The Sun.
London, England, 1828-01-09 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 8.
CRAI.IOXD V. CROUCH.
This was an action by a certificated conveyancer
to recover a fifth part of the amount of his bill of
fees and disbursements in respect of business done
for the defendant jointly with other persons.—Plain-
tiff nonsuited.

PREROGATIVE COURT, JAN. 8.
(CAVEAT DAY,)
HOBY AGAINST HOBY AND HORT.

Sir JOHN NICHOLL gave sentence in this case,
which was argued last term. It was a suit re-
specting an unfinished will of the late Hoby,
of Walham-green, whereby the bulk of his pro-
perty was bequeathed to his cousin, James Hoby,
nominated executor, to the prejudice of Thomas and
Daniel Hoby, the brothers and next of kin of the
testator. Probate of this instrument was opposed
by Messrs. T. and D. Hoby, on the ground that the
deceased was of unsound mind. The Learned Judge
went through the evidence at some length, and was
of opinion that the instrument contained the sane
testamentary intention of the deceased. The acts
of eccentricity, and the delirium which was the effect
of disease, showed no more than transient incapa-
city. He pronounced for the ♦alidity of the instru-
ment on these grounds—first, that it was founded
upon the whole testamentary intention of the de-
ceased for years past ; secondly, that the deceased
was of sound mind when the will was written and
subsequently; and lastly, that the unfinished state
of the will,and its want of execution, were sufficiently
accounted for.

Dr. LUSHINGTON and Dr. HAGGARD, for the par-
ties opposing, applied for their expenses; but
The COURT declined making any order upon the
subject.

HAWKES AGAINST lIAWKES.

In this case, which was a suit respecting an un-
finished will, altered partly in ink and partly in pen-
cil, and which, owing to the difficulty and intricacy
of the questions, had stood over from last term for
consideration of the expediency of some compromise
between the parties,
Dr. PHILLIMORE stated, that after the intimation
given by the Court, every consideration had been
bestowed upon the case, and it was deemed by the
executors impossible to take probate of the will as
suggested,--namely, with the interlineations in ink
only.
]3r. LUSHINGTON, for Mr. James Hawkes, was
ready to agree to an amicable compromise of the
question out of Court, but the executors were un-
willing.
Dr. PHILLIMORE said, that the executors were
not unwilling to compromise, but they were unable.
Dr. DODSON understood some furthertestamentary
papers had been discovered.
The KING'S PROCTOR (Mr. Nicholl) had had a
communication last night from the solicitor of Fanny
Dearlove, and had received some papers in the hand-
writing of the deceased, which he (Mr. Nicboll)
thought it likely would elucidate the matter before
the Court.

The COURT directed that the papers should be
brought in and examined.
The case consequently remains for further argument.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Jaw. S.

In the matter of John _Marsh, an insolvent debtor,
who has been remanded for twelve months at the
suit of Wm.rßawlings, Esq., upon a verdict and
costs obtained for criminal conversation with the
plaintiff's wife.
In this case, Mr. HEATH having obtained a rule
Nisi for the opposing creditor to show cause why the
judgment should not be set aside and a rehearing
granted,
Mr. HALCOMB this day showed cause against the
rule on behalf of the opposing creditor. Me read
the affidavit of Mr. Reid, in which it was set forth
that the deponent, upon serving the insolvent with
notice :of trial, was asked by him what he (in-
solvent) was to do with it, when this deponent told
him to give it to his solicitor to prepare a defence, if
he intended to.naake one. The insolvent then re-
marked, thatif Mr. Rawlings sued for a divorce, and
was successful, he would marry Mrs. Rawlings. A
few days before the trial he met the insolvent, who
told deponent that owing to the want of means he
could not employ Counsel to defend him, to which
no reply was made. The deponent completely ne-
gatived the statement made by insolvent relative to
the promise held out by him (Mr. Reid) respecting
the damages. The Learned• Gentleman' then ob-4
• served, that owing to his being attorney to the plain-
tiff, Mr. Reid could not be examined there as a wit-
ness, and in support of his argument cited a case
from Mr. Phillips's Book on Evidence. He then
referred to the case of " Jackson" (recently before
the Court), who was opposed for words slanderously
spoken against the plaintiff by the insolvent's wife,
and who was remanded for six months from the date
of his petition. The Learned Counsel said, that if
such a promise as alleged had been held out by Mr.
Reid to the insolvent, the latter might have applied
on affidavit to the King's Bench, and moved to set
aside the verdict, or for a rule to show cause why a
new trial should not be granted : this, however, he
had not done. The 'Jury, considering the injuries
which the plaintiff had sustained by the profligate
conduct of the insolvent, gave a special verdict for
7001. and costs.

Mr. HEATH, in support of the rule, contended
that the affidavit sworn to by Mr. Reid corroborated
that of his (Mr. Heath's) client.
The CHIEF COMMISSIONER having consulted the
other Learned Gentlemen on the bench, said that
the Court saw nothing to induce them to rescind
its judgment ; the rule, therefore, must be dis-
charged.
Mr. Commissioner BoWEN and Mr. Commis-
sioner LAW were of the same opinion, the latter ob-
serving that the Court must act upon the record be-
fore it, and not upon any conversation which passed
before the trial.—Rule discharged.
John Bancroft was opposed by Mr. Woodroffe
The nature of the case may be gathered from the
following judgment :
The CIIIEF COMMISSIONER said, that it appeared
to be admitted on all hands that the insolvent re-
moved himself from Shrewsbury at his own ex-
pence ; the question, therefore, for the Court to
consider was, had the insolvent taken his case out of
the 66th section, by afterwards giving bail to the
action, and coming before this Court in custody
upon a render in discharge of that bail ?
The CorrHT was unanimously of opinion that he
had not, and that he had no locus standi there. The
Court would not dismiss the petition, but allow it
to remain on the file ; but at the same time it would
make the following order :—That the insolvent re-
move himself at his own expence from the King's
Bench prison to Shrewsbury, and there to remain
to abide an examination before the Commissioner
appointed to go the next circuit.
Mr. Commissioner BowEN and Mr. Commis-
sioner LAw expressed their concurrence in the man-
ner in which the case was for the present dis-
posed of.'

HEATING HOT-HOUSES AND HOT-BEDS BY
Cowpox's KITTLE.—In GORDON'S kettle, which is heated
by a lamp, or by a jet of gass, the heat accumulates between
the outer coat and the inner vessel, which contains the
water, and by this means boils the water, in half the
time required by a common kettle. Might not steam be
generated in this way at an easy rate, and made to heat a
cistern of water, even though at some distance from it ; or
might not a system of circulating hot water in a hot-bed or
pit be contrived with a GoanoN kettle and a set of tin
pipes? Or, in a green-house where there are no flues,
might not a lamp, or a jet of
gass, he kept burning night
and day, under a cistern of water, which would give out its
heat in cold nights in proportion to the degree of cold, and
would never become too hot in the day-time? I know
that heating frames and green-housea by lamps has been
tried both in France and England, without ever having
come much into use ; but I think if a mass of heat, if I
may so speak, were accumulated in a body of water, either
circulating in pipes, or at rest in a covered cistern, the
effect would be quite different.— Gardener's Magazine
for January.