Star.
London, England, 1829-01-28 00:00:00

ACLAND V. TIM RANI 01 *NOLAND.
This was a question of great importance, and was
brought before the Coed last Term for its gpinion, as
to whether the Bank of England was justified in paying i
over to an executor Stock remaining in the Bank belong-
ing to a person, deceased, when the amount was left to
specific legatees under the testator's will?
The arguments were now resumed, and Mr. Sergeant
BOSANQUST appeared on behalf of the Bank, and argued
the question at great length, contending that the Bank
would be placed in a situation of great difficulty and
embarrassment if it was not empowered to pay over
to an executor without the consent f every specific
legatee. In support of this view of the case, he referred
to a decision made by the Master of the Rolls, wbo had
gone on the presumption that an executor had the whole
legal estate in a testator's property.
Mr. ALDERSON was then heard in reply, and the
Court considering the importance of the case, took time
to deliberate on the point.
°Rookie IP COOPER.
This was an action against the Commissioners of a
bankrupt for an assault and false imprisonment. The
Jury found for the plaintiff, with 1001. damages. It
appeared, that the plaintiff received a notice in London
to attend the meeting of the Commissioners at Norwich
next day, by nine o'clock, and not having been in at-
tendance, he was arrested upon a warrant from the de.
lendant, and taken in custody to Norwich.
Sir James SCARLETT now moved to set aside the
verdict, on the ground that the plaintiff had sufficient
notice to attend the Commissioners, and also that there
were circumstances of suspicion against the plaintiff,
which warranted the Commissioners in taking the step
theihad done.
Tbs COURT refuted to disturb the verdict.

El PART! ATKINSON.
wis an application to t.ke a female child oat of
the custody of her mother, that she might be given to
the custody of her father. The case was allowed to stand
over, to see whether an amicable arrangement could not
be entered into between the parties.
Mr. POLVTIC now stated, that at the suggestion of the
Court the parties had entered into an arrangement.
which, it was hoped. would be satisfactory.—The rule
was then discharged.
THZ KING V. CAMPBELL.
In this case a rule was obtained, last Term, to show
cause why a criminal information should not issue
against Botsford Campbell, E.g. for an assault on the
Rev. Mr. Aveley. It appeared from the affidavit of
M . Aveley, that he was shooting on the manor of Little
Sutton, county of Sussex, which he afterwards learned
belonged to Mr. Campbell, but on which he conceived
he had permission from the owner to sport; when be
was accosted by Mr. Campbell in the rudest manner.
and upon his remonstrating Mr. Campbell raised hie
whip, and was about to strike him, had not Mr. Mel',
rental ked that he was an excellent shot.
Sir J. SCARLZTT now opposed the rule, and read an
affidavit from Mr. Rumford Campbell, in which he
stated, that he understood the Reverend Mr. Aveley
had assumed the right to sport, on the ground of his
being the vicar of the ;latish, and that he was irritated
upon finding him on his premises; but lie denied alto.
gaiter that he ever intended to a.sault Mr. Aveley, or
to provoke him to commit a breach of the peace.
The Court n as of opinion that, as Mr. Campbell de-
nied the intention to assault, the rule might be dis-
charged. on his ing the costs.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. JAL 27.
HUNT V. DS ILACQUIRRIt.

This action was tried before the Loan Cuter JUSTICE
at Guildhall, London, and was brought by a tradesman
at Brighton, against the Hon. General. De Blacquiere,
to recover the value of some furniture supplied to Lady
Harriet De Blacquiere, who was living separate from
her husband, the defendant, and had obtained a decree
for ahnions from the Ecclesiastical Court.
Mr. Sergeal t SPARKLE now applied for a rule to
.how cause why a verdict, which was for the plaintiff,
for the value of the goods, should not be set aside, and
a nonsoit entered on two points; the first was a point of
law, that where alimony was decreed, the husband was
not liable unlimitedly even if the alimony was not paid,
but only to a reasonable extent, proportionate to the
amount of the allowance. In the nest place, it was
sworn at the trial that the defendant had beaten Lady
Harriet and mitred her out of doors; and by this eva-
de ce the damages were swelled. The defendant was
taken by surprise by this testimony, -but he had now
affidavits to contradict the fact of the defendant having
eve: i 1 t eased his lady, sworn by persons of the highest
sack, but whose names he did not wish to mention.
The LORD Carat JUSTICE said, that the Learned
'S-rgeant was entitled to his Itule on the point of law;
but that the Court could not deal with the second point,
unless the affidavits in support of it were read. and-the
names of the part es who swore them, stated. This role
applied to those of the highest birth and station, as sell
as to persons of the lowest rank; and there appeased
nn reason for departing from it in this instance.—Rule
nisi grant:d, on the point of law only.
CONSISTORY COURT, Jaw. 27.
MCLEAN V. MCCLEAN. _ _

This was a suit on the part of the wile, for the resto.
Talon of coujngal rights. The suit was met on the part
of the hthband by an allegation of adultery. Two
witnes.e:, who had %wen examined in support of that
alleg scion, on the part of the husband, were objected to
by the wile; but the Court overruled the objec►ion.
ROWS V ROWIL.

An interesting young female, about eighteen years of
age, appealed in Conic, and handed a petition to the'
Register, which contained a ;owl of divorce. The
petitioner stated that she had been married atilisbops-
gate, last October, to a man named Joseph Rowe, but
abe marriage had not been consumnsared inconsequence
of some natural mat-conformation of the husband. The
ground of the petition was, therefore, an allegation of
impotency. She was sown in Court, and deposed to
the above effect. She alto stated, on her oath, that she'
was most anxious to sue out a invoice, but bad not'
money to defsay the 'requisite espense. After having
sworn, in additio.l tottikse facts, that she was not 'kink
.51. after the paynient'of all her sort and lawful debts-1
The Comte awarded her the Juthor Proctor and tha'
Junior Doctor of she Conn, to aid her in the otoseention
of the suit, for the rosecution f h the prayed.
Last week, %%Wain Wien, # loucettershire
who had lived as groom wish a Noble Lord, and had.
saved a little stoney, came to London for recreation,
and went to the Serpentine river, in Hyde Part, our
Saturday to see 'be skating : be there met With one John
Cashman, who fin mei ly lived as pot boy near the tows
house of Gieen's Master. Green knew something
.of,
him, and their acquainiAte wits renewed. After spenik
ing the day together very tritiviviallybi Green's neptnse,
Co)hinan proposed that he snnuM Veep
.thatnight with.
him at his lodging-,ln Barrett's court,Cavendish 'square;
Green consented, and when be opened his eye) in 'the
morning Cashmin was wine, 'and had taken with hrm
'every thing belonging 'to Goien, *ex.ept the shirt opOn
hi) back. Green lost eight sovereigns, seveo
a silver hutripg /notch, std 'otter tot:petty.