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

Miss Sarah King (the party it► the sun), vitio tied uetu
a couipaniou of ins tebtatris, and attended her to net
last illness, which was of a painful and distressing kind:
another legacy of 1,0001. to Mr. John Hay, her medic.l
attendant. and 1.50(1. to Thomas Gay, a " servant of
all woi k," and smaller legacies to two relations of Miss
King. To secure sufficient funds for the payment of
these legacies, the codicil of April, 1825, was revoked,
and the amount of the specific legacy to Sir Harford
Jones was reduced to 20,0001. This instrument, which
was drawn up by one and attested by another of Miss
King's relations, it was alleged, had been concocted by
the parties benefited thereby, the testatrix having been
for some time previous to its date confined to her bed,
and in such a state of mind as to render her incapable

of making a disposition of her property.

After the evidence had been read,
Dr. LusniNorow argued in favour of the codicil. He
complained of the want of specification of the 'exact
amount of the property, which was important. inas..l
much as 10,6001. might be a comparatively small sum
for the deceased to give to a person for whom she had
promised to provide, and whose services to the deceased
had been so unremitted as tho►e of Miss King. Mr.
Hay had been upon very confidential terms with the
deceased, and Gay had not only been very active and
useful as a servant, but had been accustomed to carry
the deceased after she became infirm, and actually rup-
tured himself in lifting her out of her carriage. Them
was no ground for imputing insanity to the deceased,
and if the witnesses were unimpeached, the paper must

be pronounced for.
The remainder of the argument was postponed till
next Court day.

SHERIFF'S OFFICE, RED LION-SQUARE.
ALLEN, CLERK, V. LAWFULL AND OTHERS.

This was a writ of inquiry for the assessment of da-
mages for injury sustained by the plaintiff, in conse-
quence of a false arrest and imprisonment, under aggra-
•ated circumstances.

Mr. CHARLES PHILLIPS was for the plaintiff, whom
he represented as a respectable Cle-gyman of the esta-
blished Church. The circanntances were as follow :
The Rev. Mr. Allen was arrested at twelve o'clock in the
day, by a Sheriff's officer and his assistant, under the
name of Wm. Allen. Conscious that he did not owe to
any person a sum of money which could have placed
him in this jeopardy, and convinced from the misno-
mer that he was wrongously arrested, he pressed
both these considerations on the attention of the Sheriffs'
officers, repeatedly urging,that as his name was Thomas,
and not William, that he knew no such person, nor
ever had dealings with those named in the writ, nor ever
was in that part of the country where the debt wasl
said to have been contracted. In or der to remove all
doubts from the minds of the defendants as to his
identity, he appealed to his landlady to corroborate his
assertion : and she, unhesitatingly, stated, that his name
was not William, but Thomas, and that she had known
him, from first to last, for a period of nearly three years.
The bailiffs, or one at them, remarked, that he (Mr. A.)
was not the first person who had been wrongfully-
arrested ; that if they had done wrong,they were account
able for it. Mr. Allen was, as might be expected from this
mode of debatinithe matter, taker. away in custody and
walked though the streets to Chancery-lane, whole he
was locked up. After sermerefiection on this extraordinary
proceeding, Mr. Allen st rote to the attorney whose name
appeared on the writ, repeating, what he had already
urged so strongly to the officers, that he was not the
person named in it; and about two hours afterwards,
the clerk of that attorney called upon Mr. Allen, in order,
as he stated, to ascertain the facts of the false arrest,
when Mr. Allen verbally tried to satisfy him of the error
of the proceeding, and of the annoyance he had endured
by being detained a prisoner without any just cause. The
consequence of this was, that the der k left him, with a
promise to make further investigation into the matter
of complaint. The same person returned at five
o'clock in the evening of the same day, and was good
enough to mention that Mr. Allen must remain in cus-
tody until further information could be obtained,
observing at the same time, in a very friendly and con-
soling manner, that it must be satisfactory to Mr. Allen
to know that he was not the person mentioned in the
writ. Previously to the departure of this Gentleman,
he mentioned that any refreshments Mr. Allen might
call for would be provided the momeet he opened his
mouth. On this suggestion, and having been without
food the whole of the day, and exhausted with anxiety
at his confinement, exposure,and unmerited degradation,
he asked the attendant of the house for something for
dinner. The reply was, that he might have it for money,
but not otherwise; anclNlGAllen having been taken from
his lodgings without any expectation of being detained,
was wholly unprovided with funds of any description.
He was coesequently obliged to remain without accom-
modation of any kind until breakfast time next morning.
After the plaintiff had undergone all these privation.,
and been exposed to the hazard of a damp bed, the
attorney at length appeared, and released him from
custody, but not until he gave an undertaking to sur-
render himself into custody it he was the debtor. Thus,
after all these annoyances *hid: have been enumerated,
Mr. Allen could only obtain conditional liberty,
being still harassed with the fear of a repetition of
the outrage, which materially affected his spirits,
interrupted his avocations, and injured his professional
pursuits; so much that since that period he had not
been able to recover the tranquillity and composure of
mind so necessary for a Minister of the Gospel. It was
contended, that although Mr. Allen's confinement did
not exceed a period of 24 hours, the circumstances con-
stituted an age of suffering.
Mr. ADOLPHUS, for the defendant, stated, that the
arrest was a mere mistake, as might be imagined from
the very danger of it; that the defendants were subject
to denials of identity, and were responsible for the can
sequences of allowing a prisoner to escape; and that
the error should be looked upon with a great degree of
indulgence in consideration of the serious nature of the
duties which officers had to perform. He represented
that the defendants had, when they ascertained the
mistake, offered recompense to the plaintiff, who would.
not listen to the proposition.
It was here stated that the offer of recompense;
amounted to 51.
Mr. ADozenus again called on the Jury to look with
the utmost indulgence at the mistake, and give little
more than nominal damages.
The Jury assessed the damages at 251.

On the day after the affray at Bexhill, a large com-
pany of smugglers were seen to pass through the village
of Wellingdon, about three miles from Eastbourn. The
smugglers were from 100 to 150 in number, with carts,
horses, iced all heavily laden, and took a cross country
direction over the downs. There can be but little
doubt that they were of the party concerned in the
affray. Six persons, charged with the murder of the
blockade suns, were committed to our House of Corcc-
lion on Friday last.—.Bnihtess Guardian.