The Sun.
London, England, 1827-02-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, FEBRUARY 23.
THE HAUNCH OF MUTTON CASE.
VOOOHT AND OTHERS, v. CASK AND OTHERS.
The bill in this cause had been filed for the purpose of ob-
taining the opinion of the Court, as to whether a particular free-
hold estate in the county of Essex, passed under the will of a Mr.
Vooght. The estate in question had been purchased from a Gen-
tleman who carried on business under the firm of Murford and
Co., and the difficulty in the case was,:whether the testator had made
his will before or after the purchase of the estate in question.
If the will had been made previously to the purchase, the estate
would pass to the heir-at-law of the testator, if made after the
purchase, the estate would go to the residuary legatees. The will
of the testator was signed and attested in the year 1816, but it
did not appear on the face of the will in what part of that year
it was made. The evidence adduced for the purpose of fixing the
date, was of so novel a nature, as to procure for this suit
the name of " the haunch of mutton case." It appeared
that the testator for many years before his death was in the habit
of receiving an annual present of a haunch of mutton, on every
22d of December, from an old friend ; and the witnesses to the
will, proved that in the latter end of the year 1816, they had
attested the will, and that on the same day they dined with the
testator, and partook of a very excellent haunch of mutton, which
he said he had received as his annual present from his old friend.
This evidence clearly fixed the date of the will on the 22d of
December, 1816. In order to prove the period at which the
purchase of the estate took place, the auctioneer who sold it had
been examined. He proved that the sale was effected by him on
the Bth of October, 1816.

Mr. HEALD, who appeared for the heir-at-law, said that how-
ever conclusive the evidence might be as to the facts of the ease,
still, that as his client was an infant, he was bound to ask for an
issue to try the question at law.
The VICE-Cnawczm.on—You are clearly entitled to an issue
if you demand it.—The issue was accordingly directed.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FEB. 23.
THE ICING V. ARCHDALE.
(Concluded from our paper of yesterday.)

The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE, after recapitulating the evidence on
both sides at great length, stated, that this was a most serious
charge, deserving the utmost attention of the jury. The most
material witness against the defendant was confirmed to a certain
extent by the attendants at the baths, who had been called to
prove the fact of the defendant and prosecutor having been to
the same bath-room. The letters that have been produced from
tie defendant to the prosecutor appear to me (continued his
Lordship) most extraordinary and unaccountable, because no
master is in the habit of addressing his servant by such
terms as those of " Dear Frederick," and concluding with " your
affectionate master ;" this appears inexplicable. If you (ad-
dressing the Jury) are conscientiously satisfied that by the evi-
dence produced by the prosecution, the charge is brought home
to the defendant, however severe the consequences may be to him,
you ought fearlessly, according to your conscience, to find him
guilty. But if you entertai.- any rational doubt that the evidence
is insufficient in itself, and also as connected with the defendant's
letters alluded to, you ought then to find him not guilty.
The Jury, after a very few minutes' deliberation, without
leaving the box, pronounced the defendant Not Guilty.

THE KING V. RICHARD ARCHDALE, ESQ.
This was a similar indictment "against the defendant for a
similar assault on the prosecutor on the Thursday following,
the day on which the first assault was alleged to have taken place,
but the Counsel for the prosecution having declined offering any
evidence, the Jury pronounced the defendant—Not Guilty.
The COURT was occupied the whole day with the above trial,
and was crowded to excess, the nature of the charge and the rank
of the defendant having excited an unusual degree of interest.
The indictment had been removed by certiorari into this Court
at the instance of the defendant.