The Sun.
London, England, 1828-11-14 00:00:00

PREROGATIVE COURT.

RAVENSCROFT V.
„I Aof
Dr. LUsaINtToN moved to have the \vit.-- t 1
testator propounded in its original state, witlorill;rl
alterations in the margin. The will was rol",:lf,
the 18th April, 182.5, whereby the testatteso
queathed to the sons of his daughter, Mrs- J;404
4,300/. each, and to her daughters nearly the
sum. His solieitor, Mr. Moore, and two other TO
tlemen, were appointed executors. In Janktalit,
year, Mr. Moore died. Shortly after which ei#,
the testator called ou that gentleman's partner,,,"
Blake), and requested to have the will, vellie"iiio
been deposited with Mr. Moore, given up t°
which was accordingly done; he at the saele.,
informed Mr. Blake that he should call itgoll'tici
few days, as he wished .to have some tate• r
made in his .will : he however never ,dia
again for such purpose, but in Aug 04,6
died,. labouring under considerable aberratitti';
mind. After his decease it was discovered ti",;(00.,,
had written on the margin of his will the fri
words One of my grandsons being dew? 01)",''
tend to bequdath 1,0001. each to my two °theft";
sons, with the residue of my property to nal, peci
daughters." The Learned Counsel said igee,o
could be the intention of the testator to disil'io'so..Y
his property in this way, after the will he 11%rf.'.
and which was not cancelled; and if the C.°;ll'.;
lowed it to be propounded with this alterst' ;1141'1'
stead of the grandsons receiving 4,300/. each
would only be entitled to 1,000/., when. 'd
grand-daughters portions would be increo4i
more than 13,0001. each. The probable WI OJ
the testator was to give to the surviving sons d'ari
each, out of the portion of the one who h$
and the residue to which he would have V.";
titled, to the daughterS.:. Under these eircuTtsta
he trusted the Court would alloW the Wi"
proved in its original state, t
Sir JOHN NI CIIOLL did not think the Cent-, so'
comply with this upon motion, it waa.a 01°50-t"'
ous and important question, and there .did
pear to him to be suiliaient facts stated to s'
torily convince him that the words as wr„,,itt)ollo
not convey what the testator intended.
be informed more particularly into the cireuroP
of
Dr. the case. ori,
LusiffNwroN said, that being inforroe-
opinion of the Court, the case should he
brought forward in another shape. "`I
The COURT afterwardi disposed of a gre4
her of motions, principally matters of course.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
EXTENTS IN Auj.
r iO/P t
TIER KING V. ITAVNIM, Alnatlf, AND
Mr. SHEPHERD moved that a mit of C''•og`
aid might issue against the defendants, 1)1100
same tests a§ on a forcer writ issued agilin4

Thin
'4lver
ti" der

Cleoi
may
!ern(
INN

mitt

moss
the
The

grea

e-har

Lea
Jur,

enjc
(G
dick
be 4

for

ye,
sQI
CO

Pi
(11
of
Pc
th

i
C

~"`_.

V

~

-_1

IS DAY)

let I. till vie
ALPPeaI?
st.

1e
resibtiog
it appearlo to
now tbia P
ae pror°so
believed

t 0
f the p 1o.0
h a 's t ate rgo
app•rt, S A
-
industry! 0,0
e whetWf te,
h

• ‘,ole
to shoo' tioti
not be.
:ereford,
arson for
late 31aY°00
t he vk.ras 3,0?
rate, in so,
hini fora to*
liy a Ser.dt,
intempsni
to, wlotd
Ise was 'd id
1. On the'o
s pro ceedoo,l,
'
he day be ,to
er the W 37011
and colni44
x duty 011 1301
and I veil'
said, thatbetbe,
rested. fiLde
Wye-briubift?
n hiul,ottie
saul " pi
11 have Ya,.11.01
used beirp.
eford, sod ft.
of this fitoo
a rule to

ban, vv"" for
Norfiill:, belt
id bodies' 0
night UP
He vas list
in the Est

the COOrs,so
was a 111,°..,
ot
here di' °tiff'
;ate(' t° 5'3,11
as writt-101
AO. 14°00
circurno

• of
informed
toot! - be

of a
of course.

JP.R.

