Star.
London, England, 1803-01-27 00:00:00

TAR V. LUCAS.

Mr. PARR moved for a Rule to (hew eaufe why
proceedings in this oak Should not be Raid ; why
the Attorney who had feed out the procefs fhould
not pay the coils of this applicahn, and that the
Attorney fhonid anfwer the matter contained in
the affidavit, upon the ground slated, that the
plaintiff never au:horifed the aCtion to be brought,
the particulars of which we think not fair to (late
until the feafon arrives for (hewing c.sufe.—Rulit
granted.
Lord Etttosoaotrom took this opportnnity to
notice the improper pra‘lice of writing letters to a
judge.sm the lubjea of Caufes pending, and (puke
•liis follows • Great allowances may be made foe,
perfons fending letters to me who are ignorant of
the courfe of proceeding, but I can make no fuck
allowance for Attornies ; I have now a letter front
an Attorney, giving, by anticipation, a flatement
of a cafe coming before the Court. I want it to
b underttood now, that if any thing of this nature
comes to me again, I Ilia take care to put it into
a penal shape.'T
In the centre of difeufflon upon an award, whe-
ther the Arbitrator bad not miflsken a point of
Law which was referred to him, and on which oc-
c ifion the papers had, by order, been left with
the Judges, Lord ELIAIIIIOROVGH filid•-•-" it was
very much his with that when .a paper was left
him, it might be marked for what purple,
whether fur argument of a cafe, or for explanation
id motion, or whatever elfe the purpofc was,
°dirt wife he could not know how to apply the
reading of them.

INSTR.
Mr. Gums, in this cafe, which was tried before
Lord Ellenborough, at the Sittings atter
Term: for Wedminfter, obtained a rule to (hew
caufe why there lhohld not be a new trial. The
queition in this cafe refpeeed the validity of a. will,
conveying real property. In one part of the will
there was an erafure of one of two devifees, and,
in another part, there was an interlineatibn ; and
the queftion was, what was the effeet of this on
the will ? The Learned Counfel contended three
points; IR, That, if a will, duly executed, gave
a real elate to two devifees, A. and B. and the
tettator afterwards ?truck out the nime of B. thefe
two devifees being joint tenants, A. would fuc-
ceed to the whole; idly, With refpeet to an inter.
lineation in fuch a will, if it was not actelled
(which was the cafe in the prcfent intlante), he
humbly Migraine& it had no effed whatever.—.
And, in the third place, taking obliteration and
interlineatios togmhisr, he fuhmated, they did not
,amount to a cancellation.

This was the maarialile cafe,' in which the will
of a Mr. Thomas Car wardine, of Glnuceticr, was
I found by the Jury to have been di4 executed. nnr-
withilausding that one of the atteiling witnerfes
(wore that Ilis name to the will was abytry; and
anotheasitofefed that he had great doubts whe-
ther tie had Vied it or not, in k e payed to Goa to
&we dim it W drown, And was then convincea be
bad Gipped it.
This cafe Sall be more fully Rated when caul&
is &twit againti the rule.

MM.

yawn siTIOI.

Mr. Ease s 'hewed can!. spina this rules for
a prohibition, which had been obtained by bin
Gibbs, in the court-, of the laft Term. A Get•
domain wifhed t crest a monument to the memory
cf his deceafed wife, in the church of Sall, in tho
county of Norfolk ; and, for that purpofe, had
. -
obtained leave of all thr parillioners, and had
alto obtained a licenct from the &flop of Nor.
wich, when the Bettor came into Cou.• for a pru•
hibition, laying the freehold of the church was is
him. The Learned Counfel laid he did not difpnte
that fad: but they were not going to interfere
with his freehold, or, at all events, this applica•
tion to;the Court was premature, till his freehold
had been aelt ally touched. Mr. Ergrine cited
Burn's Ecclefia.lical Law, Vol. I. p. 33y, and
Strangev p. tooB. He contended .that the Ordi•
nary hill a right to grant a faculty to ereft this
monument, inannuch as it was a part of his office
to fuperintend and contra:tithe ornaments of the
church.

