Star.
London, England, 1830-11-10 00:00:00

Mr. CAMPBELL said, the Bill proposed that there should be two
' divisions of the county of Sussex, with two different lista of Juries.—
Now why, he asked, matte a particular code for that county P The
objection that the anuses were held sometimes at Lewes and sometimes
at Horsham applied to Somerseishire, to Surrey, and to many other
counties. Small jurisdictions were detestable, as they were under the
influence of prejudice and partiality. Ho would propose as an amend-
ment, that the Bill be read that day three menthe.
Mr. H. HUGHES seconded the amendment. Redid so, he said, foe
three reasons ; because the bill applied to special, and not at the same
time to common juries; nest, because it applied only to Sussex,
whereas, if a good measure, it should apply likewise to Surrey, in which
the assizes were also held at different places; and thirdly, because the
juries should be chosen when the causes of action arose in the vicinity of
Horsham, in the vicinity of Lewes, and vice versa.
Mr. BURRELL said, that the juries had usually been chosen from
the immediate naghbourhood.
Mr. O'CONNELL observed, that if the improvement was not made
with respect to the common juries, that was not a reason for not makin
it with respect to the special juries. With respect to the smallness of
the jurisdiction, it was not denied that each division would find a suf.
&dent number of juries
After a few words from Sir J. Shelly, Sir E. Knatchbull, Sir C.
Burrell, Mr. J. Wood, Mr. Curteis, lewd Morpeth, and another
member,
Mr. CAMPBELL said, that though his opinion was not changed, as
the sense of the house seemed to be in favour of the bill, he would with-
draw his amendment.

The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed on
Monday.
Petitions against slavery were presented from eight different places in
the county of Derby, by Mr. Munday ; from Selkirk, by Mr. Pringle;
from Stafford, by Mr. Gisborne ; from numerous places in the county
of Norfolk, by Sir W. Folks. ; from a place In Oxfordhhire, by Lord
Honeys • from Harrow.on.the-Hill, by Mr. Hume • from Eye, by
Sir E. leerrison ; from a place in Cornwall, by Mr. Pendarvs..
Mr. SHAW presented a petition from Dublin against duelling.
Lord MORPETH presented a petition from Martyn Stayleton, Esq.
against bribery in elections, and anotber from a private individual against
the flame Laws.
An election petition was presented from Queenborough.—The House
then adjourned at a Quarter to Eight o'Clocit.
LAW REPORTS.
ROLLS' CO[ Nov. 9.
TATHAM V. WRIGHT.
_

Mr. 810170114131 Mia it was his duty humbly to move the Court,
that a new trial on the issue devisavii re, now should be directed in
this case.

MASTZIL Of the RoLts—l wish to apprise you that I have attentively
perused all the Judge's notes of the trial, and that I have made copious
abstracts from the testimony of each witness, to which I can, if news.
airy, refer.
The particulars ofthis case have been frequently before the public, it
is therefore only necessary to state that Mr. Brougham and Mr. Duck.
worth were heard in support of the motion, and Mr. Bickersteth and
Mr. Pollock against it. The Master of the Rolls gave the tbllowing
judgment:
His Honour, in giving judgment on this important case, repeated
that he had carefully read over all the Judge's notes, abstaining, how.
ever, from his summing up, because he considered the canvassing of it
unnecessary to his decision. The testator in this case had been in the
constant habit of communicating with men of business end intelligence
in his county, and he had been engaged in and concluded a vast number
of important transactions with them, executing bonds, mortgages, &c.
making and receiving conveyances, in all which the soundness of his
intellect had been amply proved by the best evidence. The only diffi-
culty was, whether the principle of Bootle and Blundel applied to this
case ?He (the Master of the Rolls) was of opinion that it did not. In
this case, the evidence was not to apply to one period or transaction, but
to the entire life of the testator ; the testimony, therefore, of those who
signed his will, who might never have seen him, or known any thing of
him, was of little comparative importance. The general evidence was
quite sufficient for the necessities of the case. Under these circum-
stances, the conscience of the Court had been sufficiently informed, and
he should not grant a new issue. It had been sail, in the course of the
arguments, that an ejectment could not be brought on account of an
outstanding legal estate. He rather considered that that difficulty might
be got over by an application to the Court.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH,• Nov. 9.
! (Sittings in Banco.)
The civic officers came into court about 11 o'clock, and the Rs-
CORDEa handed in the usual warrant to Mr. Le Blanc, which was
read and ordered to be recorded.