The Sun.
London, England, 1829-07-20 00:00:00

THE LATE DUKE OF ROXBURGH'S WILL.

Mr. IJORNE was instructed to apply fur his Lord-
ship's decision in this case respecting a new trial.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, no verdict, he be-
lieved, could ever be satisfactory to his mind, unless
the evidence of Mr. Dundas was submitted to a
Jury in some way or other. tie had taken time to
consider whether he should order Mr. Dundas to be
examined, and in the result had determined to make
no order, leaving it entirely to the parties to exer-
cise their own discretion on both sides.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL observed, that this was
not a direct order that Mr. Dundas should be exa-
mined, yet that it amounted to this, that his clients
would either have to produce Mr. D. to be exa-
mined upon a new trial, or to give up their estate.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

THE KING V. WEST AND OTHERS.

This was an indictment for an assault on the pro-
secutor, Charles Clark, by four persons, named
West, Jones, Enty, and Lyons, at the Castle,
Islington, on the 19th December last.—Verdict for
the defendants.
JESSOP, ESQ. V. GILLET.

This was an action for the recovery of 281. 75.,
for a year and a half's rent of some chambers, in
Clifford's-inn.

Mr. Common Serjeant DENMAN called a Mr.
Hansworth, the steward of the Inn, who had been
employed by Mr. Jessop to let the chambers, which
lie did to Mr. Gillet. Ile had since let them to
another gentleman; and denied, in his cross-exa-
mination, that Mr. Gillet had ever given him notice
to quit.
To prove that notice was given, the defendant
called a respectable-looking young lady, who stated
that she accompanied the defendant to Mr. Hans-
worth, vhen the former gave him a distinct notice to
quit, and an order to sell off the furniture ‘rhich then
remained on the premises.
Mr. COMMON SERJEANT—Pray what is Mr. Gil-
let: is he a single man ? Witness—Yes, I be-
lieve he is.

COUNSEL—Are you a single woman ? Witness—

Yes.

COUNSEL—How came you to go with Mr. Gil-
let ? Witness—l went with him to select some
furniture for his rooms in Chelsea.
COUNSEL—You live with him, I believe ? Wit-
ness—Yes, I keep the house.
COUNSEL—Oh you are his housekeeper.—Wit-
ness—No, I keep the house where he lodges. It
is my own house.
COUNSEL—Then he lodges with you ?—Witness
—Yes, he has his two rooms to himself.
COUNSEL—But do you not live with him as man
and wife 2—Witness—No, I must tell you that I
was living with Mr. Gillett, in the Inn, while his
sister and his son were with him, and when his
sister left him, my grandmother thought I ought
not to remain any longer living in an Inn of Court
with a single man, and I then took the cottage
where I now live in Chelsea.

COUNSEL—Then Mr. Gillet is your lodger ?
Witness—Yes.

COUNSEL—Pray do you not sit at the head of
Mr. Gillet's table ?—Witness—l sit at the head
of my own table.
COUNSEL—Does not Mr. Gillet sometimes sit at
the bottom of it ? Witness—No. He generally
has his own table, and I have mine; but sometimes,
when he has not prepared, he dines with me, and I
have sometimes dined with him and his son.
COUNSEL—How old is Mr. Gillet and his son ?
Witness—His son is 14, and he is about 44.

Air. DENMAN then contended that this lady had
apparently done all the duties of a wife, and come
to do more, as a wife could not be a witness for the
defendant. He believed that the Jury would be of
opinion, that the accident which sometimes In•ought
them together at the same table, would also bring
them together in some other part of the house where
the grandmother was not by to take care of her,
and when the tendency of human nature might be
as strong in a cottage as the grandmother seemed to
imagine it might be in an inn of Court.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.