Star.
London, England, 1824-07-08 00:00:00

ilia £ISQ V. iINCHAfd AIID COOPLI.

These defendants, convicted at the law Sittings Of an assault on *
woman, were sentenced, Fincham to pay a fine of oi. and Cooper to
pay a One of a and both to give security for good behaviour
during three years.

THZ ZING U.

CoradiusWilliston°, *barged with assoshogkter, in killing o mass
is a public-bolue squabble, was ordered to be bailed in tbe county
of LaaCaatar, es essalos Into a magazine, of SOL said finding
four modes la 1101. oaeb, for his *prams* at the next Assizes.

EK TKIt KATTZEI OF 1111111111 EFT.

Mr. Comm, applied ea behalf of a mated Bennett, now
a primmer ia the ea 11,1 yet the that be abould be admitted
as the Meek et the hits. He was eonvicoodaf beeping a contuses
paiteheme. and steleased to pay a hoe et 111001. and to be inn.
primed Our twelve teethe. The term e/ impristmesent bad ex-
pired. aid be now retnalsed in custody ter she leo *sly.
The Omer asked If die appliersioet was medics spatial grounds?
Kr. Coeval', replied, die k was, as there were Admits of two
oohed roes that Mr. Ilmeatt was la a very bad Mgt of bad&
The Cowart deelined a lay down an paural rule as to the snow.-
wee dth s Amer to peeewe dtteieed is rime be tee, but di.
sewed that arule altedd be drams er se rain the acti-
vist', she stria' am, the die Mme be at liberty to grant the
bask prayed Ihr odes veglhast, di the kora day Item Term.

IBROWif V. MURkAY.

This was an asks splint Mr. Marray, the publisher of the
OMNI* Urethrae, tar certain ~libels. en the thereon of the
'Midi ha that iiiened. The Menem pleaded the general Woe,
and aim a josdlicedess that the mews set Ise* he the article corn-
d were true. On a former day a Meuse obtained en his
Cto thew cause why a amendedis shoeless' bees to examine
Eft 11P. ileakey. sad Load F. Oilmen% in the beim blew* on a
seggeities that they bad feraltheil the leihnoothea es which the
paragraphs were *anis&
Azalea this ante the COMM illaanairr and Mr. laireenam
now *awed esime,exprembi their conviction that the diniatiebhed
penes, refereed en bad sat sanded the matter complained 4 and
' urging that she tripennien wee made too late, as the amiss was
beemibt en the Ida Awe. Thetalso contended thatos it had
Ibsen kid diem by same iserned Moe, tint bedew a party Feb-
SEM mew dseametery el the am*.t ef anetber, be obeeld be
his witnesses to *Wy it! the delmileat amid ass
=a with
the rashael waYsisaiW he bad ventured to pub.
If. baweres, tbe Cam Amid be &posed to make the nit
*seism, they teemed it wail be wa die dandbites that the dohs-
dam sheekt admit the yoblielden NS the midi
Mr. Pose, M support of the ode, centoiall That the
was mad* is des, as the issue was 11111, day =111:e
modes was soda Mhe was
The Coons intimated as dist tub eight te be made
absolute, on the detendam the yebdeados oldie snide.
Mr. Pau assented, and se these teems the vale fora Ciao
Edition was made absoixte. •

