Star.
London, England, 1827-12-03 00:00:00

which the goods broogbt• at the Sheriff's sale Ind the
sum •at which they bad been valued but a short time
before. The goods in question had been' valued to the
ingoing tenant at 175/.: at the sale they brought but
211. There were four butts of porter and p irt of one
sold for 61. Us. whereas the value of one butt is 61. 15s.
The Learned Junus, in summing up, called the St'
tention of the Jury to the fact, that this valuation 'had
bees made in February and the goods slid in AlMch.
His Lordship dwelt in terms of strong dfrapprt bationl
upon the condwct of the Sheriff's officer, who was the
real defendant in this cause, and whose evidence he
had on that account rejected. The manner in which these
sales were conducted was, he observed, most scandslous,
and called loudly for reform: He was far from im
puting any blame to the Sheriffs) they knew nothing
of the matter, and would not. hive to pay either the
damages or costs of this action.—Verdict for the plain-
tiff, damages 1101.
•

• . MORE U. CUFF.

This was an action upon► a bill of exchange for
191. 17s. The defendant paid 51. Ss. into Court, and
set off the value of a double barrelled gun, IV. 14s.
alleged to have been purchased of him by the plain--
tiff. To this it was replied, that the gon was not
bought but borrowed, and was spit of the value stated,
having been incapable of bearing the shock of discharge,
owing to the bad timber of the stock. A verdict was
found for the plaintiff for 21. 16s. In the course of
the trial much astonishment was excited in come•
queuce of some of the gun al skein who were examined
having stated that a gun ought to be sold for 151. viten
'its first cost amounted to only 101. The witness by
whom the quality of the timber in the stock wfs deposed
tq
after describing it as•sboragraineJ and cross-grained,
was further examined.as to whether he thought it such
a gun as a respectable entsurfactuier would vend; he
replied that such guns .were frequently made up for
country orders, but were ,seldom sold in the regular
way of trade.
Mr. Justice Park said it was highly isiprOper thni to
trifle with the lives of his Majesty's subjects. However
excusable in other trades it might be to vend inferior
articles at a low price, a gun that might burst and
blow a man's brains Mit ought never to be manufac
tared in a manner apparently sound, and -really unfit
for use. Another reason why cheap guns were a nuisance,
was they encouraged idlers and poaching.

PftBROGATIVE COURT, Do. 1.
coLvo4 V. IPRAZER

Dr. PIiILLIMORIC stated, that the party deceased in
this suit was Mr. John Farquhar, of Fonthill, who died
the 6th of July, 1825. Administration had been grant.
ed to the defendant, his nephew and next of kin, on the
presumption that the deceased had died intestate. That
administration had been revoked, and the defendant
was called upon to show cause why a will m ide, in
14814 should not. be admitted to proof. Mr. Frazer,
under the circumstances of the case, conceived that he
ought to call upon all the parties interested under that
will to see it propounded. in order to protect himself ,1
from molestation in the p •ssession of the property.)
There had been a doubt, however, in the registry,
whether a person in his circumstances couldsall upon i
persons to see it propounded ? He (Dr. Phillimore)
submitted the question to the Court's consideration,
which would do what justice required.
Dr. Drowns, on behalf of the surviving executor
under tt e will, thought that this question ought not to
have been brought before the Colin; he, however, left
it to the Court to decree or not. The parties interested
under the will, ani wf.om it would be necessary to serve,
a ere numerous ; many resided in Scotland; the legatees
named were considerable in number; professorships
were to be set up in diffetent Universities; and all the
schoolmasters in Scotland it would perhaps be peter
sary to serve. His party conceived that the course
prop-osed to be pursued, and which would bt attended'
with expense, would lead to no betieficial results. All
the parties under the will would be bound by the acts
of the surviving executor.
Dr. raltrassoaa, in reply, stated that Mr. Frazer,
whose interest in the matter was to the amount of
400„0001. was advised that the course he proposed to
-Wolk. was kfecessary to his interests.
• ,Sir JOKY 4&CHOLL saidohat the inconvenience of
the proceeding, it any, would fall upon the party appli-
cant. He (the Learned Judge) recollected a case simi-
lar to the present which occurred in 1792 or 17911. In
that case the party obtained a decree against all persons
in general to appear and see the will propounded; the
change of circumstances was occasioned by the birds
of a child. In the present case, a will, which had been'
executed in the East Indies, was attempted to be proved,
and the ground of opposition was that it had been re-
voked. Although the act of the executor, being the
appointee of the deceased. would to a certain extent
btud the parties, yet some party might allege collusion.
It would therefote be expedient, in a case of this nature,
to call elan parties interested to appear; it could oc-
casion no prejudice to the adverse party. The Learned
Judge directed the decree to go, and recommended that
it should be in the largest terms, against all persons in
general.