Star.
London, England, 1830-07-28 00:00:00

LAIV REPORTS.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Jut's' 27.
EXPARTE HAWKINS, IN Till MATTER OF HOWARD AND
GIRDS, HANIIIIIPTS.
This was a petition arising out of the annuity transactions of the
present Duke of Alai'borough when Marquis of Blandford, with
Messrs. Howard and Gibbs.
Mr. ROM stated that this was a petition for a new trial of the
issue that had been formerly ditected in this case. In the year 1815,
Mr. Hawkins having some money which he wished to lay out in
annuities' applied to Messrs. Howard and Gibbs, and they sego.
dated with the Marquis of Blandford an annuity, which had not
been paid, and money, which it was pretended had been paid to the
Marquis as the consideration for the annuity, was simply a con-
veyance of the money from Messrs. Howard and Gibbs to the Mar-
tiuis and back again, merely for the purpose of giving the transac-
uon the colour of being bona fide. The Learned Judge at the
trial charged the Jury, that if the money was at any time in the
control of the Marquis, they should find for the defendant. He
(111 r. Rolfe) submitted that this was essentially wrong, and there.
fore there ought to be a new trial.
Mr. Horne, for the assignees of the bankrupts, said that the
whole truth of the case was, that Mr. Hawkins wanting to get ra-
ther more than ten per cent. for his money on annuities, applied to
Messrs. Howard and Gibbs, who negotiated the transaction with the
Marquis; and pending that negotiation, discounted bills for the
Marquis, which were taken up by that noble person, when the
money, which was the price of this annuity, was paid to him.
There was no pretence fur saying that Mr. Hawkins was not aware
who was the grantor of the annuity, and therefore there was no
ground for this petition.
The Lord Chancellor said it appeared that the money was under
the actual control of the Marquis of Blandford, and therefore the
petition must be dismissed with costs.
lITANYPORTH CANAL COMPANY V. LORD MANTRAS AND

His Lordship directed two issues in this case, the particulars of
which have been stated; the first to try whether the works pro-
posed by the defendants, consisting of a floating boom and fender
piles, at the mouth of the warping drain, would have the effect of
removing the obstruction to the navigation, which it had been the
object of the injunction to prevent; and secondly, whether, if they
were not sufficient for that purpose, the use of the other expedient,
consisting of a rope fastened to a pile on the bank, would be effec-
tuaL

Mr. Solicitor General said he hoped the plaintiffs would not insist
upon this as a preliminary step ; but that they would permit the
effect of the new works to be tried, and if they should be found
sufficient, that they would be content with them.
His Lordship said he had before suggested the propriety of this
measure; and, as a security, the defendants might deposit a sufficient
sum to indemnify the plaintiffs against any injury that could pos-
sibly be occasioned by the use of the warping drain. If this, how.
ever, did not meet the views of the parties, the issues must be tried.
The parties did not come to an understanding on this point, and
the order was therefore made.

LEAk V. LZGOITT.
This appeal was heard, the question being whether a legacy which
had been given with a declaration that the bequest should be void
if the legatee aliened it, had been forfeited on his becoming bank.
rupt ; and whether his assignees, or the parties to whom it was
given over by the will, were entitled to it. The Vice-Chancellor
had decided that the alienation, by means of the bankruptcy, not
having been by the act of the legatee, but by the operation of law,
the legacy was not forfeited.
Mr. Horne and Mr. Knight were in support of the appeal.
Mr. Sollcitor-Creneral and Mr. Wigram supported the original
decision.

Mr. Wood appeared for the trustees under the will.
His Lordship decided that the operation of the bankruptcy. by
which the assignees had become entitled to the legacy, was not such
an alienation as had been contemplated by the provisions of the
'will, and that therefore the legacy was not forfeited. He therefore
dismissed the appeal with costs.
ROLLS' COURT.
_ _ NUCILLNY AND DEE. _ _
_ __

The MArrxß of theliom.i;elktisatiethought he must con-
alder the property in this case as equitable personal property, and
asked Mr. Wray whether he had found any authorities on the
subject.
Mr. WRAY cited several cases in which personal property had
been forfeited on the possessor being convicted of felony.
The MArrER of the ROLLA said, that on the authority of the
cases cited, he must declare the property here to be forfei te.

