Star.
London, England, 1815-02-09 00:00:00

LAW &ft LiidE ATE.'
APINAGATin cpuaT, Docroite toistoxs,
allitowar s.
RUDY 9. 'Reirbv.
This case came White the Court itlepectihg the
will of Mr. Thomas Hendy, late of the Haymarket.
deceased. It appeared that the testator blade his
will in the the month of August, 1818, by which be
bequeathed his property to Thomas Hendy and
Charlotte Hendy, his two illegitimate children (in.
lints), and appointed. Mr. John Darbon, of Mary-la.
bonne-street, wine-merchant, their guardian, trustee,
and sole executor. This will, sealed up with a ma-
sonic impressiou on the wax, was deposited in the iron
safe of Mr. Darbon, by the request of the deceased.
The deceased died on the 1 lth of January, 1814,
whereupon Mr. Darbon, hearing of the same, went
on the following morning to. the deceased's house,
where he found Mr. William Hendy, the deceased's
brother, to whom he read over the deceased's will,
and who expressed great dissatisfaction at not having
been left any thing by the deceased, and in conse-
quence of which he snatched the will out of the
hands of Mr. Darbon, and it was finally destroyed.
It further appeared that Mr. William Hendy, the
brother, was since dead, having been found drowned,
and also that one of the deceased's children (Char-
' love Hendy) was since dead. The paper propoun-
aid before the Court was in the shape of an affida-
vit, purporting to contain the lebsinace of the de.
ceased's will.
The COURT (Sir John 114c103111.11fief heating the
evidence read, was clearly of opinion that' the facts
'of the case were fully proved; and accordingly pro.
flounced for the substance of the will, as contained in
the affidavit.
• COURT OF OHANCERY, FEBRUARY 8. •
UDLEY V. TIM CORPORATION OF WHITETABLE.
The Loan CHARCILLOR gave judgment this day,
in this long litigated cause, which arose on the right
of dredging for oysters, in certain beds on the coast
of Kent, by custom, or prescription immemorial, in
poor persons and others near the sea, similar to copy..
hold rights in certain lordships or manors.
The. Inhabitants had extended the trade by impor-
tation of marine materials, breed, die. from distant
parts, and some from the coast of France ; and 11-,
tlwugh the origin of the institution was too remote
for human memory. an Act of Parliament was
obtained under an early reign, to confirm the fact
of Incorporation.
The Plaintiff being admitted a member of the Cor-
poration, after previous services and expenditures for
their use, filed his bill for an account of the funds, and
payment of a balance due to him for his services.
The great difficulty of this novel case was owing
to the remoteness of the origin of the institution, and
the doubt that it was a Corporation, added to the
want of any fund or ostensible officer to act in each
matters, the mode of appropriating the fruits of the
dredging for oysters having been practised by dividing
the same continually, as soon as received, among the
proprietors, without any reservation for a fund to dis-
charge the debts or other public necessities of the
body corporate, and the distress to poor persons, chil-
dren, and apprentices, in being ordered to refund.
Some witty remarks were made at the Bar on the
inequality of the division of the fruits, the one con
tending that his clients had the shells only, while the
contorts 91104 elsewhere; aad the other side contend-
ing, his dims had neither the shells nor oysters,
wfiich was 'a worse distribudea of the spoil.
The LoitoCHADERLLOR was clearly of opinion that
this.was is fact a Corporation, notwithstanding the
obscurity of its origin, and that the Plaintiff was en.
titled to his debt with all costs to this period. As to
the distreu of children apprentices that had immuni-
ties in the Corporation by contributing towards the
creation of a fund to pay debts and other necessary
expenditures for use of the body corporate, that was
incident to every Corporation, and must be complied
with in this instance.
His Lordship ordered a reference to the Master to
settle the establishment, unless due satisfaction be
made or offered to the Plaintiff, to save the vast ex-
pense, and which, if he refused, Would be rerpember.
ed against him finally, on the question of future costs;
adding, that the terms of compromise and refusal,
if any, might be again mentioned in Court.
Judgment was given for the Plaintiff.
IN RR—BANOOR CATHEDRAL.

Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY stated, that some time ago
application had been made to his Lordship on the
part of the Choristers of Bangm Cathedral, coin.
plaiting that the Tithes of Liandynen parish, in
Wales, which bad been granted by an Act of James
11. to repair the fabric of the Cathedral and to sup.
port the Choristers, bad been perverted from the ors.
email intent and meaning of the Act of Parliament.
His Lordship had decided at that time, that the tithes
in question had been misapplied, in consequence of
their Having been employed to purchase silver eao-
dlestieks for the convntudon table, and paying for
coals and erections iv,- and about the Cathedral, not
connected with ths.sepport of the fabric itself. In
consequence of the respectable elaramer of the Dean
and Chapter, who have theregulation of these tithes,'
his Lordship left theximvei to give in a new
dispesition of them.-Mlit Sasend,Rontilly now eta—
ted, that they harigivenia a of the diets:ea
of the tithes, which thirsted WM lir nothing foe*
the former. By the Act one4biya of this tithes were to
go to the support of the choristers, and two-thirds to re-
pair the fabric of the cathedraL Now the new scheme
mentioned, two Vicars-Choral mil four Choristers,
two Sacristi, a'Clock-winder, Church-yard-
, keeper, as aceepofing the quiir. !The Vikats•ChOral.
however, that seosived 5490 a-yearnaith etas of these
tithes, were no other than the. Eedeshistical Vicars,
who performed the Church services wittiont• either
singing muting, and therefore !Mader be Wt..
of the Char; beide% *tcclesirstical
Vi-
ears, they enjoyed one thousand pounds.alear each.
The clock-w also could surely not be considered
as forming • part of the choir.
The LOW CHAMCIILLOA sailt Is was no judge of
the component parts of a Choir; bat be thought be
hrid beard Mr. Moore, on great days in St. Paul's
Cathedral, become as musical as he well could at
the end of verses in the service and Psalms. And he
believed (but he might be wrong) that the service,
should be so utteved in all cathedral churches.
Mr. Haar, on the other side, contended that the
jurisdiction in this case irrioetZtit Attlildshop dean.
teabnry, and nor in his
Sir h. /Lomax said, that application hal bees

"

•‘• • e /}ANS

Marie to the A 416411011 of has le.
fowl to hove any thing to do with its )besides, the
Itstiedictiqyb was settled. in conseqaence of his Lord.
shies having given it previous decision in this case.
The Lola) Cnallott‘Lou said heelsould let this case
nand °vet ih order to make himself more suffi-
ciently acquainted of what were the component puts
of a Choir",

COURT OF KtNOl BENCH, FEBRUARY S.
ROLL Of ATTORNISS.
Mr. ADOLPHUS moved drat Mr. John Frost, a
gentleman who had been an Attorney cif Court, but
whose name had been ordered by the Lord Chief
Justice to be struck off the Roll, he having been con-
victed, and received the sentence of the Court, in
1793, for seditious expressions, should have his name
replaced On the roil, having since that period received
a free pardon from his Ro7al Highness the Prince
Regent, add there not being any other ground of
complaint against bins.
TheCotnrr agreed, that the pardon reponed the
party convicted against all the effects of the sentence
paised upon him. It did not follow, however, as a
necessary consequence, that he must also be replaced
on the rdll of Attornies of that Court, the more par.
titularly as s want of practice and experience in the
profession, for so long an interval as twenty-one or
twenty-two years must necessarily have induct@ a
great degree cf unfitness fur the duties of the office,
which could not be supposed to attach to an Actor.
,net on' his first applying to be plactil cif" the Rolls.
Motion refuted. • •

