The Sun.
London, England, 1821-11-30 00:00:00

LAW -INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 29.
The LORD CHANCELLOR having declared his intention to
sit every day after Term (which ended yesterday) until the next
seal, his Lordship accordingly came into Court this morning at
10 o'clock. In consequence, however, of the
.petition in the
matter of Howard and Gibbs's bankruptcy being to be -dis;
cussed in the Vice Chancellor's Court, the attendance of Coun-
sel was extremely thin. Several causes having been called on,
and the Counsel concerned in them being absent,
The Loan CHANCELLOR at length observed, that, in order
to accommodate the suitors of the Court, he had appointed the
time intervening between the last day of term and the ensuing
seal to the hearing of bankrupt petitions. It appeared, how-
ever that his wish to get through the bankrupt petitions was
likely to be defeated in consequence of the other branch of the
Court having appointed to hear a bankrupt petition in the mat-
ter of Ho ward and Gibbs on that day. An application had been
made to him to hear the petition before the other bankrupt pe-
titions already in the paper, but he had refused to do so be.
cause it did not appear that there was any ground for the appli-
cation, except that the case was connected with great names.—
He did not suppose, when he refused to hear the petition out of
its turn, that it would have been fixed for discussion that day in
the other Court, the effect of which was fo deprive him of the
attendance of almost all the Counsel. His Lordship concluded
by directing the Registrar to strike out of the paper every peti-
tion in which Counsel did not appear when it was called on.
An appeal bankrupt petition, which did not present any pe-
culiar features which would render it necessary to report it, was
then called on, and occupied the attention of the Court till it
rose at 2 o'clock.

Upon rising to leave the Court, his Lordship again declared,
that in future he would direct every petition in which Counsel
did not appear to be struck out of the paper,-and•would not al-
low ;t to be restored. No man, he said, regarded so little
as he did the want of any marks of respect to himself personally;
but whilst he had the honour to hold the Great Seal, he thought
it was due to his office, and to those who might succeed him in
it, that he should. not permit himself to be treated as he had
been. He did not wish it to be understood that he was offend-
ed with any Gentleman or class of Gentlemen in particular, but
he would appeal to any person present, whether, if the notice
which he had caused to be stuck up in Court two or thiee weeks
ago had been attended to, he should have been left almost all
the morning without the attendance of either Solicitors or
Counsel.

SEALS, REHEARINGS, APPEALS, AND PETITIONS, BEFORE
THE LORD CHANCELLOR, AFTER MICHAELMAS TERM,
• 1821. •

Wednesday, Decembers, First Seal; Thursday, Friday, and
Saturday, Rehearings and Appeals.
Monday, December 10, Second Seal ; Tuesday, Wednesday,
Thursday, Rehearings and Appeals.
Friday, December 14, Third Seal ; Saturday, Monday, and
Tuesday, Rehearings and Appeals.
Wednesday, December 19, Fourth Seal ; Thursday, Petitions.
N.B. The Lord Chancellor hears Bankrupt Petitions to-
day, and will daily, until the First Seal.
SEALS', CAUSES, PLEAS, DEMURRERS, EXCEPTIONS, FUR-
THER DIRECTIONS, AND PETITIONS, BEFORE THE

VICE-CIIANCELLOR' AFTER 3IICHAEL3IAS TERM, 1821.
First Seal, Wednesday, December 5, Motions;. Thursday, Fri-
'. day, and Saturday, Causes.
Second Seal., Monday,lDeeember 10, Motions; TueSday,W'ed-
nesday, and Thursday, Causes. • • •
Third Seal, Friday, December 14, Motions ; Saturday, Moti
day, and Tuesday, Causes, Pleas, Demurrers, Exceptions,
and Further Directions. • - •• •
Fourth Seal, Wednesday, December 19, Motions ; Thursday,
Petitions.

• • VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 29. .
HOWARD AND GIBBS'S BANKRUPTCY. •
,
'This cause • was-again-brought before his Honour the VICE-
CHANCELLOR this day, and oocupied his attention from ten in
the morning until six in the evening. Our readers are aware,
that it Was an' application to dismiss the Assignees appointed
under .the new Comninision, on the grOtind that the bankrupt
had no right to interfere in the choice ;. and that there had been
'solicitations and even threats held out, to. induce one person,
Darned Bridges, to abstain from voting in the 'choice of the.
Assignees{ • .
Mr. HORNE opened the case, and went.' over the faciii on
which the application waa' .grounded, in tams similar to those'
used by, him on the &finer hearing. He defended the conduct
-of Mr. Shaw, one of.the present appliCants. • ' .
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, he had here nothing to do.
with Mr. ShaW, as thelneition was, whether or nct theother s-
iignees, whom it was now sought:to remove, had been properly
chosen.
Mr. HORNE contended, that . there was suspicion strong
enough to ground the removal of Mr. Carrol,.witheut the affi-
davits of the several persons who bad positively sworn to the
'declarations of Bridges, who hattdeclared that -he was induced
not to come forward in consequence of what had
.been t.old him.
• The question was, not how they would act, but how they had
been chosen ;• and in his opinion the choice. as repugnant to the
Bankrupt Laws. .
' 'The VICE-CHANCELLOR asked if Messrs. Howard . and
Gibbs had, by their affidavit, denied that they had interfered:
in the choice ?

