Star.
London, England, 1828-12-18 00:00:00

-,- - . -.-

in the public line about ten years ago; my property
consists of the rents of some houses in St.Giles's,which
is nicknam sd " the rookery ;" I have only a past of the
houses there, ten in number; some are in Lawrence-
sines, where I reside, and others are in IStickridge
street ; my tenants are not generally of the female sex ;
tie houses are let out into weekly tenements ; there are
" nightly " tenements in the neighbourhood, but none
of that description belong to me; I have none that are
let out at threepence or fourpence per night; I don't
take single women for tenants; I have got sixteen
leasehold houses in Golden lane; Mr. Woolley was my
former attorney; a Mr. Jones and Reuben Martin had
deposited some stakes in my hands ; a man of the name
cf Griffith was to walk a match against time, and Jones
and Martin each deposited 501. in my hands; I heard
Mr. Jones say he had lent Reuben Martin 501. Mr.ll
Banbury is a saw-maker ; I had known him for some
years; I don't think I had ever betted with him ; I be-
lieve I was stakeholder for him two or thaee years ago;
the reason why I did not go to Mr. Woolley as my
attorney, on being arrested at the suit of Reuben Mar-
tin, was, that he was the attorney who sued out the
process against me; I don't recollect having any paper
given to me by Mr. Woolley, which I afterwards took
to the defendant; it was not on my first retaining the
defendant that [paid him the 21.5.. Mr. Isaacs prepared
the affidavit which I swore in the Common Pleas;
1 think be read the contents over to me ; Hanbury
showed me the defendant's bill of costs on him,
and pointed out to me the charge of 91. Os. 4d. far the
business done for me ;I had paid 14,1. 14i to Mr.Woole-,
ley, at the request of the defendant. The defendant-
said he would do no more business for Hanbury until
Isis bill was paid; and would not give up my papers
until then ; my object was to get my papers, but the de-
fendant would not give them up till the whole of his
bid on Hanbury, amounting to between 501. and 601.
-was paid ; that • bill was taxed down to a very anis&
sum, about 51. I have not got my papers yet ; I hared
been served with no demand for payment of •the 171;1
costs of the application to the Common Pleas; a paper
was brought to me, and Mr. Isaacs told me that I
should have to pty the 171. but ho demand' of it has
ever been made; I did not know that when 1 paid,
the money I should get my papers.
Re-examined—On seeing the defendant's bill of costs,
• Hanbury and I went to the defendant, who then said'
that he considered Hanbury liable to the costs ; that was
the first time that he had ever said so.
By Sir J. SnARLITT—I never instructed the defendant'
to bring an action against Reuben Martin in the untie
of Hanbury.
Hanbury and Fireman confirmed the material parts
of the pro.ecutor's testimony. The former expressly
denied the allegations in the defendant's affidavit, and
swore positively that he did not instruct the-defendant'
ea defend ti..e action against *Lai en at his (Hanbury':)
own risk and expense. He admitted, in cross-examina-
tion, that he had, a- few weeks before, instructed the de-
fendant to bring an action for him against Reuben Mar-
tin, to recover a• sum cf 501.
Mr. Le Blanc, the Master who taxed the defendant's
bill of costs on Hanbury, and reduced it from between
501. and 601. to 51. stated that he had disallowed she
cots in the action—Martin v. M Lasen—and in another
action—considering that Hanbury was not liable to pay
those costs.
• This was the case for the prosecution.
Sit J. SommEre (with whisrn were Mr. Brougham,
Mr. Sergeant Adams, Mr. Comyn, and Mr. Chitty)
addressed the Jut y for the defendant, and observed
upon the want of probable motive of the defendant in
coot n.itting the alleged perjury. The Learned Counsel,
alter commenting at great length on the evidence for
the prosernti,m. stated that he should call, as witnesses
fur the defendant, the clerk, Tyler, who was present at
the first interview between the defendant and the pro-
secutor and Hanbury, and another person, who would
prose, in contradiction to the evidence of the witnesses
Tor the prosecution, that Hanbury, and not the prose-
mos, was the person who employed the defendant to
defend the action at the suit of Mat tin.
A letter from Hanbury to the defendant was then
put in and read. It was to this effect—" I have to re-
:quest that you will make out my account by neat
'Thursday, and I will not fail paying you; also to re-
quest that you will make out Mr. paying
account,
and 1 will have that sealed ; and as you cannot go on
without funds, you must, of course, stay the proceed-
ings until I see you."
•. A memorandum was also put in, purporting to be a
copy of the preecipo in Martin v. M'Laten, in which the
action was stated to have been brought in die Court of
. Ki°g's Bench. This paper, it was stated, was ins nished
by Mr. Woolley, the art •rney who brought the action,
to the prosecutor, and was by him taken to the defen-
dant. The object of.this was to show that the mistake
in putting in bail in the Coust of King's Bench (the
,action being brought in the Common Pleas) did not
originate with the d.fendant ; and that therefore it was
iatpsobable that he should have made the promise de-
posed 19 by the prosecutor, to deduct from• his bill of
costs the expenses %Well the prosecutor had been put to.
Walter Tyler, examined by Mr. BKOVOHAIe.-1 am
cyst k to the defendant, and lived at his chambers in
Clantent's-inn, in 1&6; in October of that 'year. the
prosecutor and Ha nbut y can e to the defendant's them.
bets; I was tl ere at the time ; the psoaectfior stated
that an action had been bre light ag einst hirn-by Martin;
and be wished the defendant to put inlaid for him;
Hatsbp y said he wished bail to be put iivat his (Han-
bury's) expense, and that he would pay thetosts.; Han-
-ha:7 said that the action was brought for 501. stakes ;
t'.et prosecutor was a mere nominal defendant, and
it was 1 is (HanLur)'.-) money ; he said•be himself had a
elains against Martin to, .501. and wished the defendant
to bring an action fax him to recovreahat sum; thede-
asenclant said he d.d not like to bring such an action, as
he thought it would not be tried. Hanhany still wished
it to be brought, as be said bethought one action would
settle the other. The defendant then said. that as lie
silanbury) wished it, he would bring the action; and
be a 1,4 pia/wised to put us bail for the prosecutor at.
liaabury's expense; Hanbury replied, st Then I am
your pqrnatter, and will pay your costs." The deism.
dant had been employed by Hanbury on many previous
occasitms, but other p. rsons were the pasties in the bu-
oasis; one of them was a permits of the name of John-
atm, and lot him, and also for one Ostsby, a foreman
.1 Hasibusy's, Hanbury paid the costs; in November,
18,26, the prosecutor and Haubuty came again to the
defend ant's office, and pros acrd a prescipe ; 11. wairthen
paid by Hanbury to the defendant; another pound was
paid by Hanbury on the Ilth of November ; the ale fen
dant% bill of costa was delivered to Hanteury oil the
15th of Mooch last; Hanbury merely said at that t me
Vat he would attend to it; subseqnently, in April or
mar, he said he would pay the amount, and that he
only wished for time, as there wese other panic. eum
Coned who were to pay a part of the costs, a sum
mons was afterwards taken out by Mi. Woolley to tax

