Star.
London, England, 1830-11-08 00:00:00

LAW REPORTS.

311CHAELMAS TERM, 1830.
:Before the LORD CHANCRLLOIL. at Weettninster.
Di-nday. Nov. 8, Tuesday, Wednesday. Thursday, and Friday...
Appeals and Re-hearings.
Saturday, Nov. 13—Motions.
ulonday. Nov. 13, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday-
-Ipocals and Re.hearings.
',.itorday. Nov. 20—Stations.
M0.),14y, Nov. 22, Tuesday. Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday—
A rikalb and Re.hearings.
Saturday, Nov. 27, and Monday, Nov. 29—Motions.
A.B. Such days as his Lordship is occupied in the House of Lords
t xrepted.

More the VICE-CIIANCILLOI, at Westminster.
Monday, Nov. 8, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday—Pleas, De.
~.urre,s, Causes, Exceptions, and Further Directions.
Friday, Nov. 12—Motions.
Saturday, Nov. 13— Pleas, Demurrers, Causes, Exceptions, and Fur.
Sher Directions.

Monday, Nov. 15—Motions.
Tueaday, Nov. le, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday..—.
Pleas, lttmuners, Causes, Exceptions, anti Farther Directions.
Monday, Nov. 22--Motions.
Toestlav, Nov. Wednesday, Thursday. and Friday—Pleas, De.
own. IN. Causes, Exceptions, and Further directiosa
:"Artirttay, Nov. 27—Short Causes, Pleas, Demurrers, Causes, Exam.
tions, and Further Directions.

Morday, Nov. 29—Motions.
N.B. On Saturdayv, at throe o'clock, such Bankrupt Petitions u
Parties may agree to have heard.
His Honor the Vice-Chancellor will hear Bankrupt Petitions and
.lotions at Lincoln's Inn, after Term.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. ti.
THE KING V• FEATHERSTON AND OTHERS.

Mr. ATTORNEY•GZIZZRAL applied to make a rule absolute for a
criminal inthrmation, fora libel published in the Wester& 7"siscs, at
Exeter, on October 31, 1829.
Mr. LOLL/TT showed cause against the rule. Ile observed that the
parties had obtained this rule on the ground of a sup ma libel on the
magistracy of me Luton division of the county of Devon. The libel
proceeded from an application which a Mr. Marian had made to the
above magistrates for a license, to open an hotel at Torquay. Mr.
blartelli had applied to several of the inhabitants of Torquay, and had
obtained the necessary signatures. There was at that time only one ho.
tel at Torquay, and that belonged to Sir Lawrence Vaughan l'ulk, who'
exercised a considerable interest in Torquay and Polten ; one of his old
servants was keeping the Inn. Mr. blartelli applied to Sir Lawrence
for his sanction as &magistrate and Sir Lawrence informed him that he
Mud no intention to oppose the application. Subsequently, however,
Mr. Abrahams (Sir Lawrence's steward) informed Mr. Martelli that Sir
Lawrence intended opposing the applicaiion, as, if it succeeded, it
would much Injure Polteo. Mr. blartelli applied to several other
magistrates, who not only said that another hotel was required, but
that tlartclli was a proper person to keep it. They, however,
advised him to get Sir Lawrence's sanction before he applied.
When, however, Martell' applied to the Bench, they refused the appli.
cation. Ile then appealed to the Quarter Sessions, and Mr. Abrahams
intimidated his sureties by telling them that they would have to pay
the cost*. The Quarter Sessions granted the licence. Shortly after
these transactions, the libel in question was published as a letter from a
correspondent, who signed his Wilds. The defendants offered to give
up the author, but the magistrates would not consent to abandon the
prosecution against them on that condition. The learned counsel then
read the libel, which called the Luton division of magistrates" a job.
bing magistracy," and accused them of acting under the influence of
sir Lawrence Pnlk, who was present when they refused the a=
lion, and also of doing their business with elcm doors. The
counsel concluded, by contending that by the magistrates own afli.
davits, they bad conducted business with closed doors, and had been
influenced by other motives than those which the legislature contem.
plated, when the act was passed, "'said influence magisuates under such

The ATTORNEY.OENZSAL lipliga, that the libel WSS on all the
magistrates of the county, and not only on those who sat on the appli-
cation. The magistrates were not bound to proceed against a writer
who did not publish, but preferred going against a publisher who gave
vent to the malice of the writer.

The Court mud they would look into the &Waldo, Wan they
dedda

PREROGATIVE COURT, Nov. 6.
(Before Sir Joint Nicsom. )
VULLOCK V. ALLINSON.

• Judgment was given in this curious will case, the facts of which are
as follow :—The Rev. Mr. Monkhouse, Rector of Brudehurch, Hamp-
shire, died at the age of 70, leaving a will and two codicils, having at
the time of his decease only one sister and her two daughters, entitled to
inherit his property, about 10,0001. as next of kin. The will contained
some most eccentric bequests-1,8001. was left in trust toQuam's College,
to found a school, in which none but bastards were to be educated, and
this bequest was subsequently increased by an addition of 8,0001 Be
left 1001. to the Unitarian Society, and IL to be laid out in pure milk,
to be distributed among the parishioners i also a shilling to the man
who poisoned his dog. The deceased, although a member of the Church
of England, was an avowed Unitarian, having texts of scripture painted
in Greek characters on his carts and on his well, all decla-
ratory of his heterodox opinions. About the time he executed his will
be began to entertain the extraordinary delusion that the husband of one
of his nieces intended to poison him, and had, for a length of time, put
poison into his milk, and had also poisoned a well of water. So strong
was this delusion, that although the subsequent investigation showed
his suspicions to be utterly groundless. be maintained them to the
end of his life. This circumstance, coupled with the bequest of his pro-1
perty away from his relatives, induced his next of kin to dispute the vs.
lidity of the will, offering these facts in proof of insanity.
After the learned Civilians had concluded their arguments, the Judge
minutely reviewed the evidence, and came to the conclusion that when
the will was made, the testator was of sound mind, and therefore
probate must issue. With respect to the codicils they were executed
at a time when monomania bad supervened, though it was not of
sufficitnt strength to invalidate them, but as they disposed of the
real estate, they did not come exactly within the jurisdiction of this
Court, and therefore the Judge decided upon pronouncing neither for
nor against them.