Star.
London, England, 1827-05-10 00:00:00

CLAUGIITOV V ttloll.

Mr. &moss slid he appeared to support the de-
mutter in this cause,' and he assured his Honour that
this was one of the most vratiritri snits that had ever
been brought into a •Ccitirt of Justice. Tie &Antal,,
instead of meeting this demurrer, hid not thought pro-
' per to appear, so that the dfaureter must, of course,
I be allowed.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, he was de-ijeilly of
opinion that cases of deniuricr•were too rnt,Cly encou-
raged by giting °ply small costs against the failing papty.
Some years ago an order had been made by this Court
to allow full costs in these cases ; that order, however,
had never been acted upon, 'although in existence
for many 'years. His Honour then said, be was of
opinion that this order ought to be enforced in every
case except where the demurrer_ was proper and row
sonable. The way to be useful to the public was not
Only to, na .ke useful orders, but to see that they" Were
properly enforced. Hii.Hotiour then said, so important
was the question,:that he should feel it his duty to con-
sult the Lord Chancellor upon it, with a view to (Armin
his Lnrdship's.santtion to an order, by which full costs
should be allowed where demurrers or •p!eas were,
overruled, unless, as he before observed, they appeared
to be reasonable, and wire calculatal to bring the ratites
to a conclusion, by a short course, rattier titian-by .any
skill in ple.ittingi
Mr. SUOMI ob.erved, that his Honour the-late Vite-
Chancellor had allowed him toll costs h•few.disys ago,
in a case of detnurrer which he argued before hislionour.
The Vlcii-CHANCALLOR.--1 shall take the ,p.4ers
home with me, and consider what has been the practice
of the Court in Ureic canes.

COURT'OF KING'S BEI4CI-1, NAY 9.

UR& LEMAN, APUINISTHATRIX. V.OOOSINS.
MrOgnEsty moved to set aside the verdict given foe
the plaintiff, and to enter a nansuit in this action, which
was tried before Mr. Justice Surrough. It was for the
recovery of an o!d debt for goods sold; and the defend-
ant pleaded that be was, in Nlay, 1816, discharged un,
der. the Insolvent Debtors'. Act of 53 ti.eorga..lll.4ts
which the plaintiff, in her replication; set forth a setae:-
quent promise. To prose this a man named Wesley,
the sonirs-lawof the phiotiff, was called,who stated that
the defendant,after his discharge.was chosen a pride offi-
cer, and had-summoned Lessen, the hitestate, to pay his
rates; and that Leman asked the defendant when he would
pay Wm what he owed? to which the'defend.rtitsaid "h
is a just account, ar.d when it lays in my power I will
pay it." Wesley also stated that the delenitantmet Mrs.
Leman, the plaintiff, last year, and she said, " Why do
not you pay me? Yon know you owe the money." And
Wesley sad "Mrs. Leman will take it any way : 'where-
upon the defendant 6xed.to pay a, put of the .debt in
three weeks or a month; but did not•specify what part,
nor could the witnes, tell the precise wordi he made
use of. -
Mr. JEREMY submitted that the first promisor/Basin&
ditional, and therefore if sufficient to onstainteaasiniock
should have been specially declared upon; and that Ose
second promise was not precise, and he further argued
that the statutes of insolvency differ from the statute of
limitations, inasmuch as they are in bar of the debt alto-
gether, and therefore that a subsequent promise was
nuclion pacturn and void, the debt being extinguished by
the statues,. which gives a remedy in rear, and a dis-
charge its persootta.
After some discussion on the provisions in the Insol-
vent Debtors Acts,

Mr. Justice BAYLAT asked if the Judge had left to
the Jury the question of the defendant's ability to pay?
Mr. JaRIDIT replied, that the Learned Judge unly
went upon the asknowledgement of the debt. •
Lord Tatentarms—Take a rule to shew cause.
THE WAKEFIELD/I.