peaked that one of the defendants bad acknowlediF:
debt within six years. The question now for AO
of the Court was, whether this admission was s •at
to bind the other defendants?
The Loan CHM JOSTICS this morning pronounced
the judgment of the Court, which was, that the other
defbndants were bound by the admission of one of theta.
This opinion, he added, was founded on the nature of
the Statute of Limitations; the effect of ati atinow-
ledgment under that statute being to revive, and not to
create a promise to pay. The promise, under the Cir-
cumstances of the ease, *as revived suiciently to make
all the parties liable.
PREROGATIVE COURT, JULY 7.
RICO 10. MUIHRTT.
On a former day•
the evidence in this case was rend
and Counsel heard it respects the validity of a will
made by a Mr. W. Litchfield, formerly of London,
upholsterer,who died on the 81st of May, 1819, leaving
behind him a property. at the time of his decease, es-
timated to be worth 50,0001. (personalty), and a real
estate of the yearly value of 3001. but in the hands of
the Accountant• General of the Court of Chancery, the
accretions have enlarged the personalty to the amount
of 70,0001. The deceased, having quitted business,
retired to Hanwell, Middlesex, where he had an esta-
blishment consisting of one female servant, and a
boy who took care of his horse and gig.—His habits
were extremely penurious: and he formed, during his
residence at Hanwell, an intimate connexion with his
servant, by whom be had an illegitimate child, born
in the year 1805, and baptized, at his express desire,
by his own name of " William Litchfield.* There
seemed to be a good deal of evidence to prove the de-
ceased's declarations of affection for this son, of whom
he would often declare 4, that he intended to make a
Gentleman of him;" and by a will made in September,
1807, he gave and deyised all his property and estate,
real and personal, in trust for the use and benefit of the
said William Litchfield. The 18th of May, 1813, how-
ever, about a fortnight before the testator's death, he
made anothet will, leaving the bulk of his property
among his relations, away from this natural child.—
' Some of the witnesses deposed, that the deceased had
always expressed himself in terms of great dislike for
his relatives. particularly his brother. But in the month
of June, 1813, probate of the Will of May preceding
was granted to Mr. Mushett, one of the executors
named therein,' and in March, 1821, Mr. John Rich,
one of the executors named in the will of September,
1807, cited Mr. Mushett into this Court, to shew cause
why the probate that had been granted to him should
not be revoked, and letters of adminiitratien, with the
will of September, 1807, annexed, be granted to Mr.
Rich. The principal ground on which the validity of
the latter will is disputed, appears to be the asserted in-
capacity of the deceased at the time of its execution.
Sir JOHN NICHOU. gave judgment in this cause to-
day, and renounced the will (of Mr. Litchfield, de-
ceased) dated in 1807, to be entitled to probate. The
Court, in an elaborate sentence which occupied five
hours in the delivery (but which, as it was a mere ana-
lysit of the evidence in the cause, and as that evidence
was of a description entirely uninteresting to the pub-
lic, it does not seem necessary to give a more particular
account of), rejected the will of 1813, by which the de-
ceased had virtually revoked his will of 1807, on these
grounds—that intention was clearly :hewn in respect of
the will of 1807'; that no case had been made out to
account for the alteration of that intention, or for the
testamentary dispositions exeenplified in the will of
1813 ; and that at the time of executing the will of
1813, the deceased was in a state of bodily and mental
incapacity. The Court also decreed probate to the co-
dicils bearing date in May, 1813, to be taken aped ads
with the will of 1807.
By this decision, Mr. W. Litchfield, the illegitimate
child of the deceased, comes into possession of a property
amounting to 70,000 f.

191:91.1C011 9. A 9111111,0%
Sir 3. Nlcnou., after bearing Dr. Dodson and Sir C.
Robinson for the respective litigants, summed up the
facts of the case, and delivered judgment. He aid
that the deceased (the Honourable Caroline Elise Med-
licott) died in Northamptonshire, in March last, leaving
personal property to the amount of about 2,000.. and
one-ninth part of a large estate to which she was en-
titled r, she left behind her a brother and eight sisters..-
1n Aptil,lB9o, she executed a will, which she placed in
the care of Mr. Smith, her steward; on the 13th Ja-
nuary last, by her directions, the will was destroyed, and
at her death there was found in her writing desk a co-
dicil to that will ; now the question was, whether the
eodicil was or was not a revoked instrument ? The rule
of law prime
.facie, was that a codicil was dependant on
a will, but he once heard a case decided before biA
learned predecessor' where the codicil was held to be
independent of the will; it was there proved that the
will was anexecated, and the codicil was executed in
the presence of three witnesses, disposing ef the veal
and personal property ; therefore the Court held that to
be an executed instrument, and cancelled the will; the
cancellation of the will is prima fade a revocation of
the codicil, and in this case the inference is, that the de-
ceased intended to die intestate ; in the codicil, the
trustees were bequeathed a legacy of 1001. each; these
trustees could be only the trustees of the will, therefore
it was clear that the codicil could have no effect withwat
the existence of the will. The Learned Judge therefore
decreed against the codicil.
SRCONDARTS COURT, JULY 7.
111T411121i 94 POP&

This was as action brought by the plaintiff, a re-
vel:table booker and auctioneer, against the defendant,
an athantey, residing in Chapel-place, Moodields, tb re-
cover the sum of Bil. far money had and received, and
melth and labour done.
The various items of the charge were proved to be
perfectly fair, and the plaintiff immediately obtained a
verdict for the whole, wi.h the e.rception of SU being
the amount of a bill of ezebanp, for which there was
ran evidence to prove that Mr. Npe bad received any
value, or that it had bees in his possession.
ousurrts COURT, JULY 1.
- , PAO& 0. CAPTAIN POSTIL
This was an action against the defendant, a Captaiti
in the Army, to recover 1464 for millinery, for which
it was alleged in the declaration he had made himself
liable, on behalf of a /praxis at the Opera House.
It was proved, that the defendant hid ordered themes,
&c. from the plaintiff, a dress-maker, for the Opera
Lady, and the Jury returned a Verdict—Demeges
A good deal of interest was excited in the fish
market, Glasgow, on Saturday forenoon, by a supply of
fine fresh mackerel, which arrived from Ayr. Their
colours are beautifully brilliant. The fish were ail
ali* in the morning. They were almost Instantly add
of at ls. fid. a pound.

,fiW~~

4tJ

.: -.-ii!
t
7:4
' f
:,
4. ;
)
1
. ,
, .
i
i. 1.. ,
, ,
....
--....' , ~.
,Il
i, lit
, ,i,