The Sun.
London, England, 1842-12-24 00:00:00

OLDFIELD V. COBBETT.

The defendant in this case, John Morgan Cobbett,
is the son of the late William Cobbett ; he has been
for some time detained in prison for contempt of the
Court of Chancery, in not having put in an answer,
when required to pay certain costs of the Court. The
present application was to have the orders by which
he was detained discharged with costs. The applica-
tion came on as a substantive motion, not as an appal,
the case having already been heard and the applica-
tion refused. The point on which the application
for the discharge rested was, that the defendant was
arrested under a writ of rebellion, and that the Com-
missioners made the return of his caption after the
return day ; the question was, whether the Commis-
sioners could legally do this.
Mr. COOPER appeared for the defendant, and argued
the point at considerable length.
Mr. KENTON PARKER was heard against dis-
charging the order, and Mr. COOPER having replied,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had already ex-
pressed the opinion he entertained of the case; if he
should see any reason to alter that opinion, Mr. Cob-
bett should have the benefit of it, and he would let Mr.
Cooper know his determination on the first day of
meeting after the Christmas holidays.

ROLLS' COURT, Dec. 23.
LOCKYER V. DYNE.-JUDGMENT.

Lord LANGDALE gave judgment in this cause to-
day. It had been argued within the last few days,
and the question raised referred to the construction of
a will. His Lordship said he had read the will, and
that it appeared to him that all the nieces of the tes-
tator were comprised in its provisions. The expres-
sions, "the neices and daughters of my sister," ap-
peared to his Lordship to be used as convertible terms,
and if there was any ambiguity arising from the terms
" children of my said sister," in one part of the will,
it was entirely removed by the generality of the fol-
lowing words, " if no daughter of my said sister should
be then alive." His Lordship, therefore, thought that
all the neices of the testator were included in t'Ae
terms or expressions in question, and he did not find
in any part of the will any words which appeared to
indicate an intention that the interest given to the
nieces should be contingent ; and he was of opinion
that they were vested with the interest subject to be
diverted in case of an event which had not happened.
It appeared, then, to his Lordship that the residue was
to be divided among the four parties.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 23.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius at the Guildhall, before Lord
DENNIAN and a London Special Jury.)
DAILEY V. TRUBNER.

This was an action brought by a stationer against
the Director of a proposed Insurance Company, tc,
recover a sum of money alleged to be due for sta.
tionery supplied by him to the Company. The defence
was that the plaintiff was a shareholder in the Cora_
pang, consequently a partner, and that therefore he
could not maintain his action.

The facts of the case were not disputed, and the
Jury, under the direction of Lord Denman, returned
a verdict for the plaintiff, subject to a motion far a
nonsuit on the grounds of partnership.
(Before a Common Jury.)
POTTER V. STUART.

BREACH OF PROMISE OF INIARMAGE.—TII;4 Was an
action brought by the plaintiff to recover cowipen-
sation in damages for an alleged breach of promise
of marriage. _ _ _

Mr. HUMPIIREY, for the plaintiff, said the parties
were both in a humble station. The plaintiff,
Catherine Potter, who was twenty-five years of age,
was the daughter Zof a hair-dresser living at Ken-
nington, and the defendant was a farm-servant living
at Sydenham. The plaintiff had lived in the service
of Mr. Deans, a farmer of Sydenham, as housekeeper,
where she had become acquainted with defendant,
who was eventually received by herself and her
friends as her acknowledged suitor. So far had the
affair proceeded that the banns of marriage were
put up between plaintiff and defendant, and
on the very Sunday on which they were asked
for the last time the banns of marriage between
the defendant and another woman, to whom
he had since been married, were published
for the first time. The defendant had taken advan-
tage of the plaintiff, and had, und,r cover of this
promise of marriage, seduced her. Mrs. Saville, in
whose service plaintiff was at the time, having dis-
covered she was in the family way, sent her home
to
her friends but such was the high opinion that
her mistress entertained of her, that she was willing
to
of
:ad into her service, as sheg
wouldsa..:tkne
the misery she had endured
brother eagese
It was for the Jury to
ci
in
consequence
ftledefen-
dant's misconduct. The 'A'a
en
entitled
the father, sisters, and
f the. plaintiff, and
Counsel then ealled
Plaintiff had lived,
Sav Saville,
oe ipnrytoh...(-17
hseisrvciacsee.
purposefaolrsothleirs.
They were severally cross-examined by Mr. CHIL-
TON for the defendant, who elicited from them the
facts that plaintiff was about twenty-five years of age,
and that a young man named Roots had walked
home with her from Kennington to Sydenham after nine
o'clock at night. It also appeared that the defendant was
twenty-four years of age, and that plaintiff had been
told that defendant was engaged to be married to his
present wife before plaintiff became acquainted with
him.