Mr. BROCCIHAM, in the course of Abe 'day, said, that
it had been agreed upon to enter a no{iprosequi with
respect to Mts. Frances Wakefield, and that therefore
the motion which the Attorney Geneial had leave to
Make to-morrow would most probably be unnecessary.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. MAY 9.
The Judges of this Court being this morning engaged
ill the Exchequer Chamber, Mr. Justice PARK sat alone
fora 0 ort time, taking justifications of bail, and dis
posing of a few motions of no public interest. The
LORD CHUM JUSTICE sat at Nisi Prins at one o'clock.
SIR JOHN DE BEAUVOIR V. STROCHLINO.
This was an action of demi.
Mr. Sergeant TADDI stated the cases: Illrassid.ol
accessary to hate, that the pliiiital-salue arli fat-

Merl; l~owfl,atld at the tirnithetrinsattton tool place
which: formed the subject of the present action, he was
knowti by thai name. He now sought to tecover pos•
session of a book of plates, which he alleged the de-
fendant improperly withheld from him. This book
was of the value of 2001. or SOOL and •had been
Made up at a great expense by the plaintiff. The man-
ner in which the defendant had got possession of it was
thin s—He. was a ,Germen artist of some celebrity,
and was employed by Sir John.de Beauvoir to paint
his portrait, which he aecordingli aid, charging one
hundred *guineas for it. Whila he' was engaged in
paintink this portrait Sir-John lent him this collection
of engravings, it being undeistered that he was to re-
turn it when the portrait was finished. This, however,
the Gentleman bed•not thought' proper td do ; the por-
trait had been sent home, and lOU guineas paid for it ;
but he had not returned the
.plites, and whets applied
to for that purpote he lensed fb* tin o. Whether he
meant to say that habad noebeetiaailid• enough for, the
portrait, and that, consequently, he, had diarained this
book, the Learned Sergeant really did not know. After
he had got possession of the buoVin question, he called
at the house of Mr. Town, a celebrated collector of
prints, in Bund-street, and said to him, I think pill
were concerned in collecting these prints?" and on being
answered in the affirmative, he mid, 4, Well, I have
borrowed it, and do. not mean to return it ; I mean to
do him out of it." The Learned Sergeant had no doubt
that when he bad called witnesses who would prove these
facts,'he should be entitled to the verdict of the Jury.
John Shaw was servant tOSiriJohn de Beauvoir, who
lived in Conduit-place. He proved the delilery of the
book in question-to a pets •o sent by tie defendant. •
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Bosinnuar.—He
'had seen the portrait of his master.; if was much like
him ; there were several figures in•the painting ; he did
,know in what character he was drawn. •
Mr. Sergeant Bosa•Nounx.---Why, is -he not repre-
sented.as an Indian chief ?—.(A laugh). .
Witness did nor know; he was painted in a very
'strange dress ; he did nat know who•the other figures.
were means to represent. _ • -
Mr, Sergeant Boon Ng() er -Why, is not your master
'represented as an Indian chief between the figures of
'Socrates and Alcibiades?—!A- laugh).
, Witness did 'not brio*: 'ein@ ifereeireitiOihnthe
othrn were.
Mr. Charles Town wasa_pritstseller in Bond-street,
in partnership with. ,1111. Emanuel,- He stated, that
those prints which he had colleitid, arid had placed in
the hook in question, w, re worth 2001..0r SOU ,There
were other plates which he bad not obtained, which
were equally valuable. Ile them confirmed the state-
meat oldie: conversation with the defendant at his shop,
which was in the spring, t f last year. - . •
'Mr. Wm. Wi,ham, the-, attorney to the plaintiff,
proved an application for the return of Ott:boot, •
This was the plaintiff% ca5ef.:..a,,,.3),., •
• Mr. Sergeant Boaanattax, for Osealerendant, • sub,
mitted that the plaintiff. should be nonsuited on two
grcunds: first, he contended there was no evidence to
prove that the book was ever in possession of the de-
fendant.. It'had only been proved. that it bad. &leis'
delivered to some person who. saisibe came liam Mr.
Suoehling.
..'Tie Lunn CHIEF haring gala, that it appeared by
Towels evidence that tie defendant Had admitted
the possession of the book, anti:that he meant to-do the
plaint 11'0w-of it,' •
• - • •
Mr. Sew/1113(806A NeUrr 'aid, that these -ond ground
was, this action being brought, titan action. of defense
the dexctip).ion of the book. ItalVtint,been sufficiently,
minute. ,
The LORD CH ris Jitsrina did eraatiOldabisosiectien
good, and the Learned &meant tylkg.po other defence,
a verditrwal returned, for the plaintiff foe the nominal
damages of SOO/. it being.understood that diedefenjant
WAS to give up the: brick.; hut IP:case off' his refosal to
do that, the vet dict.fot SQOI. was tastand good. ' •

