Star.
London, England, 1830-05-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
PREROGATIVE COURT, Her 15.

THE WILL OF TILE LATE YRS. PHILLIPS OF FINCHLET.

KERR V. PHILLIPS AND OTHERS.
This was a question as to the testamentary intentions
of Mrs. Charlotte Phillips, the unfortunate lady whose
sudden death at Finchley, excited so much public atten-
tion a short time since.

Dr. LUSHINGTON supported an allegation, praying
the Court to admit two unfinished papers to probate, as
they contained the intention of the deceased with respect
to her property. The deceased under her mother's will,
became entitled to a sum of .5,0001. and she had executed
a regular will on the 31st of July, 1829, disposing of this
sum in a particular manner. Five days afterwards she
drew up another paper of instructions, containing a dif-
ferent disposition of her property, which she placed in the
hands of a Mrs.Visset, requesting they might be given to
Mr. Scott, her attorney, to be put into a legal form.—
Before this was accomplished, Mrs. Phillips died, and
the admission of these papers to probate was opposed by
her next relative, Mr. Atkinson, who would have been
entitled to the property had she died intestate.
The KING'S ADVOCATE appeared on behalf of Mr.
Atkinson.

Dr. ADDA M appeared for the husband of Mrs. H.
Phillips, and denied that the will of July, 1829, was pro-
cured by undue influence of the husband. He could show
that at the time there was a reciprocal will, and gave the
survivor the other's property.
The J rno E directed the allegations to be admitted.
BOARD OF EXCISE, MAY 15.
CON VICTIONS OF LICENSED VICTUALLERS FOR
HAVING DEER-COLOURING.

John Symonds was charged with having beer-colouring
in his possession, and for adulterating his beer ; the in-
formation contained several counts varying the manner of
the charges, each count imposing a penalty of 2001.
The COURT, after hearing the defendant, mitigated the
penalty of 2001. to 101. hoping that would be a warning.
Thomas Trevillion and Ellen Sarah Ford, joint pro-
prietors of the Rum Puncheon, in Old-street, St. Luke's,
were charged with a similar offence. They were con-
victed in the mitigated penalty of 51.
Richard Connell, a licensed victualler, in Fleet-street,
Bethnal-green, was fined 51. for a like offence.

COURT OF CHANCERY, MAY 16.
EX-PARTE LONOMAN, RE 'HIRST, ROBINSON, AND

CO. B•NKRUPTS.

The Lord Chancellor stated, that in this matter, which
stood for judgment, Longman and Co. had proved, a
debt against the estate of John Hurst and Ogle Ro-
binson, to the amount of 19,0001. and that the ap:
plication to the Court was, that the proof of this debt
might be ordered to be transferred to the estate of
Thomast Hurst, John Hurst, and Ogle Robinson. It
appeared that Thomas Hurst was a partner in the
house of Longman and Co. tho partners of which house
dissolved partnership on the Ist of December, 1825. All
their accounts were settled at that time, and 37,0001. was'
paid over to Thomas Hurst, as his share of interest
in the concern. At this period consequently there was
an end to Thomas Hurst's connection with that con-
cern. Thomas Hurst afterwards became a partner (on
the lat of January, 1826), in the house of John Hurst
and Ogle Robinson. It was not known immediately
that he was a partner in that house. In about a fort-
night after he became a partner in that house the firm
suspended its payments. It was expected that they
would be able to resume their payments, but they were
not, and they ultimately became bankrupts. Before the
dissolution of the partnership of Longman and Co. Tho-
mas Hurst made use of the partnership name without
the knowledge of his partners, to a very considerable
extent, in making promissory notes, and also in ac-
cepting bills of exchange. This was not discovered
till after he had retired from the partnership, the ac-
counts bad been settled, and he had received his share
of interest in the concern. Those bills never entered
into the settlement of the accounts between him and his
partners. Longman and Co. were afterwards under the
necessity of discharging those liabilities. Under such
circumstances there could be no doubt that as between
Thomas Hurst and the other partners of the house
of Longman and Co. there was a claim to the extent
of those bills, and the payments against Thomas Hurst.
The question was, as to the manner in which the produce
of those bills had been applied ? A part of it, according
to the evidence to be collected from the affidavits (which,
however, did not satisfactorily clear up the whole transac-
tion) appeared to have been applied for the accommoda-
tion of Thomas Hurst himself ; another part was undoubt-
edly applied for the accommodation of John Hurst and
Ogle Robinson. But after carefully looking through the
affidavits, the Court could not find that there was any evi-
dence to lead it to the conclusion that any of the produce
had been applied for the joint purposes of Thomas Hurst,
John Hurst, and Ogle Robinson, which would have ren-
dered them jointly liable. Thomas Hurst was liable to
the full extent; John Hurst and Ogle Robinson might be
liable to some extent, but to what extent would be ex-
tremely difficult to ascertain. Thus the transaction
stood, independently of four counter promissory notes,
each to a considerable amount. There was much
intricacy about the counter promissory notes as far
as regarded John Hurst, Thomas Hurst, and Ogle
Robinson ; but it did not appear that the transaction
respecting them in any way varied the liability upon the
former transactions. According to the present state of
the evidence, the Court could not feel justified in ordering
the transfer of the proof; but as it was highly probable
a very different appearance might be given to the trans-
actions, if Thomas Hurst were fully examined before the
Commissioners, his Lordship declined finally disposing of
the matter until Thomas Hurst shall have undergone a
thorough examination before the Commissioners.

1170ATUNATE LAWYERS.--The last week has been
rather unfortunate for Solicitor-Generals. Sir E. B. Sug-
den has been ordered to pay two pounds odd, on account
of his chimney being on fire, though he knew nothing
about it ; and Mr. Doherty has been diddled out of a gui-
nea by the notorious Adey, of Houndsditch.
HYDROPHODIA.--On Thursday a youth about 17
years of age, named William Charles, was brought in a
coach to St. Thomas's Hospital, labouring under the
dreadful disease, hydrophobia. On inquiring respecting
the origin of the disease, it was ascertained that about
five months back he bad a situation in a house of busi-
ness, and while he was taking tea, the cat stole his bread
and butter, and he attempted to chastise her, when she
Sew at him and slightly bit him. He caught hold of
her and carried her to the door, and threw her to a
mastiff dog that was under a truck, and the animal in-
stantly tore her to pieces. It is supposed the cat must
halve been in a rabid state at the time she bit him, and that
the virus has remained inactive for the great length of
time that has intervened. The unfortunate sufferer is
labouring under the most distressing symptoms of the
frightful malady, raving and shrieking, and foaming at
the mouth. It was found necessary to resort to the
strait-waistcoat to restrain him, and his speedy death is
deemed inevitable.