The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-22 00:00:00

DECISION IN THE-CASE OF THE
FRENCH POST-OFFICE AGAINST VIVIFR,
ONE OF THE COURIERS OF TIIE LONDON
MORNING PAPERS.
BOULOGNE, Arun, 19.—This case, which excited so muela
interest on Wednesday last, and attracted such a crowd of spec-
tators, on account of the great orator who pleaded the defeqe,
has just been decided against the courier. It appears eitio .
cause has, at the same time, excited the most unprecedented
severity in the conduct and judgment of the French authotsi-
ties, as regards the carrying of letters, &c., for, independent
of the condemnation of the courier to pay a fine of 150 f.
(about 61.) the same penalty has been inflicted upon an English
lady who arrived by the mail packet on the 3d inst., two
letters having been found in her pocket-book. Capt. Wing-
fiield, of the Emerald, London steamer, was also fined the same
sum for bringing a letter directed to a ship-broker, who is the
agent in Boulogne to the Commercial Steam-packet Company
It is highly important this severity should be made known to
the public, to prevent such serious consequences to the nume-
rous English who are now beginning to come to Boulogne, lire.
1 have now only to add the judgment, as pronounced this tray,
by M. Dessaux, the President, and of -which the following it the
translation. I will endeavour to send also the French copy :.---
Considering that it results from instructions that \lcier
transported from Paris to Boulogne, and remitted to Mr. Barryi
of the Marine Hotel, a dispatch of the weight of 355 grammes,
and addressed to Mr. Marsh, Dover ;
Considering that the Article 1 of the decision of the Consuls,
of the 27th Prairial, in the year 9, forbids every person who is
not in the service of the Post-office, to interfere or meddle
with the transport of letters, journals, pamphlets, &c., of the
weight: of one kilogramme (about 21b.), or less; Considering
that this disposition is general and absolute, and makes no dis-
tinctien between those who act contrary to the prohibition
which it establishes;
Considering that it. is of little consequence that Vivier be a
ruarier s/c Commerce, that he was bearer oily of one dispatch,
and that the fact proved against him may be an isolated fact,
or the result of practice or a custom to transport letters and
journals coining from India, and destined for England, and may
have hitherto been practised by courriers de commerce in the
presence of and knowledge of the administration of the Post
Office, and under no opposition on their part, is totally indiffe-
rent, since it arises only from a blameable tolerance contrary to
law ; Considering that in the presence of a clear and precise
legislation, which admits of no exception whatever, it cannot
be admitted that either the administration of the Post-office, or
the Minister of Finances himself, has any right whatever to
grant authority or permission to what the law has not admitted
or forbids.

The Tribunal declares Vivier guilty of having interfered in
the transmission of letters and parcels, and the President, after
having read the articles 1 and 5 of the decree of the. Con-
suls of !a Prairial, year 9 as therein specified, condemns
Vivier to pay a fine of 150 francs and all expenses; and at the
same time makes him liable for six months (per eontrainte de
corps) for the payment of the fine.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

HOUSE OF LORDS, April 21.

The House sat to-day to hear appeals ; the Peers present
were the Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, Lord Cottenham,
and Lot d Campbell,

CHARTER V. SIR J. TREVELYAN.
The further arguments in this part-heard appeal were re-
sumed to-day, but not having concluded when their Lordships
rose, the further consideration of the case was postponed t►ll
to-morrow (this day).

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, April2l.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
lIANC•Ck V. 11ULLMANDEL.
llis Honour gave judgment in this case this morning. It
was an application to restrain the defendant from using a cer-
tain process of printing from stone. for which it was alleged
that the plaintiff had an exclusive patent.
His HoNona refused to grant the injunction, but directed
an issue to try whether the defendant had or had not infringed
the plaintiff's patent, as alleged in the bill, reserving the ques-
tion of costs until the action should have been tried.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, April I.
BRLES V. JORDAN.

