Star.
London, England, 1815-11-09 00:00:00

J. NY lATELLICENCE.

0. ii.,..„„art to a Dome of the High Court of flamer',
bearie: date • t:it:t day of June, 1814.m1.14 in a cense wLerein
I)mturitY KING. WilklW, is plaintiff, ant'. rHOMAS From and
others, are th-tendant, the creditors of BENJAMIN PIOES, late of
the parish of Ramsey, iu the county of Southampton, yeoman,
who flied in Ow month of June, 1800, are for, hviith to come in
and rote their debts before 5A141.111 COMPTO% Cox, Esq. mie
of tt e astei sof tile said Court, at hie Chambers, in Sotithamp-
ton.bui Wings, Chancery-lane, I.ondoii, or in default thereof, they
will be excluded the benefit of the raid Deere%
PREROGATIVE COURT. NOVEMBER S.
TAPP v. SANDERS AND OTHERS.
This was a cAttse respecting the.validity of the last
will of It. Morgan, late of Camden-street, Islington,
deceased. The deceased executed his will on the

_
.4 October, 1805, by which he bequeathed to hi, tom
cousins, or the survivor of them, £lOOO three per
cent. Annuities, and legaci4 to his shopm.n and
shop-woman, and several other persons, the residue
to Mary Greenhough (his housekeeper) of EUint's-
ylace, Islington. In the year ISO 9, the deceased was
attacked with a paralytic stroke, which entirely de-
prived him of the use of one side, and in Tune, Islo,
in a fit of the same description, he tore his will into
several pieces, but, on Mrs. Greenhougli coming into
the room, she collected the pieces and put them to-
pether. This paper was.ptorunded by the Erect'.
tors named therein, and opposed by :he next of kin.
'The Counsel on behalf of the next of kin adruittcel it
vas impossible to impeach the evidence in support of
the will. hut submitted that the expenses of the next
of kin ought to be paid out of the effects of the de-
ceased.

Sir J. Morrill, sad, there could he no question re-
specting the validity of the will, and pronounced for
the same; but said, it was only under special circum-
stances that the Court directed the costs to be paid
out of the effects, and he did not think that this case
was one of that description, and therefore rejected the
application.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WEDNE9D4 , NOV. s.

CABROL 1). DE I'ASTF T.

Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL rnoved for t new trial in
this case. He statt:tl that it was a question of great
importance to the commercial world, besides that
many tl:ottiand pounds depended on the present cause.
The cause was tiled a: the Sittings after last Term,
at Guildhall. It W. 13 an action by the assignees of
Messrs. Parry and Latlkim, brokers, to recover from
tae defendant a quaitti:y of West India produce,
which had been trausterred to Latham, as he contend-
ed, fraudulently, and by a voluntary preference, itl
contemplation of bankruptcy. The facts were, that
Mr. De Tartet employed Latham and Parry to buy
Vest India produce for him, which they did, and as
tarry told him, was in the si.lcks in his name. it ap-
peared that a Mr. Mardelt heard that De Tastet held
his acceptance for several thousand pounds t knowing
that his house had no such acceptance outstanding,
he calls. on De 'Pasta and desired to see the bill.
De Tastet declined :hewing k to him, and said it was
the acceptance of another house; but this Mr. Mar-
dell insisted could not be the ease, as there was no
house of the same Christian and surname. De Tastet
then sent for Parry, and it turned nut that the accep.
t ince was forged ; upon which De Tastet exclaimed
IVlreie are my stv,ars, my rums, and my ca'ffee ?"
—Party s iid On.), were all sate in the docks. De
Tastet immediately sent his broker, and made Pert y
ti Ansley them all alto his name. Patty immediately
aNsr..nded, and th,rehy committed an act of bank.
virtu. The question was, whether the tranwer ob-
tained fr,,m Patty, N nth a halter about his neck, was
not a conlyyundilig of felony, and was avatlable
ia•s' nst the cr..ditots of the estate of Latham and
Parry ?.
The Court said there was no evidence that Parry
was ptomised an indemnity for keeping this transfer,
:rid as die teanster was made before any act cf hank-
irni•tc,', Icy Latham and Parry, at the pressing instance
of a creditor, it could not be considered as a fraudu-
lent and voluntary preterence.— Ride refused.