Mr. HORNE—No, your Honour, they justify it,
• • 3lr. BELL said, he should contend with contdence, that the
Bankrupts had a right to interfere in their *concers, and had a
right to solicit the voters.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, the question was one of very
considerable importance. If the assignees were to be chosen
by the-interest of the Bankrupt, it must be expected that he
would attend to the sole inttrest of the creditors. Here the fact
was admitted, and it was also contended that he had a right
to do so, and therefore he observed that it was unnecessary to
go on with the argument on that point.
Mr. BLAKE said the belief of the applicants was, that there
had been a general interference. If Counsel on the other side
could not prove that that had not been the case,. there was an
end of the question, at least if they.could not justify that which
had been admitted. • _ _ .

Mr. HART contended, that Mr. Carrol was entitled to be
chosen assignee from the great interest he had in the property,

The VICE-CHANCELLOR said the anus would lie on Mr.
Blake to prove that the Bankrupt had interfered so as to cause
the removal -of the assignees.
Mr. M ONT AC u argued at very considerable length against
granting the motion made by Mr. Home. He submitted that
nothing had been shown to induce the Court to exercise a juris-
diction on the present oceAsion. Under the former Commission
every thing had been done that could be required of the bank-
rupts, who had, he would fearlessly say, rescued the concern
&am destruction, and the interference of the bankrupts had
• been most proper. He went on to contend that the allegations
relative to Mr. Bridges and Mr. Shaw were unfounded.
The, VICE 4 HANCE r.Lon. said he was not now considering
what the conduct of these Gentlemen had been, but what had
been the conduct of the bankrupts and other persons ?
Mr. HART felt convfneed the Court would not send this to a
new trial without first having it proved that the .apbt of Mr.
Carrol ought not to be allowed.
The VICE-CHANCE LLO n said there might be facts hereafter
to alter the opinion he had now formed, and he should treat
the. case with great attention. The question now is, whether
the assignment ought or ought not to be executed ?
Mr. Motemou noticed the difference between the sums on
the part of Mr. Carrol and the other set of claimants, the
latter having but 1,5001. while the other had in reality
17,0001.- Hp could not see any reasen for the Court interfer-
ing at this stage.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said he had directed the Counsel
for the bankrupts.to proceed and confine themselves in the first
place to the question, whether the interference of the Court
would affect the policy of the Bankrupt Laws, and therefore he
wished them to satisfy the Court that the act of the bankrupts
, was justified by that policy. He thought the Court was called
on to consider the present question for the first time, for dur-
ing his experience of 35 years, he could not recollect that a
similar one had ever been raised, and therefore he wished to
hear Counsel on it, although he had made, up to that time, an
opinion on it.
. .

Mr. NI
ON TAGLI again contended, that it was of the greatest
importance that the bankrupts should interfere. On general
principles the Court, he anticipated, would rule to that effect,
tor when the great benefits that had already been achieved, and
when Mr. Carrol stated, that if only one half of the book debts
were realized, in addition to the fortune of 50,0001. ; more than
20s. in the pound would be paid. He thought he had shown
quite sufficient to warrant the Court in not disturbing the ap-
pointment of the assignees, which was conducive to the benefit
of all the creditors.

Mr. HART contended, that Mr. Carrol had not an adverse
interest to the general creditors, and that if he was bound to
stop a person from acting as assignee, who would not do so
for the benefit of the creditors generally, he had also a right to
say, appoint that one which would so act. He inferred that
the motive of Mr. Shaw ought to be looked to, though he said'
so without any personal meaning, as it was fair to think that
in getting Mr. Carrol out of office, he wished to get himself in.
With respect to Mr. Carrol having possession of the books, be
could not but conceive the objection to be futile, as he had al-
ready had them for some time in his possession; and it was
but just to say, that the result of the former interference had
been to prevent a corresponding misjudging of assignees ; and
surely if a bankrupt had a right to interfere against A, he had a
right to speak in the appointment of B, if it Was for the general
good.. He called on the other side to chew Whether any thing
had been done to.prevent the bankrupt acting, for every man
knew that at all elections there was solicitation used to induce
votes, as nothing was more common than for a person who had
an:. interest in the election of his friend to request his ac-
quaintance to vote with him. Under all the circumstances, he
thought the present appointment ought to stand.
-Messrs. IELL and HEALD followed on the same side, and
laid much stress upon the absence of all proof of intimidation.
If his Honour should order another choice of assignees, he
would order that previously the- debts of Mr. Carroll and Mr.
Orimstead should be proved; that of the former amounting to
13,0001., that of the latter to 35,0001.
. Mr. WETHERELL appeared for Mr. Howard. He contend-
ed that Mr. Howard stood in motive and conduct completely
irreproachable. The case was admitted to be novel. ‘Vhat
rule of law was there respecting the interference of a bankrupt ?
Was it to .be contended that he was to be a perfect muee ? He
knew not what his Honour's opinion was, and therefore he
would say that this was a gross and palpable absurdity. If,
then, there might be solicitation, how should they ascertain
whether that solicitation was mixed up with circumstances,
which press upon the person solicited so strongly, that he could
not resist it? Here they got into a 31ARE 3IAGITUM of difficul:
ties, between solicitation and a pressure which might influence
the vote. In Scotland, the choice of assignees was better regu-
lated. A Preses was chosen, who could scrutinize the fitness
of the assignee, and the rights of the voters, and decide upon
the spot. Against his decision an appeal lay to the Court of
Session. Ile could not cite a case to prove that the bankrupt
interfered there, but he had a right to infer that he could inter-
fere. If the bankrupt could not interfere, the law left him with-
out protection; and this state of destitution was a strong argue
ment in a Court of Equity. Arguing by analogy, he might re-
fer to the Grenville act. By that act each of the candidates
whose rights were in question named one of the committee.—
The House of Commons, with heroic fortitude, supposed its
own committee capable of bias, and therefore armed the candi-
dates against it. In like manner, in arbitrations, every party
had his interests supported. 'Were the bankrupts, then, whose
interests were indisputably involved, and who lied a right to
the surplus of the estate, were they to have no right 'to inter-
fere for their interests ?

