Star.
London, England, 1807-12-14 00:00:00

WI7 CHCRAIT AND .SORCARY.

The following account of a circumflance, which
is the fohjed of much converfalion in Kelfo and the
neighbourhood, is communicated in a letter from
that place :
‘, About the middle of lall rummer there were
two webs miffing from the bleaching grnnnd on
Tweedficle„ near the village of Sproniton, the pro-
perty of tw ) perfons in that place, alto a horn fpoon,
belonging t the village tailor's wife. Application
was immediately made to Sandie Atreus, a pre-
tender to witchcraft and divination ; who, being at
that time making overtures of mart iage to a girl of
that place, of fame property, and thinking that the
women might be nfeful in Ailing him to accom-
plifh his pornofe, engaged to tell them who had
Bolen the webs, on condition that they would ufe
their endeavours to flatten the Hymeneal contr.t4l.
The parties agreeing thus to work for each other, a
meeting fhortly after took place ; and the fymbols
of incantation were a family Bible and a key. The
owner of one of the webs fat down with the Bible
on her knees, with her fon on one fide, and her filler,
who loft the fpoon, on the other. The Bible wa,
opened at the 15th Pfalm, when a particular verfe
was pointed to by Sandie, and the key was fulpen-
ded on the fore fingers of two perfons on each
fide of the bow of the key, ftraight above the Terre.
Every thing being thus prepared, Sandie bended
his knees before the woman with the Bible on her
knees, and pronounced an incantation prayer. He
then delired her to name the perfon fhe fufpeBed of
taking her web ; if fhe was right, the key would
vibrate. She did fo, but the key remained fleady.
She named a fecond, but no movement. On nam-
ing a third, however, the key vibrated, and Sandie
declared him to be the thief. The fame folemnity,
was ufed for the other web and the horn fpoon, and
the thieves •Ivere all (garnered !—No fecret was made
of the affair, and the individuals were branded as
thieves on the infallible evidence of five or fie phfons
feeing the key vibrate on their names being men-
tioned. As there is a procefs for fcandal and defa-
mation commenced againft the parties, this bufinefs
will undergo a judicial inquiry, when Sandie may
probably he further inftruiFted in the black art than he
has any defire to afcertain."

LAW I ‘TALLIGANCE.

COURT OE CHANCERY, Dnc. is.

ANDREWS, &C. N. MOWBRAY, &C.

Mr. LEACH was heard for the defendantc, and Mr.
RICHARDF, in reply, for the plaintiffs.
The LORD CHANCELLOR Paid he would give judg.
ment in this cafe on Tuefday, the cafe of Pickett v.
Logan, liandinrfor Monday.
SLAVERS V. WINKLES, &C.

The plaintiffs in this cafe were the devifees in truft
under a will executed in the year 1835, by a gentle
man of the name of Smith, who poffeffed confider.
able property in Weftmir►fter.
Two of the defendants were the truftees under
that will, a third was the teßator's heir at law, and
the other defendants claimed to be devifees, under a
fubfegnent will executed by the teftator at a period
when, as the plaintiffs contended, he was incapable
of making a found and rational conveyance of his
property.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY for the plaintiffs Rated, that
an iffue would be neceffary to try whether the deed
under which the plaintiffs claimed, or that lad exe-
cuted by the teltator, ought to regulate the fuccei
lion to his property. The plaintiffs would have tried
this point by bringing an ejeCtment againft the
tenants, but the trt►ftees under the former will had re.
fufed to concur with them, in confequence of which
they had filed their bill, to have t}.e mutters compel.
led to lend their names to the aftion, and the other
defendants to recognize the plaintiffs' right.
Sir A. Picovr [ubmitted, that there was no necef-
fity for bringing the other defendants into this Cow t.
All that could be neceffary for the plaintiffs was, to
have the nukes in the will under which they claim-
ed compelled to lend their names to the ejeCtment
to be brought by the plaintiffs.
The LORD CHANCELLOR Paid, the 'dell way would
be to direa an iffue as to the teilator's property, De.
vifavit ve/ ace ?
Sir SAMUEL Rom ILLY contended, that there was
one °Nation to this mode of proceeding. The heir
at law did not °Neel to the will under which the
plaintiffs claimed. If the devifees under the fubfe
spent will did not admit the execution of the will
on which the plaintiffs claimed, it would be forcing
them to go through all the formalities of proving it,
and in that manacr of trying an iffue which d;,l not
arife between the parties.
The LORD CHANCELLOR ordered that the iffue
Mould be t► the fecond will, which it would thus be
incumbent on the claimants under it to fuppott.
PURCELL 'D• MACNAMARA.

Sir SAMUEL Roreicuy was heard, in part, for the
plaintiff, on the only two remaining exceptions taken
by the defendant to the Mallet's Report, by which
the Mailer had reinfed to allow, the defendant credit
for two fums of zccol. and of 14.3r71. los. to a
moiety of which the late Lord Chancellor (Erfkine)
and the Matter of the Rolls were of opinion the de-
fendant was entitled, and which now came to be re-
argued before the prefent Lord Chancellor. To be
farther proceeded in on Monday.

PREROGATIVE COURT, DOCTOR'S COMMONS,Dtc. 12.

MILL V. MILL AND LESLIE.

This was a queltion refpeaing the two codicils an.
hexed to the 1411 will of David Mill, Efq. late of the
city of Bath. deceafed. It appeared that the de
ceafed died on the 29th of December, 5804, poffelfecr
of a large perfonal dilate in the Mind of Carriacou.
He made his will and four codicils, and in the third
codicil named his brother, John Mill, and Dr. Brown
Mill, (then Dr. Brown) executors. The original
will of the deceafed was dated December 5, 1791 ;
the firll codicil the 20th of July, 1799 ; the fecund
the 13th of September, 1830 ; the 3d codicil the
23d of June, 1802 ; and the 4th codicil the zst:h of
March, 1803 ; two of which codicils mere oppofed
by the next of kin, the brothers of the deceafed, and
it was pleaded, and depofed to by a great number of
witneffes, and argued by his Cougfel, that for feveral
years before the death of the deceifed, he was in a
time of great bodily weaknel and imbecility efinifsd,,