The Sun.
London, England, 1828-07-23 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.
THE LEIGH PEERAGE.

The Committee of .Privileges resumed the exami.
nation of witnesses this morning, and the first per-
son called vas Captain Francis Mason, an officer
in, the Royal Navy, examined by the COMMON
SERGEANT.

This witness confirmed the testimony of the Rev.
Mr. Roberts, whose evidence was taken on a former
day. He stated that he accompanied Mr. Roberts, in
1826, to the house of Mr. Place, and on this occa-
sion Mr. Place acknowledged that he might have
been mistaken as to the existence of a monument
to Christopher Leigh, in Stoneleigh Church, and
Captain Mason consequently advised him to modify.
what he had said, . when examined previously by the
Attorney-General, otherwise the claimant would be
induced to.go on with his suit, under the idea that.
the evidence of Mr. Roberts might be invalidated.
Place replied, that what he. had stated was only from
general impression, and could do no harm. Mr.
Roberts then declared himself to be completely sa-
tisfied. The witness further deposed that lie had
always heard Mr. Roberts say, that there was no
such monument in atoneleigh Church.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Did you explain
what you meant by modifying his statement to the
then Attorney-General ?—I told Mr. Place, that as
he had so totally mistaken what I had said to him a
few months ago, it was still more likely that he
should mistake the nature of the conversation which
passed between him and Mr. Roberts many years
ago. I told him, that by correcting his statement
made by him to the Attorney-General he would do
justice to Mr. Roberts, to the Stoneleigh family, as
well as to the claimant himself.
The witness was then ordered to withdraw.
The COMMON SERGEANT said that the Rev. Mr.
Roberts, who had been examined on a former day,
was anxious to supply some dates, which were of
great importance, and was now in attendance for
that purpose.
Mr. Roberts was accordingly called in, and exa-
mined by the Common Sergeant :
I keep a diary, and from entries in the po'cket-
book now before me I find that Mr. Place first came
to my house on Julyl9, 1817; he then asked me to
solicit my brother Magistrates to hold a petty sessions
at his house respecting the turning of the road ; he
dined with me on that day. I saw him again on
the 21st of July, and on the 20th of August. On
the 29th of August, 1817, Mr. George Leigh came
to me to search the parish registry. On the 12th
of January, 1818, Mr. and Mrs. Place came to my
house, and dined with me. Mr. Place and I went
next day to the Warwick Sessions. He came back
and dined with me. We went to the Sessions on
the 14th, and came back to dinner; and on the Isth
of January he and Mrs. Place went away. When
George Leigh came to search the registry, his claim
was the topic of general conversation.
In answer to the Bishop of LLANDAFF, the witness
said, when Captain Mason and I called on Mr.
Place, Captain Mason asked him to retract publicly
what he had stated to the Attorney-General. Mr.
Place at the time acknowledged to ate that he was
mistaken, but I understood him to object to making
a public retractation. Ido not recollect that the word
" modified" was used on the occasion, I rather think
that Captain Mason's expression was stronger than
that. Mr. Place, in fact, admitted to me that-he
was mistaken, but said, that as his statement had
not been made on oath it could of course be of no
consequence.—The witness then withdrew.
Mr. Henry Roberts,_ son to the last witness, was
then examined by the COMMON SERGEANT.—I know
Mr. Place, but I do not remember telling him of any
inscription respecting a monument to Christopher
Leigh. I received from the Rev. Mr. Ward a•copy
of what was said to be that inscription. I have not
the copy new, nor have I been able to find it. It
was all in Latin. The first words were—Haud
procul all hoc loco, and not Hand procul ex hoc
loco. The name of the individual was -in Latin—it
was Christopherus.
In answer to the Attorney-General" the witness'
said—Prior to getting the copy frir4lie Rev. Mr.
Ward, I had heard the inscription talked of.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Did you in the course
of conversation in your father's family ever
hear him say anything as to the truth or false-
hood of the monument to Christopher Leigh ?
Witness—l often heard him talk of it. He said
that he never saw it himself, and he did not believe
that it ever existed.

The Bishop of LLANDAFF—Did the Reverend Mr.
Ward show you the copy of the inscription as if it
were the copy of a genuine one ? Witness—No;
he said he never saw the monument.

Lord ELDON—TeII us what he said to you,
for that is part of -the , fact ? Witness—He
asked me if I had ever seen what was
reported to be the inscription on the monument. 1
answered, no. He then read it - over to me. I
begged him to repeat it, in order that'l might write
it down, and he did so.
LorclELDoN.—Now, as you hare corrected it
from the ex to the ab, can you tell us any more of
the inscription ? Witness—No, Ido not remember
any more of it.
The Bishop of LLANDAFF—Did the inscription re-
late to the issue or marriage of Christopher Leigh ?
Witness—l rather think it related to a marriage.
The COMMON SERGEANT—Did you ever mention
the inscription to Mr. Place as a genuine one ?
Witness—Never.

Witness, in answer to a question from Lord Eldon,
said that the Rev. Mr. Ward was still living.
On the motion Of the LORD CHANCELLOR, the
further proceedings upon this claim were adjourned
till the next Session of Parliament.

WESTMEATH V. WESTMEATH.

This appeal was also postponed till next Session.

FOX V. BISHOP OF CHESTER.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that as the judg-
ment of the Court of King's Bench, in this case,
appeared to him to be in direct opposition to a deci-
sion of Lord Chief Justice De Grey, in the Court
of Common Pleas, on a question no wise dis-
tinguishable from the present, he would advise
their Lordships to consult the Twelve Judges, and
to postpone the consideration of this case till next
Session of Parliament. _ _

Lord ELDON expressed his concurrence in the sen.
hrients of the Lord Chancellor.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
BARLEE V. BAILEES._

This case has l;eett-I;efote the Court during the
entire morning. It appears that in 1825 a lunacy
w i
t Mrs.
petition was presented to the • Lord Chancellor by
Mr. Barlee and two trustees under A marriage set-
tlement, setting forth that Mri, Barlee was in an
unsound state of mind, and stating various acts which
they conceived indicative of derangement.. The
rightslgiig in the mist pro-
perty,:
them h a con-
spiracy
petition was dismissed, a .subsequently
Barlee instituted a criminal prosecution against her
husbandprose-
cution to anddeptrhieveher trustees,
of
her charging
failed, and the Court pronounced an opinion,
that there were no grounds whatever for - imputing
fraudulent motives to the parties prosecuted.
Upon a reference to the Master for a settle-
ment of the trust property, the trustees claimed
to be allowed a sum of 1,600/. the amount -of
the costs of defending themselves in the proceedings
instituted by Mrs. Barlee, but this charge was
disallowed by the Master, and the case now came
on upon exceptions being taken to the Master's
report, by the Trustees. • •-•
The case having been fully argued, his Honour
decided -.hat the costs claimed by the Trustees could
not be allowed, and therefore confirmed the Master's
report.

The Jews of Russian Poland bury their dead
immediately, and judge the vital spark, to be extinct when
no steam appears on a glass when applied to the mouth.
If the jolting of the cart on the way to the place of sepul.
tore recalls life, they believe it is the devil who occupies
the body, and deal with it accordingly,