The Sun.
London, England, 1827-07-11 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIQENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

ed for

hoiet•
ik.the
id did

ye 10

Lnding

iayedr
vessel,

n', the

f this
doubt
flt of

r this

I an

Df the
ieter-

r per

1, we,

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
LIBEL.
THE SING V. alcitAans.
Mr. PARK said, this was a criminal information
against the defendant, the proprietor of the Age
newspaper, for a libel on Lord Bingham.
Mr. BROUGHAM stated the case.—This was a cri-
minal prosecution, at the instance of Lord Bingham,
Member of Parliament for Mayo, and a Lieutenant-
Colonel in the army, for certain ribaldrous verses
published in the Age, tending to affix a stigma on
his Lordship's personal courage.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS interrupted the Learned Coun-
sel, and said that he appeared for the defend-
ant, who authorised him to state that the verses
in question were never meant to convey any im-
putation on Lord Bingham's courage, that he
was sorry they should be so understood, and re-
gretted that they should ever have been admitted
into the columns of his paper.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, that as the object of his
Lordship, being an officer in the army, was only to
vindicate his character in the eyes of the public, he
was perfectly satisfied with the apology now made
by the defendant. In the mean time, he should take
a verdict of conviction, and nothing more should be
heard about the matter.
A verdict of conviction, by consent, was accord-
ingly entered against the defendant.

print- COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
GOOD W. LEAKZ.
They Mr. HUTCHINSON opened the pleadings.—lt was
land-
an action brought for the recovery of 165/., being the
balance of a larger sum due for work and labour.
',toted Mr. Sergeant SPANKIE stated the case.—The
of 83 plaintiff, who was a well-borer, had been employed
y the defendant to raise water on his estate, at
other Wimbledon, for the purpose of irrigation. After
leneci•/` the plaintiff had bored to the depth of 400 feet, with-
out effect, the defendant conceiving that he had been
on of misled by him in his anticipation of success, refused
);
to complete the contract or to pay the plaintiff for
the entire of the work already done.
solo- Several witnesses were examined on the part of
ettery •
the plaintiff, and proved that the charges made by
were fair and reasonable; it was at the same
the time admitted that the water did not overflow the
pipes.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE addressed the jury for the
f out defendant, and stated, that Mr. Lemke had been in.. duced to employ the plaintiff upon his own repre-
sentation that water could be found in sufficient
strength to overflow and irrigate his grounds. This
was, in fact, the only object of Mr. Leake, as he
had water enough for every other purpose, already
on his premises. The Learned Sergeant contended that the contract was in fact conditional, and that
as the plaintiff had failed in his undertaking, he was
not entitled to recover.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, that the only
question in this case was, whether the expence of
this unsuccessful undertaking should fall on the
plaintiff or on the defendant.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
mages, 1501.

ate of
ect of
d than
to it.

. .
nuts
6 quet.
hag
tll the
1 they
by the
of the'i,
With
hom-
iest of

ved te ,
,ce heAl
elave°,

capital
e some
en Sir
NEIL

nrning
to the
nce of
Fan-
; no

0111.

numb

or the
irateel
other•
were

tore
melia,
t from
every

same

vessel.

natant,
s they
ention
is plea
e time

en t on

tt the
pose.
tons;
!men,

t
affair,

[robe.

,ck.
a this
!ought;
in the!

msols ;
S6l; ,
The
11a ars

rem. ;

oreign
Sli;
w►tu

luoted

mount,
pm.

BERNASCONI AND OTHERS V. YALLOP.
This was an action brought by the assignees of
Messrs. Chambers against the defendant for 532/.
Is. 11d,, being the balance due on a bill of exchange
discounted by the Messrs. Chambers. The bill was
drawn by Belleni, then the lessee of the Italian
Opera House, and accepted by the defendant in his
capacity of Receiver to that establishment. The
amount of the bill was to be placed to the cre-
dit of the Opera House account.
On the part of the defendant it was contended,
that he was not liable, as there was in fact at this
present moment a balance of over 1,6001. in the
hands of the assignees to the credit of the Opera
Mouse account. On the part of the defendants, it
was distinctly shown, that this balanee had no refe-
rence whatever to the account to which the defen-
dant'a bill had been carried.
The Jury accordingly found for the plaintiffs—
Damages 532/. Is. lid.