. . .
PREROGAtIVE COUgT„Mier 9. l'*:., _ '
JONES V. ICI„NO AND 'OSMIUM
This was a:suit to set aside a codicil.- The, deceased,
Mrs. Brydges, executed a •tvill in, the year-1824, by,
whiCh, among other provisions, she left 5,5,001. to Sir
Harmed Jones, who has since added the name of
Brydges. A few days before her death. %chiefs took
place in tebrOary, 1826; at the age Of, seventy, it, was
'alleged that the deceased executed the codicil tilbitli is
the subject of the present suit, 'wlsereirkshe reduced, thi
-legacy to ti Harford Jones to 21:7,0001: and divided
the 15,00(1. taken from the prigi,n,al sum .;ammigst cer-
tain individuals ifismediately about her person—leaving
10.0001. to Miss Xing, 1.;.5001: to a footman, and
1,0001. to an apothicary '(who wis not her chief
medical attendant), in considerafOn Of -the " anxiety
he had expressed lot her 'recovery' during her last ill-
ness.. The allegations agairr,t the admission of the paper
propounded, tended to impute Rio fraud on the part
of some of the persons interested in its provisions; the
deceased being at the time of unsound mind. .Tte
question now before the Court was the admissibility of
the articles, which, it was contended, were vague, irre.
viler, and unintelligible.
Sir-Joust NICHOLL thought that there was such a
suspicion about the whole transaction, thai the Court
1 was boend to admit the articles to proof, with the ex-
ception of two, which he directed tote reformed.

DOLE AND CAMP AGAINST DEWS AND OtHERS.
WilliaM Duke, of Bexhill, the testator in this case,
died in, October, 1826, at the age of 91, leaving per-
sonal property to the amount of 40,0001. besides areal
estate worth three thousand pounds. In 1821, and sub-
sequently, he executed a will and codicils, appointing
his brother, Mr. J. Duke, and another person, his
executors. The next of kin now sought to set aside
these instruments, on the ground that from the year
1820 the testatorh4d been in such a state of debility,
owing to his mental and bodily infirmities, that he was
wholly incapable of giving instructions for a will, or of
reading it or hearing it read, and was liable to circum-
vention. Besides being nearly blind, and so deaf that
the utmost exertion of voice could not make him hear,
it was alleged that he wai'of ireak ind unsound mind.
Amongst the extravagancies ascribed to the deceased,
he was represented to have driven himself about the
country in a chaise, notwithstanding his bodily weak-
ness, accompanied by a furious mastiff, in the habit
of wbrrying sheep, which would have Prevented assis-
tance being rendered him; also with hainessing a WI-.
lock to his chaise and driving it,,to the terror 9f the
neighbouringpeople; drenching his mach cows with salt
water; ordering his corn to be harvested in a green
state; distributing barley sugar, gingerbread nuts, and
bitits eyes (which Dr. Jenner,.at the request of the
'Court, explained to. be a species of sweermeat, moulded
into It form resembling
_the. Wits.of bullock? "eyei),
amongst addles at Chasch,loc. These ecceatrieitits-,