Star.
London, England, 1824-12-14 00:00:00

plain
fends

In Fe
who
was
fends
of hi
fell.
stan(

woul
A
plait

Ike 1
defe

jute
and
Stitt

no
Dal

Ca

for
Cie

nti
ti

R
Is

idw REPOItD.

VICE-CHANCELLOR% COURT, DECEMBER 13.
LONG V. LONG.
This was a case which, having been previously re
d to the Master, clime on now before his Honour
for further directions. It appeared, that in the year 1801,
Mr. Samuel Long made his will, bequeathing to his
gm John a certain property, subject to the condition of
his not marrying Elizabeth Warner, with whom he had
fee some time " kept company," with or without
the consent of his trustees, and in the event of his doing
so, he was may to receive the sum of E2OO, the *re-
mainder to go to his son Joseph. Shortly after Joseph
died, and the testator then added a codicil to his will,
continuing the property to John, and provided gene-
rally that he did not marry " against" the consent of
die trustees, in which case the trustees were to sell the
prOpertyi to be divided equally amongst the remaining
children and the children of Joseph. In 1804, the testa-
tor died, and very shortly after it appeared that John
had been for some time married, although the circum-
stance was kept concealed from the family. The heir-
at-law and the trustees then filed a bill to recover the
property, and an inquiry w as directed, to ascertain whe-
ther the marriage had received the consent of the trus-
tees? The Master foutid that one of the trustees had
disapproved the marriage ; but no evidence was ad-
duced to prove or deny that the other trustee had as-
sented. The case was now brought forward for fur-
ther directions.
His Honouit was of opinion that, in this instance, the
word " againe was, in the intention of the testator,
equivalent to " without." But that was of very little
importance to the case now ; for the real question was,
what right bad John, or those who claim to recover now
under him, he being dead, under an event which had
not been contemplated by the testator?
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DECEMBER 13.
LAME V. BARBI&
This action was brought by Sir James Bland Lamb,
to recover the price of a horse returned by him to the
defendant, and the expense of his keep.
Mr. Scantattc said, this case supplied an example of
an ingeni.us method adopted of late years for the sale
of unsound horses. A person assuming the appearance
of an Officer, or Gentleman of fortune, advertised the
sale of his stud; and removed all scruples from the
minds of parties who were desirous of purchasing, by
engaging to take back the horses and returning the
money if they should not be approved on trial. When,
however, the patties discovered that the horses were un-
sound, and attempted to ieturn them, they.could not
find the Gentleman with whom they had contracted,
and were obliged to bear the loss. The plaintiff, at-
uacted by an advertisement in the Morning Post, had,
purchased a horse for 80 guineas on 3 contract of re-
turn ; the horse proved unsound, and then he could ob-
tain no money from the seller.
It was proved that the sale was on condition of re-
turn; that the horse was tendered ; but that no party
would receive him or repay the price. No defence was
offered, and the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages £lOO. •

SOLOMON V. GENUS&
This was an action for an assault at the Harp Tavern,
Russell-street, between parties of the Jewish persuasion.
Some dispute arose respecting a bill of exchange on the
25th of October, and Mr. Geneue struck Mr. Solomon.,
in the fates
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages
_ _

One Fenhing.
The muse " Foot v. Bayne" la appalitted Ant, at all Omits, on
Tuesday the 21d of December.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DECEMDER 13.
SHELLY V. MORTON.
This was an action for £l5, being the value of three
pumps which the defendant, a West Indian Captain, had
sold in the island of Antigua. The pumps were for the
purpose of clearing and filtering rum, and had been re-
turned to England to be rendered more fit for work,
after which they were reshipped to the West Indies
again. The defendant denied having sold them, or re-
ceived any money on their account.—Verdictfor the
plaintiff for £l5.

COHEN V. DAVIES.
This was an action for an assault alleged to have
been committed by the defendant on the plaintiff. The
plaintiff, Joseph Coheni is a cabinet-maker; the de-
fendant, Phineas Davies, is a Sheriff's officer, residing
in Fetter-lane. It appeared from the evidence of two
witnesses, that the plaintiff, on the 26th of August last,
was walking in Duke's-place, and was met by the de-
fendant, who struck him a blow which broke the bridge
of his nose. The plaintiff ran away, and in running
fell. Defendant then came up with him, and notwith-
standing that plaintiff called out that he could not and
would not fight, kicked him while on the mound..
A surgeon proved the extent of the injury which
plaintiff had suffered.
For the defence, a witness was called who swore that
the plaintiff began by using very irrkating language to
defendant ; had asked " what had becoine of his per-
jured brother-in-law?" and at length spat in his face;
and that it was in consequence of this the defendant had
struck him. It should be mentioned, that one of the
plaintiff's witnesses spoke of this witness as having been
present at the transaction, and that he heard him call
out to defendant," Give it him well, Davies; it will all
go in the same expense."
The Jury, after hearing his Lordship's summing up,
tousulted together for a short time, and stated that they
were unanimous in not believing the defendant's wit-
ness; they therefore found a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages 1:20.
The Court was crowded with Jews during the trial.
SECONDARIES' OFFICE, DEC. 13.

IMPORTANT QURSTION AS TO THE TRANSFER OF IC.,
CLESIASTICAL PRORERTT..-Wlllll AND PRICE V. WIL-

XINSON. •
The plaintiffs, Messrs. Webb and Price, of Doctors'-
Commons, who are agents for the sale of ecclesiastical
property, sought to recover the sum of 1041. as a remu-
neration for work and lain:rut done, and services per-
formed for Dr. Wilkinson, of Essex, who is a dignified
Clergyman of the Church of England.
Mr. Serjeant WILDE stated the case for the plaintiffs.
The defendant was a Gentleman of great respectability,
the advowee or advecatus of the living which he held
limself. In 1828, he was desirous of. raising a sum of
money upon the property, and for that purpose applied
to the plaintiffs, who were well-known and tespectable
agents. The Jury were, perhaps, aware that the sale
of such property was, from its nature, attended with
more difficulty than that of most other property. It
was most difficult to find purchasers for it, and it was
generally incumbered with impediments in the transfer.
The usual mode of regimenting agents for the sale of