Mr. PLATT moved for a rule to show cause why the 'verdict
had in this case, should not be set aside. The case was tried
in London before Lord Denman, and a verdict of 15/. was
entered for the plaintiff. The plaintiff and defendant were
both traveling in the same carriage from Blackwall, and en their
arriving at London Mr. Brees gave the defendant into the custody
of a reliceman for smoking in the carriage, which is contrary
to the bye-laws of the Railroad Company. Mr. Jordan was
taken to the police station at the 'Wineries, and denied tke
charge, and on demanding the name of the person who gave
him in charge, Mr. Brees, who accompanied hint
to the station, refused to give his name. Mr. Drees
then said that he would not press the charge, and
was leaving the station-house, when Mr. Jordan desired the
police-constable not to allow the plaintiff to go till he gave his
name, which he still refused to do, though he was asked sixty
or seventy times. lie was then taken into custody by the
police, for which he brougt.t his action against Mr. Jordara
and the police, and the Jury brought in a verdict of Mi.
against the parties. Mr. Platt now contended that the verdict
was not properly given.—Rele nisi granted.

RAIL COURT, April 21.

11A1tT V. iSAACS.

This was an action for mesne profits.
Mr. MILLAR stated the case. The defendant held premises
of the plaintiff's in Covent Garden, at a rent of 42/., from
which the plaintiff had a power of ejecting the defendant by
giving three months' notice. Legal notice wasgiven, but the de-
tendent held the premises in his possession from Michaelmas to
the •22c1 of January. A witness was called who proved the
fact', and the jury brought in a verdict of M. for the plaintiff.

LYSOL ITN 7' DEI37'ORS' COURT, April 21.
I It/ WILL/ AM PITT.
'the intolvent's petition to be discharged was opposed by
Mr. Wood' offe on behalf of several creditors.
It appeared on his examination that dm ing his confinement
in the Marshalsea prisoner, while in a state of intoxication,
some of his fellow prisoners began "larking" with him, and
threw his hat behind the fire in the prison tap-room. Placed
between the crown of it and his handkerchief, was a promisory
note drawn by a person named Peters in his favour, for 200/.
which was destroyed.

't he Learned CO:►tousstONtat said, that upon looking over
the insolvent's schedule he could see not the slightest allusion
to this transaction. The money was still due to him from
Peters, and it was quite evident that the motives for the
omission were to defraud the body of the creditors. In the
present case he felt very much inclined to inflict the most ex-
treme sentence permitted by the law, namely, three years' int.
p, isonment. The case was then adjourned sine die.

