Star.
London, England, 1828-01-25 00:00:00

AP"
the matter to a Gentleman at the Bar, to say wind is a
proper compensation.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS-1 agree to that.
Mr. ADAMS—Tne Solicitor for the Company is not
here, and I can hardly take it upon myself to consent,
although I think the proposal will be agreed to.
Lord TENTERDEN—Then let the matter stand over
till you Can see the Solicitor.
SHE RING V. 'sancta TARIM GILBERT, ESQ.
The ATTORNIMGENBRAL had to show cause why a
criminal information should not be filed against the de-
fendant, for a libel. The matter had proceeded from
an election quarrel, and it was generally admitted that
when an election was over, the unsuccessful party had
the liberty to rail allowed him. He would not, in the
present case attempt to defend the attacks which had
been made on the family of the prosecutor; he should
only say that prior to the application for the conditional
order having been made, the defendant had published
a handbill (which he then read) apologising in strong
terms for the handbill which had formerly been circu-
lated, under the signature of " Veritas. He again
offered, through him as his Counsel, the most public
expressions of his regret for what he had done, and he
(the Attorney-General) hoped that his Learned Friend
would think that satisfactoty.
Mr. ERSKINE, for the rule, said that there were some-
times charges made, in which the most ample apology
would not be sufficient. In this case the defendant re-
flected on the prosecutor's wife, and charged her with
adulterous incontinence, and that a daughter of the
plaintiff, twenty-three years of age, was the fruit of that
criminality.
Lord TENTERDEN—If you wish to have the rule made
absolute you mu.t have it.
Mr. ERSKINE said that he did ; but he would first
wish to draw the attention of the Court to the apology
which had been offered. Throughout the whole of it
there was not a single word of retraction. The defend
ant, no doubt, felt regret, and so he must, for having
done what was so disgraceful to Himself.—Rule absolute.
COURT OP COIdbION PEAS, JAN. 24.
Sitttn Banco.
BELL G. JACOBS.
Mr. Sergeant Jones moved for a rule to skew cause
why the bail bond, which had been given in this case,
should not be cancelled, upon the ground that the de-
fendant, who resided within the liberties of the Tower,
had been arrested by a cdpias directed to the Sheriff of
Middlesex, which did not contain the clause of non
ornittas, &c.
The Coolie was first of opinion, that the defendant
could not take any advantage of the wrong to obtain
redress, but if the constable of the Tower thought proper
he might complain and bring an action against the
Sheriff for invading a jurisdiction which was exempt
from his authority. The Learned Counsel, however,
cited several cases in support of his application, and it
being intimated to the Court that a doubt had been
raised as to whether the Tower Hamlets were to be con-
sidered within the jurisdiction of the county of Micktie-
sex, they determined to grant the rule.
SCALES V. PICKERING AND OTHERS.
In this case the plaintiff sought to recover a compen-
sation from the defendants, who are membets of the
East London Water Works, for a trespass committed
by them in laying down pipes for the conveyance of
water across a field belonging to the plaintiff, through
which was a narrow footpath. The case was tried be.
fore the Lord Chief Justice ar Westminster, during the
adjourned sittings after last 'f in ty Term. when it ap-
peared, that by the 32d section of the 47th Geo. 111.
cap. 72, the company was authorised, for the purpose
of distributing water to the adjoining parishes, " to dig
and break up the soil and pavement of any roads, high-
ways, foota ays, commons, streets, lanes, alleys, pas-
sages, and common places whatsoeser." It was con-
tended for the defendant% that by this section they had
a right to carry their pipes beneath the footpath which
ran across the plaintiff's field. It appeared, however,
that the section contained a proviso, " that no private
lands or grounds should be iavaded without the con-
sent of the Griner or owners ; or commons without the
consent of the lord of the manor, or the proprietor
thereof ; and upon this it was contended, that the de-
fendants had no right to enter the close without making
full and ample compensation to the plaintiff.
The Loan CHIRP JUSTICE. considering the point to
be one of considerable importance, declined to decide
it at the trial, wishing it to be reserved for the conside-
ration of the Court, and a verdict was therefore taken
for the plaintiff,
A rule nisi was moved for and obtained* last Term,
and the patties this day appeared to shew cause; when
the case having been fully argued,
The Comte were of opinion that the case came solely
within the meaning of the proviso mentioned in the
Act, and they therefore determined that the action was
maintainable, and that the rule to set aside Vie verdict
should be discharged.
PREROGATIVE COURT, JAN. 24.
ARBRRY V. ASH.
This was a question as to the admission of an alle-
gation in a suit to establish the validity of a paper of
an extraordinary and unique character, alleged to be
the will of Robert Hoadley Ash, D.D. why died in the
year 1826. The paper bore date in the year 182+,
and began thus—" I promise and swear that I will
leave my plate, watch, jewels, and other property"—
but no legatee was named. The testator then " pro-
prised" and " swore" that he would leave his property
to a Mrs. Abery, the wife of a person who kept a public
house, but who had been since in confinement for debt.
The allegation, which set up this paper as-a testamen-
tary instrument, was opposed by Miss Ash, the daugh-
ter of the deceased, on the ground that the paper was
not dispositive: it spoke only of what the writer would
do; and if otherwise, it was filo de se, :hewing insanity
or folly upon the face of it.
The Contra admitted the allegation; observing, that'
should it appear, from the evidence, that the testator
had been really unsound, the party setting up this paper
would incur a responsibility as to costs.
RIR HARPORD JONES sintiscas, BART. V. RING.
This was a suit to decide the validity of an alleged
codicil, executed by Mrs. Mary Brydges, spinster, of
Winterbourne, near Bristol, who died the 4th of Feb.
1826, at the age of 75, in possession of very large pro-
perty. Her peisonal estate amounted to nearly 60,0001.
and she was possessed of real estates in Hertfordshire,
Bedfordshire, and Gloucestershire, of consider able value.
A will, dated the 191 of March, 1823, and a codicil,
dated the 15th of April. 1825, had been admitted to
probate by consent, and the sum of 18,0001. had been
invested in the hands of trustees to abide the event of
this suit. By these instruments the great bulk of the
property was left is Sir Harford Jones, Bast. (who
afterwards took the additional surname of Brydges), a
cousin and the nearest relative of the deceased, aka
was nominated therein executor and residuary legatee
sad in the codicil he was left 'a specific legacy of
85,0001. The codicil in dispute bore date the 25th of
January-, 1826, s few days only previous to the death
of the testatrix. It contained a legacy of 10,0001. to