The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-26 00:00:00

THIS DAY'S NEWS,

PREROGATIVE COURT.
(THIS DAY.)
(Before Sir HERBERT JENNER FUST.)
The Court sat this morning for the purpose of hear-
ing motions for probate, and other ordinary business.
In the case of the testament of Alexander Petre a
motion for probate was made under the following circum-
stances :—lt appeared that the testator duly executed
before witnesses his will in Rehm/fry, 1843, to which it
was alleged that he had subsequently appended several
codicils, amongst which WAS one said to have been exe-
cuted in th© month of August, 1843, by which he be-
queathed certain personal property to his two executers, i
but on the face of this document, which was written
upon two sheets of paper, the affidavits on the part of the
next of kin alleged that there appears an erasure after
l the letters, 1843 being the date of the codicil, and that a
large space intervened between the termination of the
codicil, on the one side of the sheet of paper, and the
' signature of the testator and witnesses upon the other.
It was farther asserted that this document was originally
intended as a codicil to a will, which will he had made
previous to the date of 1843, and was, therefore, inserted,
and that the testator was unable to leave his house,
or otherwise transact business since 1843.
The COURT in pronouncing judgment said, there was
no proof of the publication of any subsequent document,
beside the codicil became invalidated by the alteration of
the month and year;without due attestation. It had also
been proved that the testator had been unable to leave
his house during the greater part of the year 1843, and
under all the circumstances of the case, the Court felt
bound to reject the motion for probate.
In the case of the will of John Smith, a similar motion
for probate was made, and, after hearing the learned
advocates on both sides, was also rejected.
Several other motions in which there appeared no
points of general interest, were also disposed of during
the morning.

SHERIFFS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
CHAMPION V. WOODGATE.
This was an action for goods sold and delivered, in
which the plaintiff is the landlord of the Kemble Tavern,
Bow-street, and the defendant is an upholsterer in Sey-
mour-street, Somers-town.
atddeeaflei Mr.nn dealings
saCnwht
tmehapliel on
de
haunpodot
hneMrp,
and
niWndt Woodgate
Somers-town.
aDel-dctehmaaphdpeefrar,
said that he had an order for him, and he requested him
to send some goods to a Miss Stoa's,with whom ho (de-
fendant) had often had dealings. Plaintiff said that he
could not credit a person whom he did not know, but if
Mr. Woodgate would be answerable for the money he
had no objection to credit him. Defendant replied that
he bad dealings with Miss Stock to the amount of 301.,
and that he thought plaintiff would be safe in trusting
her. He said also that he had 24, which he would pay
on account. The goods were accordingly sent, and Miss
Stock having sinner hon,,m.) iliavlVent, plaintiff brought
a.,uu. against Mr. Woodgate, to recover the sum of
5/. 55., balance of account.
It was proved by papers put in in evidence, that Mr.
Champion had paid Mr. Woodgate for a feather bed he
had purchased of him, as late as June, 1844, and
Mr. THOMAS, who appeared for defendant, said thatfif the
debt had been between defendant and plaintiff, it would
have been settled at that time, and that if Mr. Wood-
gate had intended to take upon himself the responsibility
of this debt, an agreement to that effect should have
been made in:writing.
The SHERIF?, in summing up, said, that the point for
the jury was, whether or not it was agreed between the
par,ties either that the debt should be paid by defendant.,
if Miss Stock' failed to pay it, or that defendant should
take the debtfupon himself unconditionally. An agree-
ment to pay another person's debt, if they fail to pay it,
was not lawful, unless made in writing ; but if defendant
agreed to pay the debt unconditionally, then be was
liable,

The jury found that the defendant was not liable.

INSOLVENT COURT.—THIS DAY,
Mr. Commissioner Pollock took his seat this morning
to dispose of bail cases and motions, of which there were
only a few upon the list.

IN RE HENRY GALWAY.
This was an application on the part of the insolvent,
who was a surgeon and apothecary, practising in Ken-
sington, to be admitted to bail until the day appointed
for his final hearing.
It appeared by his schedule that the amount of his
debts and liabilities was about 1,7001., and that he was
entitled to the reversionary interest in certain freehold
property in Berkshire, after the death of his wife, which
would more than realise a sum sufficient to liquidate all
his liabilities.
13ail having justified, the application was granted.' The Court then rose.

