Star.
London, England, 1802-05-26 00:00:00

filmed t all with Ms own hand. Here wu *We
voucher, a fat certificate, and a Gbh receipt,ganel
a 1411 drawn uplift the Commitßoners upc.n thefe
falfe charge, of which the defendant had liern
found guilty. So that the Court would fee that
:hey had before Chem three criminals in one.
, Lord Ett.stisorovon.—.. This is an offence of.l
enormous magnitude. Let him fiand committed.'
and be brought up to receive judgment on the ad,
slay of die MIL term."

TVIFSINIVb MAY 25%
FLIZABITV ROWF V. JOHN IlVtgl.P.T.
Mr. Fesetse moved for a Rnle to (hew cattle,
why in this caute the inquifitirn before the Sheriti
Iltonld not be let afide, and a new writ awarded.
on the pound that the damages had been eacef
five, and improper evidence bad been admitted.—
It WAS as anion. he fail, for a breach of promife
of marriage, in which the Sheriff,. Jury. at Ampt-
bill. in the county Southampam. had given
soul. damages. This fnm was totally inadequate
to the rank of the parties. The defendant k:pt a
little pnblic bottle, a*d was a jonrneynian carper-
penter—the lady was of equal rank. Bnt it teem
ed a Schoolmaller was let look before the Jury,
and he gave in evidence, that he had been inform-
ed the defendant had acquircd contiderable pro.
perty, and had alfo married a woman of large for-
tnne. This forret' hearfav evidence, be believed,
was the occafion of the large amount of the da-
maes.
Lord Ett.twarsorun. Then you apply to let
afide the a rit of inquiry on account of improper
evidence having been received, and of the 412.,
wages being exceffive ?
Mr. Easetas. Yes, my Lord, on tbefe two
grounds.
Mr. jnfkiee flame Naked, if there was any ag-
gravating circumft Ince% ! Had the woman beer
(educed .
Mr. Easete v..—No. my Lrrd. The Lady com
iris of no putt' injury than the loft of sone
over. She may dill be delivered over pare into
the arms of another.
I.ned Ettiasoaouont—Take a Kale to Ism
caufe.

SCAMSLfIt V. Witllllsoll.

This mule came on originally before Lord Kiln.
Toe, in the *ape of a demurrer to pleadings in pro.
hibitiou. It ataafe out of the following fads :—A
Mrs. Pearce was-entitled by articles with her bur
band, to make a will, notwitlittanding her cover.
tare; the accordingly. made inch will, but furviv.
lag her buiband, the could of courfe have made a
Witt as afevertefek. She did nor, however, make
any (either will, nor did the revoke that which the
had made daring her avertitre. The quellion was;
whether inch will remaining, unrevoked, could*
eonfidered as her will, after the became a Pews
fole, or whether the was to be conlidered as having
died intefiate. Her Esecuton at Erft took out a
limited probate ; but afterwards conceiving them.
(elves entitled to a general one, they applied
,fur
it. Others of her kin inlilling..that property which
accrued to her after the death of her hniband,
could not pats by a will made during his life.time,
objected to it, and applied to the King's Bench for
a writ of prohibition. Lord Kea von thought the
cafe involved fo much of ecelefiallical juritaiEtion,
that he expreffed his with to hear the opinion of
Civilians upon it. Accordingly this Jay Dr. Law-
rence was heard on behalf of the Plaintiff in pro
hibition, and Dr. Swaby ou behalf of the De-
fendant.
After the Learned Civilians had finithed their
arguments—the Court laid as it Was a new c.aie,
they thould take time to confiJer it.

RIIMNLSSL V. SCAM; WM.
This was a queftion &kb at-if:rig out of a will.
It was whether a fubfequot marriage could he
cunfidered as a revocation of a will, when the
teilator had in converfation anted, that he cone
dercd he had made provirion for his wife and
children by the will as it (tool ?
Mr. liaaaow argued, that as marriage was but
a circumilance which implied a revocation of a
Bachelor's will, that circumfiance might be re-
butted by other citeumilances, which went to
thew that he bad no fuch intention. This was laid
down by Lord Mansfield, in the cafe of Lancafter
v. Lancaller, in which he faid that every thing
might be given in evidence to thew the intention
of the tefiator.
After Mr. SMITH bad argued on the other fide,
the Court direfted it to thud over for further con-
fideration.

HALL V. HANNAH staarrow.
Mr. Glass stated, that the Plaintiff in the eaufe
w.ts one of the Attornies of the Court. The De-
fendant was a poor woman, who conceived that
(he had a claim againff a perfou of the name of
Itobinfon, and in order to recover it, (he applied
to the Plaintiff. He told htr that he Ihould cer-
tainly recover not only her debt but his own colts,
and exprefsly outlet took upon the principle of
no cure se taj. This debt originally had been due
to a Mr. Joel, and he gave it to Hannah Bear-
r How, telling ber the might have it if the could
recover it. But having neglefted to do it, Mr. Joel
had died, and it was found, when the prefeut
Plaintiff Cued for it, that Mr. Joel's Executors had
already recovered it. Finding himfell unfuc-
cefsful. he immediately turned round upon his
poor client,and took her in execution for the colts,
notwithftanding his contraa of so cure :so pa,. Mr.
Grass now moved that tile execution (hould be let
Wide, the Defendant difcharged out of culiody,
and the Plaintiff anfwer the matters of the affida-
vit. The former put of the rule was granted, but
not as to anfwering the matters of the affidavit.•

Duaovott OF CAILOAILVMAIM•
Several informations in re *wreak, were pant•
adasztti perfuns claiming to he Borgeffes of Can.
m on the ground that they had made co-
lourable purchafes, for the Pole purport of %worn-
ing Burgelreb. Among others, it was dated, that
a Mr. Taughan. being proprietor of an inn, calk.;
tbe Bull, -he had aiGgmil it in five turdividet.
fhares. among five }arrow, snott of them his ar•
'fervants, being to each jolt a fuificiesicy to enable(
him to become a Burgois,according.to the amount.
r..no,ired hv tLe CualltativA ofsiss foAough•