Star.
London, England, 1824-05-25 00:00:00

MANDAMUS.

Mr. CHITTY moved for a Mandamus to the Church-
wardens and Overseers of Greenwich, commanding
them to make a rate for payment under a contract for
lighting the town with gas. It was stated in the affidavit
that several attempts had been made to make the said
rate, and as often as the Select Vestry assembled, the
inhabitants broke in and prevented the object they

. _ _
had in view.
The LORD CHIEF .11.1sTICR said, Mr. Chitty might
take a rule to slew cause, if he thought he could make
anything of h.—Rule to ih,:w Ca Jse taken.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,
MATHEWS V. VENABLE&

This was an argument respecting the validity of a
will. By the statute of frauds, a will is not vaiiot until
twelve months after it is signed, and six months after
enrolment. By the same statute no will can be revoked
or set aside by any subsequent deed or insts ument unless
it be-attested in the presence of three witnesses. In the
present case a will bad been revoked by a deed signed
in the presence of only two witnesses. The deed wa,
made only a few days after the will; and a codicil was
afterwards attached to the will, for the purpose of
changing one of the trustees. The property consisted
of 80001. in money, and an "estate applicable to char i-
table purposes. The question was whether the codicil''
being subsequent to the deed, did not act as a repulai-
cation of the will and a revocation of the deed? Several
cases were cited on both sides, by Mr. Serjeant PEAKE
and Mr. Serjeant WILDE.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN stated, that he was appointed
by the Attorney-General to watch the case for the
Crown, but he did not think the Crown had any inte-
rest in the Matter:

The Cntaw JUSTICE said, the Court would certify
their opinion to the Vice-Chancellor, by whom the case
had beta referred to their Lordships, for that purpose.

ARCIIRB COURT, MAY 24.

THE OFFICE OF JUDGE PROMOTED BY PALMER v. ROFFEY.

Dr. LUSHINGTON, for the promotion, having con-
cluded his arguments on the last sitting of the Court;
this morning,
Dr. lENNER, on the part of the accused, addressed
the Court at some length, and proceeded to examine
the evidence produced, for the purpose of substantiating
the charges made, and contended that they were not
proved. But if the Court should think them proved so
clearly as to induce it to decide in favour of the pro-
moter, he contended that, from the manner in which
these proceedings had been carried on, his client ought
not to be at the whole of the expense, which would be
excessively heavy from their nature.
Dr. PHILLIMORE commenced, on the same side, by
observing, that he *as of opinion a question might be
raised as to whether the Court had jurisdiction in the
present case? for he contended that it was strictly out
of the meaning of the statute under which these pro-
ceedings were instituted. The parish of Newington had
been for a considerable time divided and disturbed by
two distinct parties, and nothing else could possibly be
anticipated than that upon an election for parish officers
there would be a great deal of violent conversation.—
Fl con the testimony of the Rector, instead of this one
person cited, above 50 ought to have been proceeded
against in point of fairness, upon the charge of brawl-
ing ; for when the Rector was applied to to send for a
constable, he replied, that the meeting was carried on
in a most irregular way, and that if one person was
taken into custody the whole were liable, the whole
being culpable.
The Junco then proceeded to pronounce judgment
to the following effect:—This suit, he said, was sent
there for the investigation of a riot and brawl, committed
in the Parish Church of St. Mary, Newington, by one
of the Churchwardens, named Richard Roffey, and the
office of Judge was promoted by Samuel Palmer, de-
scribed as another Churchwarden; and for the occa-
sion of such proceedings the Court could not but
deeply regret.
The facts of the case were shortly these: Tuesday,
the Ist of April, 1823, the parties met in the Parish
Church, and the Rev. Mr. Onslow took the chair. He
instantly appointed Mr. Roffey his Warden for the en-
suing year. Mr. ltt.ffey being somewhat obnoxious to
many of the parishioners, his appointment stirred up an
angry feeling. Mr. Palmer and Mr. Jones were put in
nomination. A shew of hands was declared in favour
of Mr. Palmer, and the friends of Mr. Jones demanded
a poll ; the polling commenced, but for the purpose of
tiling out the meeting, one party refused to poll, and it
was urged that the poll could not be closed if one vote
an hour was polled. When a poll is carried on in a sa-
cred edifice, there ought to be that due adherence tol
decency which the solemnity of the place calls for,
and here he must beg to differ from the sentiments of
the Learned Gentleman (Dr. Phillimore) upon this
head, when he stated that it was natural to expect that
violent expressions would be used. If he was correct
in the law, both parties were culpable. The Learned
Judge concluded, by ordering that Richard ltoffey
should be suspended from entering the Church for the
space of one month, and with respect to costs they fol-
lowed almost as a matter of course, and as the Court did
not see anything to induce it to mitigate them, it was
bound to compel the accused to pay the whole.—The
COURT then proceeded to hear the arguments in a si-
milar case, promoted by the same person against Tijou.

Friday afternoon, as Mrs. Barlow, sister to Mrs. Shaw-
ford, of Alresford, was on her return from Cheriton to
Alresford, in a small pony-chaise, driven by a man-
servant, the horse becoming unmanageable, she jumped
from the vehicle, her clothes got entangled with the
step, and she was dragged to a considerable distance on
the road, and so dreadfully bruised about the head and
various parts of the body, that she expired neat morn-
ing about three o'clock,