PREROGATIVE COURT, April 20.
IN THE MATTER OF MARY ISAAM
This was a motion for probate to a will of Mary Isaacs, who
died on the 13th of February, 1839, possessed of property to
the amount of 2,0001. The will was dated the 24th October,
1838, and it bequeathes 5001. each to two nieces of the deceased,
and the residue to Mr. William and Mr. Mark Reeve. Pro-
bate was not sought until March last, and then the property
Was sworn under 600/. The registrars refused probate, on the
ground that the will on the face of it appeared to have been
meddled with. The motion now was that probate should pass
to the executors named in the paper.
The LEARNED J LIME, after having heard Counsel in sup-
port of the application, went over the material facts of the case.
It had been admitted that the will had been spoliated by one of
the residuary legatees, with the view of depriving the two
Metres of their legacies of 50U/. each, and the only excuse
offered was, that the party so acting had expected a larger be-
nefit under the will than that actually given. In the Court's
experience it had never had before it a case so strong as the
present, in which not only the legatees were sought to be in-
jured--the bequests to them► having been cut out from the
paper, but in which the revenue of the country was attempted
to oe evaded by the act of the party in question. Indeed, the
Court thought that this was a ease which demanded that the
papers should be laid before the Attorney-General, with the
view that an action might. be brought against the party for
an attempt to evade the duty. The Court most reluctantly must
dieee'. probate to be issued as prayed, but the registrar would
Vat in mind that, in future, wherever the slightest suspicion of'
fraud was entertained, probate must not be granted to papers.
without the Court's attention being drawn to them.
MUDWAY P. CROFT.
In this case an allegation was offered for admission. The
deceased was Ann Wix, who died on the 7th of June, 1841,
leaving personal property of the value of 80,000/. and real pro-
perty worth 970/. per annum. The will of the deceased was
dated the 10th of September, 1830. The Rev. Mr. Wia,now
a lunatic, was appointed residuary legatee. The deceased
left a cousin-germain behind her, Mrs. Itiedway, who, as next
of kin, would be entitled if an intestacy is established.
Sir R. Croft, as counsel for the lunatic, appeared in support
of the will.
1)r. Annams and Dr. DEANE were heard against the ad
miscibility, and argued that if the whole facts stated in. the a. -
les ation were proved, the Court could not grant probate to te,se
palter, the testatrix being afflicted with monomania, especially
holding the opinion that a high dignitary of the Church moan
love with her, and wished to marry her.
Iler It:ajesty's Advocate (with whom was Dr. Jenner)l.was
about to address the Court in support of the admissibilitv, but
was interrupted by
The Coo RT, who at once held that the allegation tav,is en-
titled to admission.
THE DUKE OF DORSET V. LORD IIAWARDENI.
The deceased in this ease, Mrs. Leighton, died in 1841,
having made a will in 1839, by which she gave a. legacy of
1,000/. each to her two cousins, Lord Ilawarden and Lord
Sackvillc. She also appoints Lord Ilawarden and Laird George
Sackville her executors, and the whole point turxis as to the
intention of the deceased in the use of the words " Lord Sark-
ville" in the one place, and " Lord Georg Sackeille," in the
other. The late Duke of Dorset left two sons—Charles Lord
Viscount Sackvillc, and the Honourable George Sackville
Germain, and it is doubted by the parties in the suit, which of
the two is meant. On the one side i'. is contended that Lord
Sackville, though subsequently called in the will •" Lord
George Sackvillc" (for they are adra'Ated to mean one person)*
must be intended for the present Tooke of Dorset. His name
is Charles, but, then, that. would only involve the single
inaccuracy of the Christian nag ie—the " George,"
for the
Charles,"—whereas the other interpretation, that the
Honourable G. Germain is oseant—involves the double. in-
accuracy of the title, which is. wrongly added, and of the
surname, which is misstated. Besides, on behalf of the Duke
of Dorset, it is alleged that g neater intimacy existed between
him and the deceased than be'cween her and his brother. On
the other side, it is argued ttaat the onus of proof lay on the.
Duke of Dorset, who claimed the executorship—that between
opposing probabilities, the probability was on behalf of the
lion. George Germain, who, vhen his brother came to the
Dukedom, might naturally be supposed by a woman, but little
acquainted with the world, to have received the courtesy title of
Lord, or Lord George Sackvillc. In addition to the question
of probability, founded upon evidence, a legal point was raised,.
whether such evidence could be received at all to explain thes
ambiguity of the will.
Dr. Haggard and Dr. Harding appeared for the Duke osff
Dorset, amosr. Addams and Dr. Curties on behalf of Lont
Ilawarden, the other executor.
The Cosa/ had no hesitation in pronouncing, according Sae
hs a precedent
e
case upon the subject, Miler e.•
Travers,
erborunt ambiquitas," might..might..bare
rrt,, that in
thtehe " leading r
explained by evidence, and that the evidence in this cave Imam
strongly in favour of the Duke of Dorset. To him and to,Lord
Ilawarden, as joint executors, probate of the will was accord.
ingly granted.

DR. REID'S LECTURES ON 6IIEMISTRY.-111/ .. series
of Dr. Reid's leetures, which was interrupttd on tin preced-
ing Wednesday by the occupation of the great room is , Exeter
Hall far the exhibition of Dlr. Mullah's singing (iv., es, when
Dr. Reid's disciples were too numerous for any kg?
apart-
ment, was resumed on Wednesday; and we are Kapp! .er _
to say, to
an increased audience, there being not less than 2,6 00 persons
present. Dr. Reid
parsued his explanations upon, the delete-
rious qualities of carbonic acid gas, demonstratinr; its existence
and formation in calcined cinder and coke. D,
eta 7 use were
drawn up before the Professor's platform, the ,14 yarns of the
various fire-places and chimneys now in ordi
, 139,..s and conve-
niences of which were explained by him to a nt eue di
own graphic and instructive manner. • hence in his