7P
AND 'CIE'S o
lel'',
lit of e'vg
Ants, beflol
figaino

„Ile. The application was made en behalf
of one
ule sureties of the defendants. From the state-
meat of the Learned Counsel it appeared that in
lg
an extent issued against H. T. Austin, Henry
Ittuade (as we understood the name) and James
i'o4l, for the, sum of 22,0001. The Crown
wed thirteen thousand pounds under that
Y:1;_t) and at the end of two years called on the sure-
tof the defendants for the remaining 9,000/. An
Zer was then made 'on the 17th April, 1818, that.
jersonal representatives of the sureties should
ki7ll the place of the Crown, and, by virtue of
r4l order, they were enabled to collect 4,0C10/. from
defendants, leaving 5,000/. still due and unpaid.
41'/as lately discovered that one of the defendants,
eAry Maunde, was entitled to the reversion of an
jMate which had not been seized under the writ ;
in order to enable the sureties to come at that
ante, as well as other property, they now prayed
Ztis an extent, might issue, bearing the same teste
the writ of 1816.
, t n.'lok ow HuLtocx—You are asking for a very
,Idable-power. if we grant the writ as you de-
Ze, it it will overhaul and upset every thing with
” 41,4PertY since 1816. This would be a dreadful
Iti'nktshiP• The Crown certainly has the power, but
) for one, that we ought not to exercise it
Ness
upon very strong grounds. Besides, you
ikr 4° affidavit stating that - the parties are in-
kth, and there is no other way of getting
.thm. I believe that you have .a right
It,a writ of assistance, or some other writ,
Gown,
would place you in the shoes of the
pit?", but the extent would follow all the pro.
qtr of which the defendants were possessed, or
k
Which they were entitled at and since 1816, no
glil:tter into whose hands ;that property may have
:e Passed—might not this produce great misery
de parties who had no connexion whatever with
e original transaction.
SIIEPRERD.--If the present application were
ode on behalf of the CrOWn, I apprehend that the
art would instantly grant it.
Mr. Baron Hilmocti.CertainlY not; unless upon
~.,°1437 different statement a facts. The' danger of
try
the writ is, that it will rip every
thatrig ' has taken place since 1816. We must
an affidavit as to the prOperty.now in the hands
the principals, and in the Mean- time'lnquiry
.can
ade as to some way of getting relief Without
recourse to a fresh extent.
si Mr. SHEPHBRD—The advantage of an extent is,
it supersedes all other aims. .
The LORD CHIEi, BAlitoNcl -Ard a
very formidable
4dvantage that is. V
1 The Court rose at eleVen

COURT OT OA IMON PLEAS.
This
V. BURFORD, THOMAS, AND OTHERS.
11iS was an action brought by the plaintiff to re-
,411:
Ver the sum of 1221. 17s. from the defendants,
boner the following circumstances:—
b Me defendants were partners hr running a coach
etw
; een London and Stroudwater, and the debt was
,-4
rred for [tillage. The plaintiff is a coachmaker
St D
o enson, in Oxfordshire, and he supplied a coach
to the defendants, for the hire of which he was to
t,eive froin them one penny per Mile for the distance
the coach ran. His bill came to 1221. 17s. and a
terson naaied Dale, a partners Of the defendants., gave
a bill of exchange for the money: Dale sub-
tlaently became a bankrUpt, and the bill.was dis-
floured ; but the plaintiff proved his debt under
„
Commission, and received a dividend of 21/.
e ~ -ow sought to recover the balance of his ac,
145unt from the defendants.
Mr. Sergeant TEDDY called evidence to prove
!nese facts ; after which
Sir. Sergeant WILD stibmitted, that the bill given
by one party exonerated his partners, when accepted
" satisfaction for the debt by the plaintiff; and fur-
Qler, that as the plaintiff had produced the bill in
tvitlenee, he was also bound to prove that notice
,Ind been given of its dishonour to the defendants.
he LORD CHINE' JUSTICS, after several cases had
been cited on either side, said that he Would reserve
paint. His Lordship then charged the Jury,
."110 found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
!001. 17s.

LLEWELLYN V. ESQUILANT.
;This was an action to recover damages for an
"'egal trespass on the premises of the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant TAnDY stated the c,riae to the Jury.
The plaintiff rented a house at Full am from the de-
'elidanr who had neglected to' do certain repairs,
were,which as the plaintiff oonte.ided, absolutely
"de ' cessary and which the defendant had
.agreed to.
f.".. The plaintiff, is consequence of this non-per-
°l.lnance of contract, quitted the house on-the 13th
°lbecember, sending the key to the defendant, and
St the same time a demand for the sum of 131.
Tr other repairs which he had done to the house at
his owe, expellee. On the 19th December the
defendant followed the plaintiff's goods to his new
'esidence, and distrained them, upon which, in the
:lbsenee of the plaintiff, a lady in the neigbourhood
~"ecame responsible for the debt upon .the with-
urawal of the distress,iat the same tune stating that
lbe did so without prejudice. The rent distrained
or was over 111., and it appeared that it was not
due at the time, nor would it be until the 25th of
December, six days afterwards. Independent of
Ws, even if the rent had been de, the distress
Would have been still illegal, for tin statute, or as it
11148 called by one of the witnesses, the statue of
:, George the Second, only authorises that the goods
. may be followed when they have been clandestinely
removed, which was not the case in the present
instance.
Mr. Sergeant SPANKIE, for the defendant, ad-
Witted, that a verdict must pass against him, as
%est certainly his chest had not adhered closely to
' the ealue ci George the Second. (A laugh.)
The /act was he had mistaken the law, no very.
great crime, though the law does presume most
charitably that every one must be acquainted with
it. Yet, notwithstanding this, presumption the
Learned Judge would. tell the Gentlemen of the
Jury, by and bye, that they must take the law from
hit,. Aud why ? because. they knew nothing
4t all about it. (A latigh.) They were
iII that happy state of ignorance, which, not-
Withstanding the presumption of the law, is
enjoyed by ten millions of his Majesty's subjects.
(Great laughing.) The plaintiff must have a ver-
dict, but the only question was, whether it would
be a farthing or a shilling ?
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
,
Ihmoges 40s.