1111% AGAR appeared for -Air. Gibbs, and contended for the
right of interference on the same principles.
In the course of the whole of the -arguments on this side, it
was•contended that the estate was amply sufficient to pay 20s.
in the pound.
The VICE-C'.-wscii.Loß said he would not trouble Mr.
Home to reply now. The arguments had been stated very ably
against him. He (his 'Hallow) would read over all the evi-
dence, and reconsider the opinions he had formed. When the
Court met again; he would mention to Mr. Home whether he
would wish him. to reply, a.nd -direct his attention to the points
on which he would wish him to reply.;...

coußt OF KING'S BENCH, NO,VEMBE!I 29.

11idt.tlesex.Siiih3gs. after MiChaelm.is Term :before the Loin)

CHIEF JuwricE and -Common Juries.

JOgNSON V. DESCIIR4:VER.

-1 • - '
• nis was an action brought by a'surkeqn and apothecary- to
rec Over the sum of 41. 19s. the expence of attending the defend=ant's wife in childbirth. The -defence w,as,;that the plaintiff's
patient was not the defendant'swife;
,but a lady living under
his. protection. The defendant was stated to be a waiter at
'
Brunet's-liotel, Leicester-square ;4ral it was, proved that he
had frequently called upo'n the lady• during her confinement,
and had rhatiitstect themost UNOrions tenderness for her welfare,
that he always inquired for Mrs. Tiesehriever, and passed him-.
self off as her -husband.. , •
Mr. Sciattlryr, for the defendant, Offered to chew, that in
fact, :the lady was not the defcnilarit'S wife, but a kept mistress.
The Loan CHIEF JLTF3TICE, IIOWVVer, • Vial of opinion, that
as the defendant had passed himself off as the lady's husband,
he must take all the consequences of the assumed character.
Verdict for the plaintiff— Damages 41. 19s.
uENNET V. SHEPPARD, _

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, an animal painter,
residing at Woodstock, for two
.portraits' of hOrses painted .by
him in the year 1810 for the defendant. The defendantpleaded
the statute of Limitations,, and. aim that.ho never received the
pictures.
The plaintiffcalled Robert Archer, a carver and gilder, who
proved tidying received the pictures on the 30th September,
1810, and flamed them by the defendant's . orders, after Which
he dispatched theni by the coach or. waggon according to direc-
tions which he had received from the defendant ; but he could
not say whether the pictures had come to his (defendant's)
hands, neither could he recollect whether the directions he had
-received from the defendant were before or aftei he (the witness)
received the pictures from the plaintiff. '
'lllr. SCAR LETT submitted that hers wilt 110 proof of the de-
livery. He read an, extract from a letter of ;th e.defendant's ,tO,
the plaintiff, dated • in. July; 'lBl.O, v.:herein he expressed his
dissatisfaction at the delay in sending the pictures, "and directing,
that if they could not be seat within a fortnight, the plrantiLf

COURT OF CONINION PLEAS, Nov_ 23.
Sittings in Westminster after Term.
EANSOR V. BARWELL.

This was an action to recover damages for an assault by the
defendant on the wife of the plaintiff: •
Mr. Serjeant V,i.uorrAg, in stating the case, observed, that
as it Was undefended, he did not feel it necessary to occupy the
attention of the Jury with any comments on the defendant's
conduct in his absence. He would therefore allow the circum-
stances to go to the Jury from the mouths of the witnesses
themselves, with' this remark only, that this was an.action for
an assault on a woman, and a woman, too, in that situation
which of all others should have protected her from personal vio-
lence from any person claiming the name of man. She was far
advanced in a state of pregnancy, and this could not have
escaped the notice of the defendant. The jury should hear .the
rest from the evidence.

Mrs. Ellenor Barnes stated, that she was acquainted with the
defendant Barwell. He was her landlord. He emit to her
house in June for July) last for his rent. He went into her
garden, from which souse angry words passed between him
and the plaintiff and his wife, whose garden was adjoining.—
He afterwards came out, and Mrs: Eansor was standing at her
front door; there the defendant struck her three times severely
under the, left breast: She was taken away by her daughters,
and fainted from. the effect _of the blows. Witness knew that
she was at that time far advanced in pregnancy. She was put
to bed in about. two months -after. At the time defendant
struck the plaintiff she had a young child in her arms. 'ln an-
swer to some questions from the Court, witness said that plain-
tiff came-to the- assistance of his wife. There had been some
dispute between their about a party-wall, but Witness was not
present at its; commencement.. The defendimtis a Custom-
house officer. He was in liquor at,the time. of this transactiqn.
yyung, m:onian, the daughter of the plaintiff, corroborated
this account, and 'added, that it originated with the defendant
.
calm!: her mother some very opprobrious 'names. The dispute
was about a party-wall. Her mother was confined to her bed
two or three days in consequence of the htirt she received: The
medical man who attended her was. prevented froth coming to
give evidence by having been called toatssist a lady. The de-
fendant was in good circumst.andes. He was a married man,
but had no family..