ANSLEY Y.BAINBRIDGE.
In this cave it appeared that, on the marriage of Bainbridge, sen.
of the firm of Bainbridge and Brown, a settlement was made, under
which a sum of 40001. was secured to his son, under a deed of trust
and by a bond. Bainbridge sen. having been executor to both the
trustees to this settlement, the bond came into his hands and re-
mained there, forgotten, until the time of his death. Bainbridge,
jun. having been taken into the partnership between his father
and Brown, fell into a course of extravagant expenditure, and drew
upon the company so much beyond his own share, that in the year
1817 he was indebted to the firm in a sum of 19,0001. This debt was
taken upon himself by the elder Bainbridge. In the year 1822 the
son again became a debtor to the firm to the extent of 12,000 L
Bainbridge, sen. also undertook the liability of this sum on condi-
tion of the son resigning his share in the concern, and receiving
6001. a year in further consideration thereof. The father having
died, the bond for 4,000!. came to light; and, in the administration
of his assets, the question in the case arose, namely whether the
payment of the debts of the son, which had been undertaken by the
father, should be considered as a satisfaction for his interest in the
debt ?

His Horrous decided, after an examination of the authorities,
for the affirmation of the proition.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JULY 27.

DE BEAUVOIR V. RHODES.

Mr. KNIGHT moved on the part of the plaintiff, for an order of
the Court directing the defendant to pay into Court for the benefit of
the plaintiff, 11,0001. being the balance which appeared upon the
Master's report due to the plaintiff.
Mr. PEPTII opposed the application, on the ground of there being
objections to the Master's report, which should be discussed before
the Court came to any discussion on the subject.
,
The Vice CHANCELLOR thought that it would be advisable to
appoint an early day to hear the exceptions.
It was ultimately arranged that the arguments upon the excep-
tions should take place on Thursday, subject, however, to an appli.
cation being made by Mr. Pepys to have the matter discussed at a
future day.

rCE.

HOME C I RCUIT—CH ELM SFORD, JULY 26.
Lord TarrEnnEw opened the commission here this afternoon,
and will proceed, with Mr. Baron Ciannow, to the despatch of bu.
siness to-morrow morning. There are about fifty prisoners for
trial ; but, with two or three exceptions, the charges are not of an
aggravated nature. One prisoner stands charged with having stolen
a gown, another with stealing a pair of women's high shoes, and a
third with stealing seven hen's eggs. It is not known ♦et on what
day Captain Moir will be tried. It appears that since his committal
he has conducted himself with great propriety, and gained the good
will of those who have intercourse with him.

NORFOLK CIRCUIT—BEDYOID, JULY 26.
Isaac Birdsey was charged with stealing divers articles, the pro.
pat of William Boughton, of Malden.
Mr. Smith, in stating the case for the prosecution, observed that
he did so with considerable pain, for very little more than a seek
bad elapsed since he had, at the Sessions, prosecuted to conviction
the same individual for a similar offence against the same complain-
ant, who was related to the prisoner. His object then and his ob-
ject to-day, was not so much punishment as security, for the indi.
vidual at the bar was wholly unfit to be at large. He had witnesses
in Court to prove the use, and, should his Lordship think that a
felony had been committed, he had other witnesses in Court who
could prove the prisoner to be not only insane, but dangerously so
to every body around him.
At the close of the case foe the prosecution, and before calling the
witnesses to insanity, Mr. Justice Littledale said, he did not think
the felony bad been sufficiently proved to warrant a verdict of guilty.
The inquiry, as to the state of the prisoners mini, he could not,
therefore, allow to proceed. Upon the present charge the prisoner
must be acquitted, as it was impossible to say that, under the circum-
stances detailed by the witnesses, the property had been taken
feloniously.
The Jury returned a verdict of acquittal.
The prisoner, whose fierceness of look strongly indicated dan-
gerous derangement, asked one of the witnesses whether she did not
see him eat a quantity of raw pickled pork, which was part of the
property taken ? She said " No; but he gravely persisted in
asserting that she did.
It was understood that the prosecutor would either immediately
Institute an inquiry before Magistrates, under the statute, or exhibit
articles of the peace against the prisoner. He declared that he dared
not return home, nor any of his family, unless some such step was
taken.

Early yesterday morning a young gentleman, named
Hart, was drowned in the Serpentine, having become entangled in
the weeds, after saving the life of a companion who had been in
imminent danger.
On Thursday evening week, a boy of the name of
Smethunt, having driven a tub with too much farce to the mouth
of one of the Werneth coal.pits, near Oldham, both were pl.
toted into the pit, and the boy wail killed on the spot enohes.
ter Tows.