Company, was calculated, of its own motion (when a
fire broke out), first, to wake the inhabitant of a house; next,
to light his chamber lamp ; third, to tell him the precise hour
of the night; and, fourthly, to point out the apartment in
Which the accident had occurred !
Witnesses proved that Mr. Bignold, a director of the Coin-
pany,,had admitted the justice of the defendant's set-off.
Me&MINE IC denied that the 'admission of one director
could bind the ComPany.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE thought that it was sufficient
to put an end to the present cause. The action was brought in
the name of the whole Company ; and it was clear that a part
of the Company did not concur in it. A reference of all mat-
ters in difference to some gentleman at the bar, might pre-
clude the necessity of a suit in equity.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL and Mr. GURNEY adopted the
suggesting-9f his Lordship.—Referred.

• BRICKNIAN V. HAM
,This was an action for money had and received. The claim
was 961.
• Mr. GURNEY stated the facts of the case. Mr. Brickman,
the plaintiff, had the misfortune to lose Bank Notes to the
amount of 961. Mr.Haek, the defendant, found the notes, and,
having occasion for such an odd sum, applied them to his own
use. The paper, gftting into circulation, was traced to Mr.
Hack ; and the plaintiff; just as he was about to take legal
measures,, received the following note Sir—The Bank
Notes are found, and nothing but necessity could have com-
pelled the finder.to use them. They shall be returned with in-
terest, as soon as possible." Subsequently Mr. Wickman had
an interview with the defendant, and a bill at two months for
the money was proposed : neither bill nor money, however was
eventually forthcoming;• and the plaintiff, though with little
hope of reimbursement, was driven to his action.
No defence was offered ; and the Jury found a verdict for
the plaintiff—Damages, 961.

FOOT V. ROWLEY.
This was an ;action to recover damages for slander. The
defendant is an 'apothecary, and he had heen employed to at-
tend the plaintiff's child under the small-pox. The plaintiff,
it appearedovas of opinion that drugs Were injurious under
that disease, and he refused to allow the child • to take all the
defendant sent.
The child died, and some time after the defendant said, in
the presence of several persons, that the plaintiff had murdered
his child. This was the substance of the words-spoken.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE was of opinion the action could
not be sustained, there being no evidence to prove the defendant
had imputed to the plaintiff a felonious intention.—Plaintiff
nonsuited.

RI:I/ECK AND WIFE V. SMITHERTON.
This was an action of assault and battery. The plaintiffs and
defendant both lived at Colnbrook, and are joint • tenants in
a yard. which communicates with their respective premises.—
h e dwelling-houses of the parties adjoin. each other and a
pipe, conveyingthe'rain from both,, empties itself below into the
yard above-mentioned. Out of the mattern of this pipe the pre-
sent action arose. Mrs. Leveck, supposigthat she -had a COM.
monable right in the rain-water,. placed a tub one wet morning
to receive the contents of the pipe. Mr. Su-Atherton took this
measure' by Mrs. Reveck to be unwarrantable, and when Mrs.
Reveck went to take up her tub, lie stopped lier in her course,
and poured the contents of the tub upon her person. Not satis-
fied with this copious ablution, (which the patient, however, re-
sisted tooth and nail,) Mr. Smitherton pushed Mrsb.yßaecvtsecokf
against the wall, and pushed the tub (her own tub too) against
Mrs. Reveck. He farther assailed her with vollies of abuse,
and kept up a running fire with brickbats at her, when she at-
tempted to retreat; and was following up his victory
still bolder fury, when his son tookolurn by the ear, and induced
him to abandon the pursuit.
Witnesses were called to prove the plaintiff's case.
Mr. DEF MAN (for the defendant) denied the brickbats; and
-aid that Mrs. Reveck, who had a strong voice, and a still stronger
brogue, had retorted the abuse with interest.
Witnesses were then called. They made the defendant's case
rather worse than it was before.
MT. SCARLETT replied.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE left the case upon the evidence.
lie did not think it a case for serious damagmages 101.
es.
The Jury found for the plaintiff—Da
SMITH V. OWEN AND ANOTHER.
This was an action against the hundred of Ossulston for
damage done to the windows of the plaintiff.
Mr. MAR itYAI"r stated that the plaintiff, Lady Smith, was
a resident in the parish of St.the George, Hanover-squtionsare.
for On the
19th of July (the day of coronation) prepara Mu-
' mi were inakin at her Ladyship's house. A crowd,
• however,nation g which followed her late Majesty's carriage, tookof-