This was the plaintiff's case. There was no defence. ".
The Lout): CHIEI JuSTICE Rut-limed up, anti the .;Tury re.
:urned a verdict, for the plaintiff—Darnages 101.10 s.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Nov.
FORBES V. contoN --ArrlrtmArioN AND sENfENc.e.

This was an amicable suit. instituted fpr the 'purpose of ob-
taining the opinion the Court 9n the validity of twO'papers
(marked A and .t.t),-whiaii wire propounded as codieils;..to the
will of the late•Jultri forbes,..Esq—of New, in the:.Catinty of
Aberdeen ;. and of Fitiroyi-square, London ; who died. on the
20th of last June,.leaving some real estates, and also a personal
property.estimated at near 350,0001. • . . •
The deceased also left•behind him the following relations :
One maiden sister-of advanced age, six children of a decOased
brother, two of one deceased sister, and seven of another *de_
ceased sister, besides a considerable -number of grand nephews
and grand niece.
.• • .• .

TFie
party-' promoting the suit was Charles Forbes, Esq. a ne-
phew of the deceased, and one of the executors, named. in his
will; the other party Was Miss Jane Caroline Gordon, a minor,
and one of the grand nieces of the deceased, aetiag by her father
and assigned guardian, George Gordon, -Esq.
On the part of the executor an allegation in six articles had
been given in, pleading in substance _ ' ,

•
That the deceased, On the 2d of NI ay,
.1820, executedti formal
will, and immediately after the execution, took hiS Solicitor( Mr.
_Hutchinson) apart•and asked him whether any particular form
of words would be requisite for the purpose of bequeathing legs-
qesto relatives. and friends ; and on being answered in the ne-
g:‘tive, so far aStegerded absolute pecuniary bequests, he then
expressed his it tea tion to 'make, at a future time, a codicil him-
self t. that-purpose. On the 12th of June, 1821, he called at
Hutellinscin s chambers" in liincoln'tslnn, with the above-
mentioned will,' and also with the paper B. (which was in his
own hand-weiting) sayinghe wished a new will to be made; with
the alterations:containedin' that Paper. Mr. •H. haVingsotn-
.pared the will drid,propoitcl'alterations, told him that a hew will
would not be necessary, as the events contemplated in. the.altera-
, tions were for the:MostputtProVided for in the existm& will, and
the otheri might be provided for in a codicil, The Solicitor then
observing that the rcsidilaiy clause in the will was revOlit:d in
paper B, asked the deCeased hOw.hewiihed that to be disposed -
of ? to which he replied,4,e meant it togoto his executor., and
considered • that belbe effect of the. Wordi i i paper
B. The tleceased then 'told
.Mr..Mitchinson toprepare.such
. codicil at his leistiteibiit as he appeared then to. be ingood
health, and as .-31i..11utdrinSoii was just; at that time called to
the Continent on UrgentliuSines, -the latter-deferred the Pllia`a-
ration of the codicil till his retUrn. In.the meanwhile, hovever,
the 'deceased was taken suddenly ill about nine o'cloCk.on the
evening a the, 20th of 'January, aiddied in a few hours. ,On
the 30tn of -that- month a search was ii.ade among his papers,
Andthe other testamentary paper (marked A). also in
writing, was found in the drawer. of his writing table, where lie
usually kept his papers of value.. In the forenoon of this day
thedeeeased's butler having come into. the room to sea if his
mastet wanted any thing, had observed him
,sitting at, the,writ-
ing table with hiS pen, and went near enough to observe the,
he had before him a paper
.of the size of a foolscap sheel, writ.:
ten almost' all over (as paper A is). On being interiiipted the
deceased put, the ..paper into the desk, and on the search
wards made, no other paper answering to this description was
found tliere. • ' .•

. .
• Upon this allegation six witnesses were examined, whO spoke
fully up to-the plea, and added several other confirmatory cir-
cumstances.. cumstances.

The followineW,efe the contents of the two invert-lug.
pounded:— _ • •-•
6 PAP,Fit V•=-PERSONAL ESTATE.'
2d Page bottom, " QMit altogether the exception-bf
the ship ik;rribay, which is tcpeatedsagain in the page following,"
3d. OnAultogetht;:r theoccupation of the house at Bea.-
beg by my niece. Stuart, sincsilleceasetVand place the provision
for her daughter and son in It9roper place.' •
4th. ".Eleven lints in ch1.11)a1"?,,74-0 marked thus ("),,fo be
7 •
/UK: it: being viiident tit thrte.pf: the four nieces thti:
siluiied to are past the age of childbirth, it is my meaning that, ti
at their death, the principal sum frond, which they derive the

'lncome, ghoul,: be divided among, die number of ray
--a
great ;lieges May Wibiiri:alive, in place of making them
rsy vesidukzi legatees.''
" Two years' vt-.l7cs to the servants that may be living
• •wi'tfidie at toe tititeitf,tny 'death, in pit:if:of cne and a legacy
trfH tti Int coachman _nand the same to my bistfe;; naddition
flaereto.''
I•b'
" The reslilue of my --esate. equeam, m trust, to make.
)7914and ansivirc inch leggy:nrad remembrapcis to friends, as
IT,•3linvoli.llL'Ae 4 e di l to this niy
“Aci.7 we: its amount as atpreseat it is liable to.canrderable
- ,1.

