Star.
London, England, 1824-11-10 00:00:00

LAW REIViI:

COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER 9.
Ex-parte AIIDOTTS ire re ABBOTS, A BANKRUPT.
The argument in this case, n hich chiefly affects the
power given by a recent Act to the Lord Chancellor to
hear the motions of creditors in opposition to the certi-
ficate, was continued, and took up the greater part of,
the day. The ground of opposition WAS malver sation
of the bankrupt effects ; hitt the only question of im-
portance was the application of the new power given
in these cases to the jurisdiction.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, NOVEMBER a.
'His Homoua was occupied the whole day in hearing,
the statement of the pleadings anJ depositions in a cause
I t Arkwt fight and Stoveld,' relative to a sale of growing
ti inner, but containing no points of public interest.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WESTMINSTER, NOV. 9.

JOSKETS V. DERNICR.
This was an action by a broker, who bad purchased
for the defendant a number of shares in the Equitable
Loan Society, which he afterwards refused to receive.
—The case was tried before Mr. Justice Littledale, at
Guildhall, when the main question submitted to the
Jury was whether the plaintiffisad used due diligence
in calling the certificates as soon as they were ready ?
The Jury found a verdia for the Plaintiff, but the
Learned Judge reserved an objection taken by the
Counsel for the defendant, that the Society itself was
Meal', as proposing to lend money at a higher rate than
*legal rate of interest,-Uithout legislative sanction.
Mr. Gown* now,oo tbis point, moved for a rule to shew cause
why a neenwitehould not be entered.—The Couassranted the rule.
FORD R. ratstaose,
This was an action for slander on a veterinary sur-
geon, tried at the last Bury Assizes. There were several
counts in the declaration, but only one of them was
supported by the evidence. This count alleged that
the defendant, intending to cause it to be believed that
the plaintiff had committed murder or manslaughter,
spoke these syords--!4 I think. the present business ought
to haye the most rigid inquiry. He murdered his first
wife—that is, he administered improper medicines to
her for a certain complaint, which was the cause of her
death." On this count the Jori fOund a verdict for the
•
plaintiff, with INO damages.
Mr. STORKS now moved fore rule to stew cause why
this verdict should not be set aside, on the ground that
the words set fords were npt the subject of action. In
itself the term ai murder" implied a U)pst serious charge;'
but its whole force was explained away by the subse-
quent words, which might mean that the plaintiffinno-
centlY and benevolently administered medicines which,
contrary to expectation, produced the death of his wife.
The Couaz held that there was no pound for dis-
turbing the verdict. Granting that the import of the.
wards was doubtful, they must consider it as ascertained
by the Jury, who were to judge of the intention with'
which they were spoken. if they were incapable of the
construction given to them in the pleadings, the de-,
claration would be bad; but if they were capable of
such construction, the. Jury wereto judge if they bore
it. They had so judged, and the.C{arct could not hold.
that they had arrived at a *wiong conclusion. They
therefore refused the rule.

CURIOUS CASE.

DOE ON THR DEMISE OF SMITH U, SIR HENRY. SMITH.

Serjeant Fault moved for a rule to shew cause why
the verdict found for the lessor of the plaintiff should
not be set aside and entered for the defendant.—lt was
an action of ejectment tried before Mr. Justice Gaaelee,
at Bury, and this motion was made by direction of the
Learned Judge, under very peculiar circumstances. The
question was, whether there may be a waiver, or dis-
claimer, of an estate for life, without a deed? The les-
sor of the plaintiff was devisee for life of freehold and
copybold property left by Mrs. Brand, in 1813. Sir
George Smith, tl.e defendant, was devisee of the re,
tnainder. The devisee for life refused to take possession
of the property in question, and also refused to receive
a legacy of 500.1.1eft by the testatrix to repair the copy-
bold. The property remained without a claimant for
several years. Sir George Smith finding the estate out
of repair, made application to Mrs. Smith, the lessor
of the plaintiff, to act as landlady and keep the pro.
perty in repair ; but she constantly refused, and for ten
years nothing was done. The Lady of the Manor took
possession of the copybold after three proclamations
and seizure, and she has since been in possession. Sir
George Smith was at last driven to take possession of
the estate, and it was only on his taking possession that
Mrs. Smith proceeded to act under the will. These were
the facts, mid the Court had to decide whether there
could be a waiver clan estate for life 6.1, parole, or word
of mouth. The situation in which the defendant stood
arose from the extraordinary caprice of this old Lady,
who had so long refused to accept the rents and profits,
or take anything under the will.
The Loan 'Os= loves— Was there a tenaqt ?
Serjeant Faaan—The estate was in this condition for ten years,
the tenant paying no rest for the freehold. There was no question
kft to the Jury, because if the Lady could waive the estate by
parole, the right was in eh: defendant. The Learned Serjeant cited
some cases bearing on the question from Brook's Abridginext, and
Sd Derneuellonti Akrva•
The Loan Caner Jusriex—Take a rule to shew cause.
The Lord Mayor, attended by the Recorder, and Aldermen
Waithmau, Wood, and Thompson, came into Court at three
o'clock, and, after the motion that the appointment of Mr. Le
Blanc as their attorney should be recorded, invited the Judges to
dinner, and retired.

ARCHES' COURT, NOVEMBER 9.