S
, 6s;
Mira-
-1 94
1 dis.
e, $0

putes,
in the
irrow,

in a
ng the
India

PREROGATIVE COURT.
IN THE MATTER OF THOMAS JOHN ROBAF IS.
In this case it appeared, that Mr. T. J. Robarts
died at Macoa, in China, in January, 1825, leaving
personal property to the amount of above 90,0001.
A will was executed by the deceased several years
before his demise, and a codicil was also propounded,
dated in 1823, and by which Mr. Robarjs materially
altered the disposition of property made in his will.
By the will, provision was made for an Indian
woman, named Antonina Turner, with whom the
testator cohabited and had several children; and
also for some individuals remotely connected with
him. By the codicil, an increased provision was
made for the testator's wife and children ; whilst the
legacies granted to the Indian woman, and the
collateral relations of deceased, were considerably
reduced. The codicil was transmitted to England
by the deceased, but had never been regularly
attested.
The COURT thought there could be no doubt
that the testator intended the codicil to operate, but
desired that the parties interested should receive
notice in the usual manner.
HIS SERENE HIGHNESS THE LATE ELECTOR
OF HESSE.
In this case Dr. LusurNoToN applied to the Court
to direct that letters of administration should pass to
Mr. Rothschild, to enable him to appear as the re-
presentative of the late Elector of Hesse; who had
lent the sum of 12,500/. to his late Royal Highness
the Duke of York, many years ago. The Duke of
York's property was now in Chancery, where it had
been taken by his Royal Highness's executors, and
the bond which his Royal Highness passed to his
Serene Highness the late Elector of Hesse, had fallen
into Mr. Rothschild's hands, and become his pro-
perty. Unless the Court granted letters of admi-
nistration to Mr. Rothschild, however, he would not
be allowed to prove his claim against the Duke of
York's estate in the Court of Chancery.
Sir JOIIN NICHOL asked whether the present
Elector of Hesse, who was the son and heir of the
late Elector, had given Mr. Rothschild powers of
attorney to administer to his father's effects.
Dr. LUSHINGTON said, that being a crowned head,
the present Elector could not well grant a power of
attorney, but he had written a letter to Mr. Roths-
child, under his own hand, authorising him to make
the present application, which letter was now in
Court.

Sir Joni./ iv
, —zenot. thought,that if Elector
could nou grant a p
ower of Attorney, his principal
Secretary of State. might.
the At all events the Court
cltnithe-e-patiessame formalities in the
was bound toas rief
Present case,
yrhievere in a different sta-
granuipedresented itself was,
tion ; and the difficulty
pr:: Mr. Rothschild,
that if administration was
the Court of Chancery would
the proper person to receive any suinume that he was
to administer his
due to the late
Hector of Hesse, and generally
Property.
Dr. LUSHINGTON said Mr. Rothschild had
no ob-
jection to take the administration with the limitation
of its exercise to his particular claim against the es-
tate of the Duke of York.
The COURT granted the application,
limiting the
administration so granted to the proceedings in
Chancery, and with the understanding that Mr.
Rothschild was not to receive the amount of his
claim on the Duke of York's estate without produc-
Ing an authority from the principal Secretary of
State of the present Elector of Hesse.

l7i
69

IN
71,R CASE OF FRANCES ST. LEGER, DECEASED.
The Covter gave judgment in this case, which
was a question arising on the validity of several
testamentary papers executed by the deceased, who
Was the widow of Colonel St. Leger. It appeared
that the testatrix was a chambermaid in an inn at
tloxham, where the late Colonel St. Leger was then
quartered. An illicit intercourse commenced between
them at this period, and continued for several years.
Colonel St. Leger was engaged in the American
wars and bhe testatrix accompanied him to America,
and after the termination of the war, returned with

him to England. Shortly before Colonel St. Leger's
death, end when he was so feeble as to make it
necessary that he should be carried to church, he
married the testatrix, who thus became possessed of
his property. Soon after Colonel St. Leger's death,
the testatrix began to evince symptoms of mental un-
soundness. Upon the receipt of her diVidends each half-
year, she indulged in the Most absurd extravagances,
constantly hiring pcist-chaises, and gallopping with
great rapidity about the country. She was also ex-
tremely lavish of money to soldiers, or to any per-
sons who pretended to be soldiers, and otherwise
conducted herself with great impropriety, until
1825, when she died at the age of 83 years; having
been found upon inquiry a lunatic for two years be-
fore her death. This eccentric old lady was ex-
tremely addicted to will making, have left no less
than eleven testamentary papers, between two of
which the Court was now called upon to decide.
Under the will of 1821, the testatrix left the
largest proportion of her property to Mrs. Beard-
shaw, the grand-daughter of testatrix, by an
illegitimate son of Colonel St. Leger. Under
the will of 1823, the bulk of the property was
left to the nephews and nieces of testatrix, who were
the heirs at law. It appeared that Mrs. St. Leger
always manifested the greatest affection for Mrs.
Beardshaw, but that she was offended at her mar-
riage, and abused her ; but that they were subse-
quently reconciled.
After considering all the circumstances, the Court
pronounced against the will of 1823, and in favour
of the will of 1821, upon which probate was
granted.