PA PER A, •-e- -• 7
". Loudon Varch 1,'1521
" lathe case of my.inability to make a regular codicil to my
will; Made and published 2d May, ano, I desire the following
to be taken. as. a codicil to, rind as a fureherpart of, my said will:
revoke tat part of any will whereasl bequeath, in the 9th
..pnere-thereef, the residue of my pereenal estate to and emong
" my.grand'nieera that may be-living •at the tierie-of my deeth;.and
,einliea•thereof d-xeill and heel...teeth to my grar.d nieces the rums
.. that, queer. fall, into the residue on the death of such of my nieces
as Amy die-or de-Pert this life withent issue 'them surviving; to
'•••lee paid to, andelivided among-, reictrof my -grand nieces 'as may
anehe'sleatta esf every s-uch niece respectively." • .
„-• I eizect my. executors to give nip to my
;teraiets Li Ater-
' • • ilianshire, the !Ili?: half year's 'rent they -May hieve to nay at
the: first texienof Martini-hes or Whit;.sunelay after my deceese."
. "As the ..ship Bombay is now on the hien oiler chartered
vieyage.s.,, my libjeCt in retaining ihiteriest- in her no longer-
. . • exiete, except in the-event of lie; being' ehartered again on rea-
r -terms ley.the. Conepanyeit eihi-th• a's-4e. I 'Air-'4`l-he willing
?Peke some .Seceifice to get John Shepherd a• command."
case of `the death of my edusinee the Rev. Thomas
• `7 I:lord-on' • and of- my :"eoiasiin4 'the,- Rev.• Robert Shepherd, of
Deviot,befote me, I desire that the sum left to each of them by
my will mei), he divided equally erne: g and between the widow
,Find daughters of each. I am the sole trustee to the marriage
. ••tifisles of lete.nieflose2eif Calcutta, evith his late wife, Eliza-
th Forbes f its :aitouneii 8381 e. TOR. IX in the Consols, stand-
. ing is the Lattice of John Forbes, Charles and llick
ieForbes ;
• thelfusiennel hn4-,Ene interest clueing his life, ened en his death, it
• is to be divide& among -elatge.fisrAy."...e,
` I bequeath to my executors in; trust 500111, to .be by them
• felled as dofiations- to flee of the Hospitals tupperted by vo-
. • A:eatery. contribution, situated et or near .the rric...t• public en-
• - teaneee Londine, that admit taauni tikerit ail hours of the day
.ce .night:" •• . -•• . . • - •
" lave 20()81.! to 'Ol-y -eeteentoiS in trliat 'far. the purpose of
building a briiegj- over' -the river Dais, ire Sfrath Don, the situ-
• • ttien.todie theserlity them.r .• - • 1.-"' •
1-.Sequeath"the Rah:Jiving- legeeieSti---•To Joseph Cotton,
, • : ESee Of the- Teinity.ll-ouse;10001. • Major D. Mitchell, 10001.;
• -Alrs..Delllarley; `"det0011 •• her deugliter; MesS.H. M 1001. ;
Miss C. Patrick, 10001. ; Lady -Grant; wife of the late Sir
• ::Archibald, Etrast, trf .3konienask, 14.001. ; • each of' her five
*.eVan.gieters, 5001 -ORS,. (lint,. of Deumenner's;three Danters,
each 5001. ; my remaining thtenipariaies; John' Forbes,Comp-
tic
llen'eGennriel;therdoh Forbes, end • JanieS-Forbes, as' a Me-
, • . ntorial for •100 .guinta ;•my 'old India friends, E.
. Ravetiseroft..-Es Ittessell 'Havel, T: Wilkinson, W.
- • -1-:?age,• ..4Oetis, a Inglis,- o.simiion' • Generals La Ma-
. andellenjarnin GordoneAlexinderGrayeP.:Shawcroft,
„ Aunt R. _Herialease, each for a ring, 1004;ifinteast't -• . .. •
.• To.iny friend,- A..TuTlohelOtf gain-ease • a token of my re-
- gaid. tidy co:win-kin arid: huller 2001. each, over and
-..above what thty will be. entitled to liv my will.' I recommend
-Alexander: Gray •to be retairied,•-at- a salary, to assist my execu-.
• ;tars.-in Winding iep my-estate. •TO Wm. E.- illontgornerie, the
son of my farmer Commissioner,. A. Alontgornerie, -Esq.; of
Amnia Lodge, I:bequeath 50001. for the-esteem= I bore his fa.:
ther, and the obligation I have•tieen under to him. I desire
. ... my executors to- pay in 5001. -to thisMidellesex.Hospital, as a
:donations fremanee To the widow of mylate nephew, Phase
. Forbes, heave-50111. • e • ' • • - • •
.- The paper .leawesubieribedby "deceased on the three :first
pages,lunnot on the fourth. - • • e ; •
. _
.
• The'ease *ea-very-ably argued by Sivintt- and 'Pint,
• • 'etienietE, for 'the executor, and..by: Drs. Lusilifewroer and
is•facuam, for the legatee. It •was centended on the' one side,
- that both the. papers should be.admitted to probate; and on the.
• • " othere•thenteothe i_eee sb- be rejected, paper A as having beeri
• • -abandoned. brthe.testatore ai i paper:ld as being in .its nature
• meretydelibereteive.e-, • ' • .
e-•-• • The CotirtkSir J.*-Nie it on n) then • picieeeded to deliver its
jedgment- . • . - .
. • e • The .Learned .ltidge obsetve4;atar this-W.ae a question relative
• •-te the.•validity or invalidity of •tiveY inform=al Papers ; and thou dee
• the' prinetpla by Sehieli-the.Cauff is guided unthe decision of
such cases ere tolerably filiniliar to most -45 f those persons Who,
are in the habit of attending to its decisions, and perfectly so to
• the -Gentlemen who practise here; . yet it is not amiss now and
-then to repeat a few of thesnost general propositions, for the.sa-
tTsiaetigri eheparties concerned, niore.especially in a ease Tike
• • • .the.-presentievliere'theationnt of the property.iii so very clinsi:
,•...derable,-.. an& ;the-. individuals inter meted .in the decision:are • so•.
.
• " lf•a rarer. on'the faee °tit, i, in legal comtitittion an imper•-•
feet and unfinished papas, -evidence of intention -is let. in, .and .
mest be taken-into consideration in order to deterenine'iVitether
• 'Len be. adri,ittediro. probate-as conteining the last will of th