The Duke of Sutherland, the Earl of Harrovrby,
Earl Talbot, Earl of Dartmouth, Earl of Bradford,
Viscount Sandon, the non. Colonel Howard, Sir J. and
Lady Yardo Buller, and Mr. E. Buller, M.P., have con-
tributed largely to the fund for the erection of a new
district church at Forsbrook and the adjacent village of
Blythe Marie, Staffordshire, the church accommodation
of that densely populated district in the Potteries being
adly deficient,

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, before Lord PENMAN and a
Middlesex Common Jury.)
THOMAS V. LEY; AND ANOTHER.
This was an action brought to test the validity of a
bill of sale given by Mr. Sawyer, an attorney, to the
plaintiff, who is also an attorney, conveying to the plain-
tiff Sawyer household furniture in his house at Herasey.
The defendants were two judgment creditors of Sawyer,
who had put executions into his house at Hornsey,
where they were met by this bill of sale to Tho-
mas. The case for the plaintiff was proved by
calling the attesting witness to the bill of sale, and by
calling the plaintiffs son, who gave evidence as to cer-
tain pecuniary transactions between his father and Saw-
yer. On the cross-examination of young Mr. Thomas,
however, it was elicited that Sawyer himself was in Court;
that he had been subpoenaed by the plaiutiff, but that it
was not intended to call him. Some strong observations
were made on this circumstance by Mr. Watson, in his
address to the jury, for the defendants.
Lord DENMAII having summed up, the jury retired,
and after a short absence, found a verdict for the de-
fendants.

Mr. Platt conducted the case for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Watson and Mr. Sergeant Jones appeared for the de-
fendants.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prius.)
The sittings after term commenced this day,,before
Mr. Justice Cresawell and a Common Jury.
ROBERTS V. TAYLOR AND OTHERS.
This was an action for assault and trespass. The
plaintiff is a widow, whose husband had carried on the
business of a broker and furniture-dealer, in Wink-
worth-place, City-road. The husband died in October
last year. In tho January following, two of the de-
fendants, Harding and another, applied for the rent due
to the landlord, Mr. Taylor, up to that time, and not
receiving it, made a formal seizure of the goods on the
premises, but took no inventory. They then went away,
and in a few days afterwards returned and took an in-
ventory, but again quitted possession. In some days
further they returned and took away the furniture and
some fixtures in a van. They also forcibly expelled the
plaintiff and her daughter, and it was alleged by the
plaintiff's witnesses, that in the scuffle one of the defen-
dants, Harding, bit the old woman in the arm.
Mr. Sergeant Talfourd conducted the case for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Channel! appeared for the
defence.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL, in summing up, told the jury
that the question of the legality of the distress must be
reserved for the Court above, but still it would be neces-
sary for them to find the value of the goods, estimated
by the plaintiff's witnesses at 301. They would also
find what reasonable damages they might consider the
plaintiff entitled to, if they believed that the defendant
Harding so far forgot himself as to bite the poor woman,
in the violence which the resistance offered might other-
wise excuse.

The jury retired to consider their yerdict, and had no
agreed when we went to press.

BARROW v. FRANKLIN.
The plaintiff in this case is a major in the army on
half pay. The defendant is a cab proprietor, and was
married to Major Barrow's niece, with whom he lived
unhappily, so much so, that in the course of two years
she left him, and took refuge with her uncle, who main-
tained her and her child until she obtained a divorce in
the Consistory Court, with alimony of 501. a year. The
plaintiff also lent her 201. to enable her to go into busi-
ness. For the expense of boarding the wife and child
this action was brought.
Witnesses for the plaintiff proved these facts, and the
case was proceeding when we went to press.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, before the LORD
CHIEF BARON.)
MOAT v. DRAMBELL.
This was an action to recover damages for the breach
of an engagement under an indenture of apprenticeship.
Mr. Crowder, Q.C., and Mr. M. Smith appeared for
the plaintiff, and the action was undefended.
It appeared that the plaintiff in the action, who was
a surgeon, became desirous of apprenticing his nephew,
whose father was dead, to some business or profession.
Accordingly, in August, 1842, he apprenticed him for a
term of five years to the defendant, who carried on the
business of a patent axle-tree maker, at No. 6, Allsop's-
buildings, Dover-road. During this time the de-
fendant was to teach, clothe, and feed the nephew
of the plaintiff. Up to the month of December in the
same year the youth was employed in a very humble
department of the business, that of cutting boxes ; but
at that time the business stopped, and until the follow-
ing March he was left without employment. In March
of the following year the defendant commenced business
at Poplar, and, in consequence, the apprentice resumed
his work. He was engaged for seven months in carry-
ing heavy weights from Allsop's-buildings to Poplar.
Some accident then befel him, and he was obliged to
go to his uncle's to be cured. Communications having
subsequently taken place between the plaintiff's solicitor
and the defendant, as to the manner in which the ap-
prentice had been treated, the defendant confessed, in
consequence of the state of his affairs, he was not able
to teach him his business. On being asked to return a
part of the premium, he said he was not in a condition to
do so. Under these circumstances the plaintiff re-ap-
prenticed his nephew to an engineer, and paid a fresh
premium of 80/.
The LORD CHIEF BARON having summed up,
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.—Da
magea 80Z, costs 40s.