LIAIttiATE.---TLIE KING v. THE PARIstl MI la. JOHN.
Mi. GURNt.y moved for a errtio;arl, to retn,,ve this

matt, r into the Court of King's Ilene!), - horn the Do.
ver It respected a r,,itd between the lown
o 1 Margate and Acorn, which the prosecutor contend.
.eat, had not been k. pt in a sufficient state of repair.
in ordes to establish the contrary, the certificates of
o Magistrates, residing in the indieted parish, had
been produced at two separatesessions, when the ,Idct
,was, that teo or three 'jays previous to the sessions, a
few iv, ikmen had been employed to /at: the road in
aviestion, by filling in the ruts, &c. in Grater to give a
colour 4cr the certificates of the Magistrates. At the
List liess;otis a Diaringat had been prayed for to coin.
poi the pat ish of Juion to plead to the indictment,
but it had been ref:lse& on the ground of the eertifi-
cite produced trom the Magistrates, who.could not be
igni.rant of the real bad condition of the-road.
Lord ELLesnott,.tott—lt -might have been well to
lamina: the certifying Magistrates of the case decided
upon .this suibject.•
Mr. GettNe:i answered, that he had referred them
to it at the zessions, and had offered .(the Magistratzs
being upon die bench) that if they would swear to .:te
truth 'of their certificates, be would drop the indict.
intent against the parish, and would adopt another
'method of proceeding. He swished that the certificates
should be removed into the Court of King's &nen.
Lord ELLINBOROUGH --- It is competent .tor you to
remove the.matter by certiorari, but I do not know
what further purpose of justice will be answered by
removing the certificates.
Ths OA of the I.;ng v. Sir Joseph Maw bey and others. 6
!T. R. Cl 9, where it was held that a certificate by justices of the
pt,sce, that a highway (Indictee) is in t epairi is a legal instrument
r.Cltadmissiblel, ztd by the Courts of Law, and admissible In evidence
.after convicttuti, when the Court are ai.iout to intrwe a fine.
A 1.41 consequently it Is Illegal to conspire to pervert the course of
justice by producing a false.catilitate in evidence to iollueuce the
justice of the Court.

COURT OT COMMON PLEAS, NOV-16
GAMING IN FRANCE.
miouss V. SIR F. 11011/SHICAD, BART.
Mr. Serjea:it LENS moved 107 a rule to .11111 CW cause
why there should not be a new trial. It was an ac-
tion brought some time sit,.-.e 1., the Plaintiff, a
banker in France, to recover the amount of several
:bills of .ezcbange, accepted by Sir Frederick Mars.
head Alibis father, while lie was detained as a pri-
soner by Boh.parte at Verdun. Toe defence was,
that these bills arose out of a gaming transaction at
Verdun. A large sum of money b 4.1 beta lost . by
named Eitwick. who had
an English Gentleman,
:drawn bills on London, .10 whtch.Sir John lidunhcati

lent his name, though he was not in the least con
cerned in play. 'l'lie bills so drawn were not dis-
charged, and the parties were in danger of being sent
;o a close prison for non-payment of the debt. lo
order to protect Mr. Estwick and Sir John Morsheae
new bills were given, illicit found their way into the
hands of the plaintiff.
Mr. Serjeant LENS said, the defence could not De
proved, because Mr. Estwick, the principal witness,
was at Montpelier ; a verdict consequently went for
the plaintiff. He had an affidavit made by the defen•
Janes Attorney, who stated that Mr. Estwick pro.
ceeded from Montpelier, after five years imprison-
ment, to Spain, and arrived in England last October.
At an interview with Mr. Estwick, that Gentleman
had stated that the bills were given to settle a gam-
ing tr insar!i-n.
The C•itrt asked, if the Learned Setjeant had Mr.
Estwid.'s ;ft.:lll6i

Aral !). tog' answered in the negative—
Sir F. Gins observed, that it was impossible, un-
der all the circumstances, to grant the motion.

Rule refused.

Wr.`,T s,. PAINTEII.
Mr. Setjeant .ved for a new trial, on the
ground that it was a verdict for the plaintiff, against
the direction of Judge Heath, who tried the cause at
the Lincoln .\s-,izes.
Mr. Justice 1-it:a•rts said, the verdict was given
against his direction, yet the plaintiff was metitori-
tu►c. It was an action to recover two guineas. The
plaintiff was an apothecary, who attended the poor
of the parish, and the defendant an overseer. There
was a pauper in Lincoln, named Long, wkom the
plaintiff had under his care ; the man required a
skilful operation, and the defendant considering a
surgeon more necessary than the apothecary, desired
the plaintiff to desist from his attendance until after
the operation. The plaintiff said, lie was obliged to
visit another patient in the same neighbourhood, and
as he conceived the man to be in want of his ascist-
ance, he should attend gratis. Under these circum-
stances, the Learned Judge did not know how the
plaintiff was to recover. The bill was reasonable,
and the parish ought to have paid him.
The Court was of opinion thUt the verdict should
stand.—Rule refused.