. deceased, 40d in order to give. it that. validity, the evidence
"m:aSt,satisfee the. leeel.. conseierice of the Court, either that the
deceased, abandoning the intention of perfecting it, intended it
. eto operatiiiiitediefiniehed state e. or:that If he intended to give
it a more fOrrnal eeceention, he was iireventc4 by the-act-of rind.,
cr other causes beydnel his, own coneroL . .
the 1e it prestimptiotiis against a paper whlch, on
the face °fit, ktealToestetiction, unperfeet ; • for such inr-
., peifection implies an intention. on the part of the testator te.do
• something more to it, in -order to render it operatice ; and the,
eburthen of proof lies on the parer setting tp die' paper to oust,
:ehis'eiresunentioin meet furnish eeeidenee to slimy either that
the testaton'hact nonsncit intention of doing more to thepaper;
or if he-had, he was prevented:by a Yes :MAJOR from
• catrying.ifinto..effecte • - -•-. • - • • .• •
.Eut though a, legal preeumptien, against a preper'of this
• seription exiens in every case, yet that presumption
•_ gree, in kopoetionen every conceivable degree of imperfection.
. nioraetienee.the pep::: is tuanifestiya dsliberkeiveiiieraorazidera,
the inere.ineeption of -a- testamentary-, Acvt and_ then the cir-
eierhetarides 'Meat: be. Strong • and forcible indeed, ewlich • ean
trove-theft • the Mind of the testator' notwithstanding the ap-
pearance of gee paper, was in trutis.inade to-the particular
disposal of the property, in question.,. Sometimes the degree'ef
• regal'imperfectitite inore easily overpower `tl by
. • • other indications of a final testamentary intention: Nay, there
mayho instances, in which it is rrietter",of. legal doubt, whether
• the paper on the face of it is to be considered as perfect -or iine
•• • perfect-e- :Anti it nhist rot be forgotten, that by the lave of this
country, dlspolition of personal properfyi in the hand-Writing.
of the testator, re.ouires, no.partieular • formality e but mustbe
- if the circumstances afrerd a fair interenee that such
was-the* teseatore intention. ' •
• In the present case, tivo papers in the hand-writing of the tes-
tator are propounded, as codicils .to a will which is not in dispute.
Tie first of Aliese.,•iii -point O- time, is paper A, and it is also
the most ireaportint. • Upon the fate of it, it purports to be a
codicil. It is dated. On three sides the writing is continned,
to the bottom, and on each of these three sides it is subectibed,
by tl..e testator. On the fourth side the writing is rot •ean-
. tinned to the bottom, and that side is-not subscribed..-'The
. Court ia .of opinion that such a paper, on the face, of it,
' • must Le -holden to be in legal cprestrusteon, an imperfect.
• • paper, and thit evidence of intention merit b resorted to,
to determine veieether it is or is not entitled tO probates
with reference to the principles before _seated; but the
• • amount of -evidenee by which 'the- intention is to be • de-
termined will not-.rest on anfone.iaoltitetkcircumstance, nor
- eeyern onethe sievienion of a single witless. - The question
• _ to hedeterzr.ined is . a ,qteeetion of -fact in the first instance,
wieether the.testaniertary intention gf the deceased went along
withethe ir.eteuznent. . • •• • • • •
The: history of the dece.esed must be taker, into the account. •
He was a gentleman residing in Fitzroy-square, who died sod
Amts. at tho advanced age of 713,-- His fortune was very large,
the personalty: being estimated at 350,0 W. which had all been-
acquired by the piirsuits of buSiness as a merchant; and it is
- -e- • alizoit unnecessary to add that he was.a person. of' intelligence
.-and see Ad tindbrstantling. . . .
• ' Iris r.ta.regt living relation was:a sister, a. lady of course far'
advented in life; besides her he had many other. relations, 14
• - nephews and nieces a still greater numbea of grand nephews
• and nieces. 'lle lied also many friaidehips fort el in the course.
-ale long life. He had some real estates both in Scotland
-.turd England e of•the former of which ecuntrieshe was probably
• . •'esieectstive. lie.'hed disposed of the succession to_ his Scotch
• . estates, according tr the forms-of- that law,-•in 1816.: In May,
• 10111 be executed a long and f'srrual *ill; prepared by his so-
.; .eliciter, Mr. iluechioson, disposing of his real estates in Eng-
land; and also of the bulk of his personalty among fliS relations.
• Ttee residue was .about 130,00j1., out of - Which" he clearly
intended to give further legacies by a separate ccdicil. In-
. ' sleedin Ihenresielualleclatiso of the will he eineepts •stich pait .as
be might give by a future codicil. • Thli intentioh is further.
. • • spoken to, by Kie.ljutchirlson. Int:re:Goer:le Of preparing that
. . will the testator- intimated to7him4iat fie 'intended to make such
a Oloiti cil 4nd it evaa ip meet that -ineeriiiCn shat the clause was
... so draw„:: .Again,; after. the, tlieteitikeir reverts to
.the gauss iptentierie by asking line solicitor whether any parti.
• . cedar form of woiets be,AeceSsary.for ; -nature.
• - solicitor tell-1-.lom . The decslsocifif. alipears Was a
. luau of few worde ;; tehitiSon un
derstood that it was his wish to keeploluniself the particulars
.- of these intendrelkgeciea amen* friende: ••
eyideoet kay e.; fitY.strong:fonpaiiPOn in'obabdity'in
• • - •faxofer pc ibitt fOglat,l:o,-Itituid In the deeeasedie;
linnell-writing, rafter hie death- ACcOteleadly;•Onieledinie ihe will