TILE KIR° V. JOSEPH JOHNSON.
The Defendant in this case was found Guilty, at
the late Lancaster Assizes, of embezzling the sum
of 49. IBs. 6d. the property of the Trustees of the
Liverpool Docks,' by whom he had been employed
as clerk, and, in consequence, received sentence of
transportation for 14 years. The Defendant was, on
Saturday last, brought into Court, in custody, when
lie delivered to the Clerk of the Crown Office an as-
signment of errors on his indictment—and this day
was appointed to hear the arguments of his Counsel,
in support of the objections taken.
Mr. WILLIAM, who appeared for the Prisoner,
stated, that the alleged errors arose on the following
points contained in the indictment :-Ist, That the
Prisoner had taken Bank Notes to the value of nine
pounds--2d, That these bank notes were the property
of the Trustees of the Liverpool Docks —and 3d,
That he had embezzled the same, and converted
them to his own use. With respect to the first point,
he contended that there was a defect, inasmuch as
the number of nonrs, forming the gross sum, should
have been specified—but here it did not appear whe-
ther the aggregate was formed of nine one-pound
notes, or what value the different integral parts of
the whole sum bore ; and it had always been held,
that, in cares of larceny, the chattel taken away
should be specifically described, whether it was a
bill, note, or bond; and even in chaser in action, the
particular chose must be clearly stated. As to the
second point, the Learned Gentleman submitted that
the premises necessary to constitute a larceny' were
not fairly laid down—since it did not appear in proof
that the bank notes had ever become the property of.
the Trustees of the Liverpool Docks. And, with
respect to the third point, he argued, that there was
evidently a inifjoinder ; one count of the indictment
charging the Prisoner with grand !army, which, al-
tipmithe might plead benefit of clergy, was, in- a
TegaT pnint of view, an off enee punishable
death; and a second, alleging that he had commit-
ted limy larang, which could only be visited with
transportation.
Mr. CLARKE, in support of the conviction, opposed,
at considerable length,- the arguments of Mr. Wil-
liams—who, in his reply, forcibly defended the posi-
tions he had originally advanced.
The COURT, however, held that the conviction,
under this indictment, was good. They were of opi-
nion, that, both with respect to species, number and
value, the property was sufficiently specified. The
species was bank notes, the value nine pounds, the
number nine. The premises, to constitute a larceny,
wire, it had been contended, not sufficiently express-
ed. But it appeared to them, that they were ex-
pressed quite lull enough to satisfy the intention of
the Legislature. The Prisoner was set forth in the
indictment to have been employed in a confidential
capacity by these Trustees, and be was accused of
having received money on their account, which he
had embezzled. It was not necessary, , under the
Act of the 35th of his Majesty, to lay down mote
extended premises. The last error assigned was that
of a wisjoiader. Now, it bad been the practice, for
many years, to comprise, in the sante indictment,
counts for the greater and the smaller larceny.—
Thus, in the case of stealing King's stores, the
elrence was punishable as a grand larceny, if the
lagers property were new—but, if it were one•third
sienna the punishment was much less severe. Yet, it
was constantly the practice to introduce into the in.
diconent a count to meet each offence. On
whole, the Court were of opinionohat the objections
were not g?nd-
11he *limier, who appeased- in Court with his
.islhas on, was, in consequence, remanded.
. : TM/ assn 1411.
A yule aki had been obtained ler d crimi!tal Wet-
=don, against the ,defendant, sibs is anaagistrate
• the county of Lancaster, upon affidavits, stating
that be had refused to license a public house from
motives of private pique and animosity.
Mr. A.TEORRIKING/RIRRAL and.bIe.SCARLETT show-
ed cause sgainstthe rule. It appeared that the pub-
& boom was *heated. very sear to the chapel at
which the Gentlemen did duty, and et
be used ragtvrArrZliput up his horse at it. ,
en. taccasion, bywever, a waggon belonging to the
owner of the public•house was coming one way, and
the clergyman was going another, and they came
NW *NOVO to give vise to some misunderstanding
between ihne, in which the owner observed, that the
hurts rod in the public-house was not a public one,
and:slirebe defendant had no legal right to it. The
thiesiiiint replied. if it was not a public road, he
thought there ought not to be a license for a public-
house. This took piece in April, and in September
following, when the tenant applied for a renewal of
his license it was refuse 4 him, until some explanation'
had taken puttee respecting the right of the public to
the road in question.. Having given this explanation,
she license was still refused, when, the owner of the
house wit his Atsarney to threaten the Megionsei