The Sun.
London, England, 1828-12-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
JtDGMENT.-VAWSER V. JEFFREY.
Mr. Guylot Cowherd was seized of certain free'
hold and copyhold estates. In 1794 he surrendered
his copyholds to the uses of his will, which he
made, dispoiing of his freeholds and copyholds
in different portions to different individuals. In
1800 he executed a settlement in contempla-
tion of marriage, and the marriage afterwards
took effect. The settlement contained a
covenant to surrender the copyholds to the
uses of the settlement, and the question was,
whether this was a revocation of the will as re-
garded the copyhold estates ? The settlement
was to secure a rent-charge of 3004 a year.
The Master of the Rolls, before whom the cause
was originally heard, was of opinion that the will
was revoked, both as it disposed of the freehold and
copyhold estates. Lord Eldon entertained doubts
of the revocation as to the copyhold ; he
considered it a pure question of law, and
sent it to the Court of King's Bench. That
Court certified that in law, even if there had been an
actual surrender (there being only a covenant to
surrender) it would not have been a revocation of
the copyholds. It afterwards came here upon a con-
test on the certificate of the Court ofKing's Bench.
Upon the authority of that Court, as well as to be con-
sistent with the doctrine laid down in Cave v. Holford,
Ryder v. Wager, Cotter v. Layer, Norris v. Alcoa,
in Vesey's 16th vol., and Thurstout v. Cunning-
ham, in Blackstone, his Lordship considered the
will not revoked as it' regarded the copyhold pro-
perty, and therefore reversed the decree below.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
rewmca a. COSTER.
This was an action to recover 260/., the amount
of two bills of exchange drawn by the defendant
Coster. The plaintiff is a merchant in Dublin, and
received the bills from the indorsers, Short and Co.,
for a quantity of goods. The defendant now pleaded
that he was not liable, and secondly that the name
of Cunningham, who was his partner at the time the
bills were drawn, ought to have been included in
the record.
The plaintiff proved that the bills were drawn by
Coster in his own hand-writing.
Sir J. SC.tRLETT addressed the Jury for the de-
fendant, and they found a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages 2751. 3s. 11d., being the amount of the
bills and interest thereon.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,
RICHARDSON V. ADAMSON.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is
a surveyor, to recover back the sum of .501. from the
defendant, who is an auctioneer, which 50/. was
paid as a deposit upon a quantity of bricks purchas-
ed at a sale by auction, at Hillington. Mr. Ser-
geant JONES and Mr. Rictianus, appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant WILDE conducted the
case for the defence.
It appeared from the evidence, that the plaintiff
was at the auction in company with his father, and
bid for the bricks, anal subsequently paid the deposit
by a cheque, drawn_by his father upon his banker.
The bricks were never delivered, and he consequently
brought the present action to recover back the de-
posit which he had paid, and which he had borrow-
ed from his father.
The defence of this rested upon two grounds.
First, that the son was a minor at the time of the
sale, and was acting as the agent of his father, who
is a builder, and for whom the bricks were really
purchased, and to whose account the 50/. was ac-
tually placed, he being at the time indebted in that
sum to the parties for whom the bricks were sold.
The second ground was that according to the condi,
Lions, the 50/. had been forfeited by the plaintiff's
not paying the remainder of the purchase money
within one day after the sale, and by his not remov-
ing the goods within three days. It appeared, by
the evidence of the elder Richardson that .his
son was a minor.at the time, but he positively swore
that he lent him the money, and that he was not
acting as his agent. He also swore that he never
himself gave orders about the removal of the bricks,
nor did he ever demand from Adamson the .50/. in
his own name, though he did so in that of his son.
In these points he was contradicted by other wit-
nesses, and a clerk of Adamson's deposed that he
had demanded the money in his own name. The
Chief Justice then ordered them to be confronted
in the box, upon which Richardson denied having
previously said that he had asked for the deposit in
the name of his son.
The CHIEF JUSTICE, in his charge to the Jury,
said that the plaintiff's case was, to say the least of
it, very suspicious ; and even if he should recover,
he, for one, should not be sorry that he had been
put to some trouble before he got . back his
money. The defence to the action was first that
the money belonged to the elder Richardson, and
that it had been paid to a person to whom it was
due by him; and secondly, that it had become for-
feit by the conditions of sale not having been corn-
plied with. With respect to the second ground of
defence, he thought the conditions were so loosely
and carelessly proved, that it would hardly be safe to
consider the money as forfeited, for if auctioneers
wished to avail themselves of the conditions of side,
they must take especial care that those conditions
shall be as clear and as positive as possible. With
respect to the other point he must say that he did
not like to see a father standing by and observing
his son making a fraudulent contract, for fraudulent
it must be where it was all on one side, the_ plaintiff
being a minor at the time. The Chief Justice then
proceeded to comment in strong terms upon the
evidence of the elder Richardson, and told the Jury
that if they believed that the son was a puppet in
the hands of the father, they would find a verdict for
the defendant.
The Jury, after a few minutes' consideration, re-
turned a verdict for the defendant.
The CHIEF JumcE—Gentlemen, upon which
ground of defence do you found your verdict.
Foreman—We
,believe that the son was acting
for the father.

The CHIEF JUSTICE—Then now I have your
sanction for doing that which I should not wish to
have done merely upon my own opinion. Call
Richardson.

The witness again made his appearance in the
box, and was addressed by the CHIEF JUSTICE, Who
said he should not have of his own opinion merely
committed him for contempt of Court, but the Jun
had told him in express terms that they did not
believe the evidence which he (Richardson) had
given. Indeed he had contradicted himself so grossly
that no one who heard him would believe what he
had stated. He (the Chief Justice) wished he had
the power, which every Judge had when upon the
circuit, of directing a prosecution to be instituted
for peijury, and the expenses to be paid by the
county. Aud whenever the Legislature should think
proper to confer upon him the power of doing so he
trusted he should exercise it with temperance and
discretion, but he should most certainly exercise it
with firmness, to put a stop to an alarming evil,
which WEIS spreading so rapidly in these degenerate
days, that truth was rarely to be got at. Pedury
was increasing to such an extent, that neither life

nor property Nvere safe. It was not his duty to ex-
patiate upon the crime of which the witness had
been guilty to his God, but he would, in order to
deter others from such conduct, commit him to the
custody of the Warden of the Fleet until the end of
the present Sittings. The last man who had simi-
larly acted he haifined, and the next person who
should do so he would commit for a specific time,
as he could not impose it upon the parties to un-
dertake the expence of a prosecution.
The witness here declared upon his life that he
had spoken the truth, and hoped his Lordship would
not punish him.

The CHIEF JUSTICE—When you have been in
prison a proper time to repent of your conduct, you
may apply again, but at present you are in custody.
The prisoner still entreated, but in vain, and was
about to be removed when

Mr. Sergeant JQZ•iES and Mr. RICIIARDs, both