Mr. CHILTON, for the defendant, admitted that it
was impossible to call upon the Jury to give a verdict
for him, but he submitted that the smallest possible
amount of damage would satisfy the justice of the
case. It was preposterous that such a case should
have been brought forward in that Court. The ques-
tion for them was, what damage had the plaintiff sus-
tained by not marrying the defendant? She was a
servant of all work, he was a farm-servant; and as to
his property, there was no evidence of it whatever.
Her child, it appeared, had been born in September,
so that the intercourse mu!t have taken place soon
after her arrival atDean's farm, and soon after she had
been t. old that he was engaged to be married to an-
other. If the child were really Stuart's, they might
have gone before a Magistrate, and she could have
compelled him to maintain the child. The father
might have brought his action for seduction, but here
they were left to guess as to who was the father of
the child ; and they had no right to let that weigh in
the consideration of the damages due to her for this
breach of promise of marriage.
Lord DENMAN summed up, and the Jury returned
a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 101.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 23
the sittings j
inurLiesondoi
theThPorbdeiCnghietfheJlua.sstticdeav of
and Common
dis-
posed of the greater part of the remaining cause-
the paper in the course of the morning.
in
MORTON V. VIRTU-
The defendant in this cP-- . - ......
seller and publisher '
_...0 is the eminent book-
The plaintiff - . in lyy-lane, Paternoster-row,
sub: w
kiners for his "'as employed by Mr. Virtue to obtain
pu'blications, and the present
action was brought to recover
an alleged arrear of
twenty pounds for commission, The -plaintiff's case
was, that he was entity to a premium of five p , cent. for each customer whom he procured, as well or
as
1
a percentage upon the sale of boos
In the course of the examination of the plaintiff's
witnesses, the Counsel on both sides conferred, and
Mr. Sergeant BOMPAS for the defence said that, as ther, case was one of some difficulty, and his client attached

no importance to the question of costs, one way or the
other, he was willing to withdraw a Juror, if the
other side consented to that termination of the case.
He thought it would be the best way for the plaintiff,
at least as he could hardly expect a verdict from the
case which he had so far laid before the Court.
This proposal was ultimately accepted, and a Juror
was withdrawn.

YOUNG V. FISHER.

This was an action brought by an attorney against
a client, to recover the amount of three bills of ex-
change for 20/. each, which were given for his ser-
vices as an attorney, and for a further sum of 71. 10s.,
for subsequent services. The defence was that the debt
was covered by the bankruptcy of the defendant, and
that the bills were accepted for the accommodation of
the plaintiff, and that the services for which the ad-
ditional sum was claimed, were rendered before the
plaintiff had taken outhis certificate, and he was there-
fore not qualified, and could not recover his costs.
• Verdict for the plaintiff.
The Court then adjourned to Wednesday, Jan. 11

COURT OF BANKRUP7'CY, Dec. 23.
IN RE HANNAH CHARLTON.

In this matter the bankrupt had carried on busi-
ness as a milliner and dress-maker in Regent-street.
Mr. WurrEnunsT appeared on behalf of the assig-
nees to-day, to cause an account to be rendered of
certain goods which she had got from Mr. Tinkler
shortly before her bankruptcy, and which she had
allowed to be taken back again by that gentleman.
The Learned Counsel went on at great length to con-
tend that she had been guilty of a fraudulent prefer-
ence towards Mr. Tinkler, and that she should not be
,entitled to pass her final examination until the pro-
perty was satisfactorily accounted for.
Sir CHARLES WILLIAms said he was sorry the word-
ing of the new Act of Parliament was so forcible.
In his opinion the word fraudulent was quite inappli-
cable ; it would be much better if the term illegal were
used. The present question was too important to be
decided hastily, and he should therefore defer the
judgment for the present.
The further examination was then adjourned, ten
days' notice being required.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Dec. 22.
BLAKE V. KNIGHT.

The deceased, in this case, was Mr. Edmund Blake,
of Weston-super• Mare, in Somersetshire, who died
on the 17th of December, 1839, leaving a will, dated
the 6th of September, 1838, whereby the bulk of the
property, after paying an annuity of 1501. to the
widow (since deceased), was bequeathed to Mr. John
Knight, the sole executor. The property was sworn
under 7,0001. Probate of this will was granted in
common form to the executor, on the sth of January,
1839. On the 19th of February, 1842 (after the
death of the widow), the probate was called in, and
the executor was put upon proof of the will, per teste,
at the suit of Mr. John Blake, a brother of the de-
ceased, as one of the next of kin. The will was at-
tested by three witnesses—a father, his son, and his
apprentice—who deposed, upon their examination;
that (although the attestation clause purported that
the will had been signed, sealed, published, and de-
clared in their presence) they did not see the deceased
sign the will, and that they could not depose that it
was signed when they attested, and they were certain
it was not sealed. One of them (the father) stated,
that when they came to attest the will, the deceased
said, " This is my will ; it is a small will ; it is all
on one side ; will you sign (or witness) it ?" Another
deposed that the deceased read some part of the will
at the top and at the bottom. The question was,
whether the requisites of the Act, in regard to attesta-
tion, had been complied with.
Dr. Addams and Dr. Elphinstone defended the va-
lidity of the will, and Dr. Haggard, with Dr. Harding,
for Mr. Blake.

Sir H. JENNER FUST said, this was too important a
question to he decided at once. The Court must act
on the words of the statute, and could only look at
the consequences of its decision in order to make it
more certain that it cannot avoid them without viola-
ting its provisions. If a will could in this manner be
invalidated after probate has passed for several years,
no executor would he safe in taking probate of a will
in common form; he (the Learned Judge) would not
do so. He must consider his judgment.