the cipt mins in the residuary clause made his friends expect .
that a eccilewaleld, be fesenen A search was therefore imme-
diately madeeanEr the e:per A was discovered.
It nextbecornes'inipurtant to consider ,he appearance and
character of thin ,peefer:e bears date in March, 1821, nearly
tenenonths after the execution of the will. Near the beginning
oecur these winds ":iers ease cf iny inability to make a regular
N0w,,'.,,~tt heabeen eirgeed that these words render it-a
conditional cod cil, but the Court cn.mot accede to this sugges-
tion. OnehtieCteniry; the exPreesione seem more strongly to
rnatketheecaution of the- tnetetoin thatelds paper should. sabstan-
tinily operate.- Thee.: one es the clause relatweg to the residue;
and kis obiery ed at thief alteraton of the dispissition .of the re-
sidue -is difFerentTrOrn that eoerananicated to the Folicitor ; but
the deceased did not wholly rely on the codicil to be prepared by
the So/Viter. Ile probably meant nearly to exhaust the residue
in legacies, Mid if so, if -is not Whiike:ly 'that he would revoke
the bequest.. n. • . ; , -
The testator signs his name at the end of every completed
page. What are the rational inferences from this state end ap-
pearance of the paper? First, by siccing he shows that he had _
made up his Mind, at least so far ; that he means the paper not '
to serve as a, mat deliberative memorandum, but to posses's
some greater- weight and efficacy. Secondly, what inference is
afforded by his not signing the 4th page ? Why, that the paper
is still in progress.' Having-Only given about 30,0001. out of
160,0001., which herpnebably- tn, erinet to exhaust, it is reasonable
to assume thee he yes deliberating not on. what he had already
-given, but on what,:r.erni:.iied to give. Thisinfereneeis farther. •
corroborated-by-the writing ethe paper:: It is dearly riot writ-
ten uno contextu. One of thelater bequests, that to %lr. Morn-
gornerie, is in 4-different character and hand-writing from the
part preceding. • The same may •be•observed of•the heiluest •.to.
the Middlesexflospitel and the:-last clause of all, that relat-
ing to the widow of Mr. Thomas Forbes, is evidently written
in a more imperfect hand„and with it:different pen and ink from
any of the former.. . .
Such-beingehe appearance of this paper, so conforinzble. to
the soft of codicirthat -was-tohagebeen expected from the pre
vious,.bistory: arid. deoKations cif- the -.deceased, • I will not sAy.
that the mere circumstances of .is sudden. death, and of its
being found in his repiiiitbry with other papers of moment, -
would -notte. eufficitrat tonrapperethe Mai:run:mt.
. .
Net here are.several. ether czcumstanices corroboristive of
the same inference. The witnesses speak to Ms habit of writing
at the table..where-tls Tepee:ewes .f9unde one says he almost
lived at that fable: lewashis cusiom to pat the papers he had
been writing into-the deile: ihns•PaPer• is so found, as if it had
been very recently put aside in thie manner-(Here the-Learned •
Judge went minutelyeinto. theT description given by several wit-
nesses of its being the 'upplimost thing in the desk, on
the bankees book, 'all the ether- papers- :being more carefully '
put away.) I •
Then at is found in the sititioreire which a paper in peogveem•
would be found. -But this. is 'fief X. 'his-incontestable that'
.s..hetestator ;Meet have bad s-clerenee•- to it within a few hours ef-
his deatll. He had been.. slightly indisposed for• tie..., eir three
days, and had that morning sent Mr. Gray with a check of 6001.
to his hankers—that check is-produced, and beam date on- the:
Very day, the2oth of June., He had-- reeaurSe to the banker's
book in his desk, and this paper is foundupoli the banker's book
it is elierefeire in all probability the last paper that he looked at.
He Ives however somewhat better Orr that day than he had been
for: two Inns before, so that he might - not.feel it urgently
necessase to complete the, whole at that moment, but, still it was
in progress. At nine o'clock that-evening, he was struck with
death. Under these circumstances, is• there the least reason to
consider this.ae. an abandoned paper ? Why, it-is said this is to.
be inferred from.his having given paper B to his solicitor. Now
the whole 'of B. is clearly not the soft of eddiCil which he
'proposed to Make; but it contains. instructions fora will. lie
therefore selected from A what he meant to give by will, and.
feseqed_ what he meent.to give by codicil.. In such a proceeding
there is do Incohsistency whatever, nor'any thing spewing the
slightest: departure from.the intentions .. expreised-'in A. On
Mrs Hutchinson. lie 'finds 'a new- will not to be
necessaey, and 'after this consultation it is clear that the will of
May. 1820-is to remain as his will, that :Mr: Ilutehinson is to
draw one-cedicileretatiee to the residue froin B. and that the
testator means teepursoe his original'
idea of a codicil of his own.
for the Other. legacies. • - • - •
The 'Cohn-here- went etrefially over Me. Hutchinson's evi-,
dence relative to paper B, and showed, that that evidence was
much stronger -than the plea, to support paper B as final in-
structions for, a codicil relative to those parts of the testator'sin-
tentions which he meant to communicate to hie Solicitor. - With
regard to7sach final instructions,. the testator having done.all that
depended on, leim, and, the formal execution being. only delayed
. by the act of the Solicitor, every rule•uf the Court requires that
paper B' should be pronounced-for as well as A.
What may; be the effect of .these two codicils on• the disposi-
tion of the'residue-must. be left to the Court of. Construction.
As to the objectiOn that pronouncing • for ihese pipers will only
carry intci-etitet part of .the deceased's intentions; that happens
every shy with gills that are and must be established.
The Co LT icT. then adverted to several circumstances coricarma,
'tory of its- preeeding- observations bn paper A. • Mindenhall, the
deceased's batTer, hid-Seed him •wiiting bite •seelay or two before
his death at a.paper exactly eitnilar to this; Auttno similar pa-
' *per wai fouriden his desk. Mr. Forbes Mitchell cibierved on the
•tirst discovery of the'p;per, -a fsesimeas in the-ink •of the last
paragranh or two Iklueli has since gone off; , It is et-known fact,
that rresli ink does. assume. greater blackness after a short 'ex-
posure to the _air. .
Upon the''Wholee the: C 0 uivr observed, that it' had pine into
the evidence .very minutely, nor on account'of the least doubt or.
diiii,mlty in the case, but for. the satisfaction of the numerous
parties 'interested in thiS' large property. If *as hOiever clear,
- that the intention of the• deceased went alo'ng with -these papers
down tsehiedeatli, and that the execution wag prevented as to one
by the occupation. of the Solicitor, and as toehe other by the act
of C10d..-e-lt therefore pranouricedfor both codicils. '

