Star.
London, England, 1828-11-14 00:00:00

TILE LING V. ROBERT TITZHARDING JENNER.

Sir J. Scnaurrr moved the Court for a rule to show
cause why a criminal information should not be filed
against R ',ben Et: arding Jenner, a county Magistrate.
The affidavit upon which he now applied, stated that a
Magistrate had been guilty of an act of great injustice,
to serve Colonel Berkeley, his intimate friend, arising
from these facts:—ln 16.52 a dectee was made by
the Master of the Rolls, to authorize a person to in-
close and improve 400 acres of a tract of land, called
Micklewood Chace, on condition that the other part of
the Chace should be left for the freeholders, with the li-
berty of cutting the brushwood growing on the latter
part. Colonel Berkeley, who holds the inclosed part, is
very anxious to keep the underwood from being cut, for
the purpose of preserving the game. An action sometime
since arose upon the right of cutting it, and was deter-
mined in favour of the freeholders. The person for whom
the Learned Counsel moved, was, he said, a freeholder,
and on the 16th of October, had, in the -presence of
Colonel Berkeley's gamekeeper, cut a quantity of
branches from a holly tree. Shortly after that he re-
ceived a summons from Mr. Jenner, to show cause why
be should not be convicted of stealing wood ? In answer,
the man claimed that he had a tight to cut it, and his
uncle produced the decree of 1652; but the Magistrate
Clenched his fist at the uncle, saying he would scourge
him, if brought before him. Colonel B. was then on
the bench, but did not take part in the proceedings.—
The man was convicted, and fined 12s. Bd. the estimated
value of the holly, and the costs, and was tentenced to
five weeks imprisonment if be did not pay it. Atter being
in prison, however, for four days, he consented to l.ay
the fine.

Lot d TENTEamm--Under what/let was he convicted ?
Sir J. SCARLETT—Under the Wilful Trespass Act, I
believe, my Lord, in which there is a clause stating.
that where the party claims a right to cut, the Maw •
trate has no jurisdiction. Other parties swear that they
believe the conviction was an act to terve Col. Berkeler
in preserving his game, and that within mortal memory
they haste always bad the right.—Rule granted.
COURF OF COMMON PLEAS, Wornmstras, Nov 13.
At one o'clock the LORD CRISP JUSTICE arrived at
Guildhall, and immediately commenced the first sitting
at Aisi Prins in London for this Term.
DODDS V. DODOS.
Mr. Corm opened the pleadings.
Mr. Sergeant WILDI stated that thisoas an issue di-
rected by the Court of Chance? Me determine whether
a will made by _William Dodds, deceased, bearing date
Aug: 12, 1817, had, or had not, been subsequently re-
•oked by him? The facts of the cave were these:
Mr. Dodd: having made the will in question, carried it
borne to his wife and showed it to her, when she imme-
diately objected to two of tt.e trustees whom be had
appointed, upon the ground of their being 14wyers.—
Mr. Dodds, unwilling to leave any thing on' leasant
to his wife, called in a neighbour, and desired him to
• make an exact copy of the will, with the exception of
the names of the two individuals to whom Mrs. Dodds
objected. The copy having been accordingly made, ME.
Dodds signed it in the presence of two witnesses, and
then burned the will which had been previously pre-
pared, under the impression that the copy hefted cans d
to be made, and which was attested by two witnesses
only, was a valid will. Since the death of Mr. Dodds,
however, the validity of this will had been disputed upon
the ground of its having been attested by two witnesses
only instead of three, as was required by the Statute of
Charles. TheLearaed Sergeant intitted,however,tbai the

former will, of which a second part was in existence,
and which was in all respects similar to the one objected
to, with the exception of the names of the trustees, could
not be considered to be revoked by the fact of one pall
of it having been burnt, when it was elear that that
which was left was supposed by the test.or to be valid
and in all respects the same. He contehded, that it
revoked at all, it was revoked by the second will
which was, in fact, the same as the Ent, and which was
believed to be a perfect and valid instrument.
The attorney who had prepared, and the attesting
witnesses who bad signed the former will, were then
called, and their evidence fully established the case a •
it had been stated.

A letter from the te•tator to his attorney was also
read, in which I.e stated that he had made Another will,
similar tl t•:e one he had prepared, with the eaception or
the names of the trustees.

Mr. Sergeant TADDY, with whom was Mr. Sergeant
Lawes, contended, on the part of the defendant, that
the deceased, by burning MI former will, intended en-
tirely to obliterate it; and that in making the second,
which he insisted had no relation to the fist, he meant
to make a different disposition of his property, as was
evident by the many variances which appealed in it.
The Learned Sergeant then pointed out a few diffe-
rences between the wills, and concluded by repeating
his argument, that the testator. after making the second
will, had intended to get totally rid of the first.
The attesting witnesses to the second will were then
called, and one of them (the person who had copied it
from the first) stated that the testator directed him to
make a few alteration. in it. Both witnesses saw the
first will burnt.

Mr. Sergeant WILDR thought it unnecessary to reply.
The Loan CHIRP JUSTICII summed up very briefly,
leaving it to the Jolty to say whether the te,tatar had
not burned the firmer will under an impression that the
copy he had made was valid ? If they thought that it
had been burnt under such an impression, the former
will could not be considered to have been revoked, and
their verdict would consequently be for the plaintiff.
The Jury, without he.itation, tetutneJ a verdict for
the plaintiff.