Star.
London, England, 1816-07-06 00:00:00

BASIVORD V. HARRIS.

: This was an action to recovtr ,e 36 4s. l Id. for
work and labour done. The plaintiff is a dyer of
hats, and the defendant a hat manufacturer. The
plaintiff had been employed for some years as a dyer
by the defendant, and the present -demand was for
Work of this kind done for the defendant. The deka-
dant had paid £3O into Court, and contended that he
had a right to deduct the ,E 6 4s. l Id. in consequence
of certain damage done to a parcel of hats in the dye-
ing called the dye•gall. The only question was—
whether there was such a custom established in the
Wide as would authorize the defendant claiming a
right to make this damage a subject of set off ?—or
whether he ought not to bring. a cross-action to re-
cover for the damage done to Isis goods?
The Jury, after a short deliberation, found a ver-
dict for the defendant, thereby establishing the custom.

LEWIS V. HUMPHRIES.

This was an action by the indorsee of a bill of ex-
change, accepted by the defendant in the name of
Young, for £99 at twelve months, dated the 16:11 of
February, 1814.. The defendant pleaded that she
was not liable, and th4t the acceptance was not her
hand-writing, Mr. Jones, the drawer of the bill,
stated, that -hiving done business with the defendant's
former husband, Young, be had a demand against
hint, for which, after his death, he applied to his
widow, the present defendant, who did not deny the
debt, but said, as executrix to her deceased husband,
she must have twelve months to pay it in, and desired
that Jones would draw a bill upon her. This was
accordingly done, and Mrs. Young calved her shop.'
man, Humphries, who, at her desire. accepted it for
her. The words she used were, 46 Here, John, write
it for me, in the course of twelve months 1 shall be
able to pay it." Witness did not bear her call John,
66 My dear," at that time, but did afterwards; that
was, after they were married ; but John died before
the bill became due, and he believed Mrs. Humphries
was married again, The bill was paid by the wit-
ness to the present plaintiff in the course of business.
Mr. E. Laws, for the defendant, said, his defence
was, that his client was married to Humphries at the
time the bill was accepted ; and to prove this, he
would call the Lady who officiated as bride's-maid
when the ceremony took place.
Mrs. Elizabeth Clamp—l was present at the mar-
riage of Mrs. Young and Mr. Humphries. I was
bride's-maid.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH—Are you a married woman,
and were you so at the time of the marriage in ques-
tion ?—I was, my Lord.
Lord ELLE4BOROUGH—Then you could not be
bride's-surid--wontan, go on.
Witness—The marriage took place at St. John's
Church, Horsleydown, on the 50th of January, 1814;
no one was present at 'the marriage but myself, the
parson, and clerk. 1 was also present at Mr. Young's
death. which took place about a month before. Mrs.
Young took lodgings at a friend's house in St. John's
parish before she was married. After her marriage,
she went by the name of Humphries. Some people,
who did not know of the marriage, called her Mrs.
Young.
Lord ELLENB3ROUGIio••••44 Gentlemen of the Jury,
if you should be of opinion this woman was married
when this acceptance was made, it is void. The *it.
nes says, the ID arriage took place on the 30th of
January, the acceptance was not till the 16th of Fe-
bruary i at which timeb if you give credit to the lint

•
witness, the defendant was a married woman, and
could not make such a contract at this."
Mr. SCABLETTo.-44 My Lord, I will be nonsuited."
Plaintiff nonsuited.

PREROGATIVE COURT, JULY 5.
GRAY AGAINST ORAY AND OTHERS.
This was a cause respecting the last will and testa.
ment of Mr. John Gray, late of Glasshouse-street, in
the parish of St. Jamesi's, bookseller, deceased. It
appeared tpat the deceased had made his will, which
was in his hand-writing, and which purported to give
to his wife, Martha Gray, all Isis property, whoM be
appointed sole executrix. This will was found after
the deceased's death, 'tithe.= any date to it, but it
had an attestation elapse.
The Court (Sir 1141/4 Nicsou..2 was clearly of opi-
nion, from thg evidence produced, that the deceased
intended that this paper should operate, as his will,
in this form, and pronounced for the same.

GRANT AGAINST ALL PERSONS IN GENERAL.
This was a cause of proving its solemn form of law
a testamentary schedule of Mr. J. Grant, late of
Kennington.green, wine merchant, deceased. The pur-
port of the paper went to leave the deceased's pro-
perty among his children, but he died without being
able to execute the same. There being no opposi-
tion, the Court pronounced for its-validity, and gran-
ted administration to the eldest daughter.