Lord Ectsasottovou conceived this applica.
Lion to the Court, on the part of the Rceor, was
premature, becaufe, though the Bishop had grant.,
ed his licence, am kiwat that it would eves be ufedi
and, when the freehold was touched, the Mader
might then come for this prohibition.
Mr. Glass, in rapport of the role, Admitted
that the Re or was interefted, in this nage of the
proceedit.g, to p t the gcl.itting of the fa
It appeared from the proceedjuthatt Lb st
m' nary bad cit:d the Rea W. to' rr

safe why this faculty flimild not he granted
not withilanditig that the faculty Ihnuld le
it w0i.!..1 certainly then he takcit it V... 1,
u'aitoni any oppolition front the Re nor.
:11e 'tenor h,u nothing to do with the gralitini;
tile faculty That was a mere licence of the Ili.
;hop to fet up this ornament, as far as the Ordi
y could avant it ; and if, :tiler that was grant.
e,!, the Itehor were to nprole it, he fribmittcd lie
would be funjea ur eccletiallical cenfores.
I,'rd Et.aksiitoicovc 14.—1 t WAS very proper in
the Ordinary to cite the RCL'tor in the firli initance,
tot he would not will' to do a void at% But. it
this Gentleman has the faculty, it will not aut...o•
him to touch the riyhits of the IteCtor.
Mr. Gtsrs fail the Court mutt determine the
Ordinary had poiyer to grant the faculty, without
the itoolcrit of the Reelor.
Lord ELLVtiI3.IIIOUGH.—We need not decide
th it. It is matter cf eceletiallical ;Appeal, if' the
R.,:dor is touched by the granting of the faculty.
Rule difcharged.

CORE V. GIBLVT.
This was a point of law, fubmitted to the opi-
nion of the Court (which governed, under the di.
re6lion of Lord ELLENIN),(01101I, the decifion of
this cafe at Nil ius). It was one of the many
cafes which daily occur from the Aet, called
the Annuity Aft. This is an Al A‘IIICh is not
fpoken of with mt.cli refpeet, either from the bench
or the bar. It appears to be fomew•hat fimilar in
its died to another let of Ails mentioned yeller•
day by Lord ELLENBOROLIGIS, which, in attempt-
ing to mend one pane, breaks three.
The anion was on a bond for 14001. paid to
fecure an annuity, and the defence was merely a
number of pleas. which the unlearned call quib-
bles. Among thofe pleas, upon which ithies were
joined, were the following : Fir 11, that the money
was net paid on the 24th of September, as Rated
in the memorial. Secondly. that the money was
• not paid by the perfon mentioned in the memorial.
The evidence jn fupport of thefe iffues proved, that
a draught on a banker was given on the 24t1), but
'that it was not prefented for payment till the 26th;
and fecondly, that the money was not paid by the
perfon mentioned in the memorial, but by his
banker. Upon thofe grounds Mr. ERSKINE con-
tended that the evidence did not fupport the alle-
gations of the memorial fo Ilrialy as was required
by the Annuity Aft ; he laid he was fure the
Court were often concerned to be obliged, in cafes
of Annuities, to decide contrary to the equity and
juilice of the cafe, but-Rill they were bound to de-
cide according to the provifions of the AR, fuch
as it was. In a remarkable cafe of the Duke .Jf
Bolton, it was held, that a draught on a banker
was not a fufficient payment of money to anfwer
the ilrid conitrulion of this Al. There was a
cafe now pending, where it was doubted whether a
draught of the Duke of Qlseenfberry's on Coutt's
Bank, was or was riot, when paid, a payment by
his Grace within the meaning of the AR ? He
fhould not fay a word in favour cf the Al itfelf;
but while it calls, he conceived that the evidence
soull aridly correfpond with the memorial, and
that therefore payment by a banker could not be
confidered as the fame thing as what the memo
rial exprelfed—a payment by the perfon therein
named.

-----
The Conn will give their opinion on a future day.