SPADE.qur.TrvATrox.—The following . para-
gra-ph. from the :Edinburgh Couhant shews id a
sjtakink_ma.nner what may be done..by SPADE
CULTURE. The increase stated is ,truly won-
derful:—

‘.‘- There wzre..sown i.^_ the garden at Tiaqtniiir, last Septem-
ber twelvemonth; sixty. pickles of 'lNloiocco 'wheat; which pro-
duced•ll2'.hdad's;which-heids yielded thS• astonishing number.,
of 8,580 pickles, being an 17:crease of 143 after one.- The
pickles are miich larger &an those of the, common wheat, and
.are of an excellent quality, and from -its• being so prolific; is
.likely.to.become a most-va.htahle acquisitiq:to this country.
'rhe stalks of :the wheat grew.tO the lengti of six feet, -and as
.the straw is exceedingly thick; and strcingvi.an that of the
common British Wheat, is not: so ap!.._.td..bit.ige,ori the ground,
which, in a wet it,:ason, is a material advantage to the farmer.
The wheat was reaped in the i;;;;inning ti!ia hist September."'

_ . . .
ViR.Y.STIT.ANGB., BUT lik:Etit.TAtik—that if you
get al3lailk.Jsiu may. return its and if you get a
Capital. Prize you. may keep .Such is the
'fact-7-fOr'esieiy Purchaser. in the
...Lottery before
the next Driwing.(TUeSday Weeic), may retufa
Ticket or.: Share;if drawn a.plank or Brnati'
"Prize,. or if 1/ndrai;gn,. and.. receive back nearly
all the noney he gave, for •has
the .c.lianCe Of 'the whole may, when ak 6,600
Prize Muat,'Und...iriany other Capitals may be
drawn,', and cannot' lose, either by a Whote
Ti4et .or .more than a were trifle.—
liA.z.tao and db.;" Contractors. * • ,

. . . .
NEW BUILDING IN The works in the
Gallery of the Louvre, says a Liberal French
Paper, are suspended; the triumphal arch of the
'barrier .of .Neuilly is forgotten.;., the Pantheon,
and the fine edifice begun on the quay. d'Orsay,
far receiving the archives of France, are .likewise
negle.cted.,,.A. little stiris made, arid a, few stares
are
.placing,at the Exchange, and the. Fountain of
the Elephant ; and the building of the Treasury in
the ru is proceeding with surprising langifor.
But to compensate for this slowness in some guar-
. tees, we .observe astonishing activity in others..
The construction of the seminary in the square of
St, Suipice is making great ptofiress,. The Syna-
gogue..buildinu in Jue .tiotre Dame de Naiareth
is also fast advancing ; and the chapel founded
for the nuns of the Temple exhibits_ similar ap-
.pearances of. actkvity....Private eitig.ces are rising
on sides with
..great ra'pidi:V. Num4erltis
houses safe afidirx to the,evitalf, both in 'do
,M)urbs end .tikinteriorjof the ;Up.; and Para,,
in,splenitoty ittO.e}cteut.