•
the bill, sad on my takiss it to Hanbury he said he had
given no-alit!levity for iss ►eis mime owl,
Cross-examined by Mr. GURNEY-.—l can't say oil
what day in October, 1826. the prosecutor and I-fanbury
came to the defendant's cffice. We make entelies in
our books, but I have not got the honks here. There is
an indictment pending against ate upon jlfe affidavit
which I made in this matter.
A Sheriff's officer's assistant stated, thatia November
last he served the prosecutor with a copy of the rule
with the Master's allocatur, frr the payment of 171.
which sum witness demanded. The prosecutor said he
was not prepared t.) pay it.
A person of the name of Bennett stated, that some
time in the year 1827 he was present at thedefendant's
chambers, when Hanbury stated that the money for
which the prosecutor had been arresud belonged to him,
and that the prosecutot was a mete nominal party. He
also stated that he (Millbury) was to be the defendant's
paymaster.
A great number of witnesses gave the def-ndant a,
good character.
After Mr. GURNEY had replied, and Lord TENTER-
DIN summed up the evidence, the Jury retired to cot .
sider their verdict, and on their return, after being it.
deliberation an I,eut and a half, pronounced the deten
dant Guilty.—The cause occupied the %hole of the dal.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. GUILDHALL, Dsr.. 17.
RATeIIART. AND OTHERS V. SROORMAN AND oTHERS
This was an action to recover a sum .14.660/. claimed
by the plaintiff. as the bankers of the Cliffdown Mining
Company, for the balance cf an account due to them
from the defendants, who were members of the com•
pany. It was proved by the documents which v ere
produced, that the defendants were directors and pr.-
prietors of the company during its esistence; and by
other evidence it was proved tbat the balance of the
account between the plaintiffs and the defendants wa%
in favour to the lot mer for the amount claimed.
For the defence,it was contended that the actin could
not be maintained, tipon the ground that the liability of
the defendants had ceased ; and to prove this, evidence
was given to show, that two of the defendant* named
Child and Lawrence, had given the plaint,ffs notice,
that they had cease.' to act as directors, and that too
other persons had been appointed to fill the vacancy
occasioned by their secession from the direction of the
Company. The letter, giving that notice, was signed
by the Secretary of the Comrany, and was subse-
quently acted upon by the plaintiffs, and they answered
checks 'signed with the names of two persons Mho had
succeeded the defendants, who had withdrav n It
appearid that at the time that these persons withdrew,
the balance of the account between the Company and
the plaintiffs was in favour of the latter l'2o/. but that
in a few days afterwards it was turned in favour of the
Company to the amount of 401. It was further stated
that Mr. Child, before he retired, had transferred his
shares to hi, son, who had since disposed of them to
other rersons; and upon the strength of this evidence
it was contended by hi. Counsel, that he at least could
not be liable;ss it was clear that he had ceased to be
either a director or a proprietor.
In reply to this evidence it was contended that the
dtfendants Mere liable upon the ground thet they had
held themselves out to the world, as partners and that
therefore they must take the consequences of having
given 4 credit to the Company by the respectability of
their own names.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE told the Jury, that the
only question for their consideration was, whether the
defendants had held themselves out to be partners? A
number of points of law which had been raised in the
course of the cause his Lordship reserved for the consi-
deration of the Court.
The Jury 'having retired for some time. returne3 a
verdict for the plaintiff, damages 4,6601. declaring that
fsom the evidence which had been given in the case
they were of opinion that the defendants had held
themselves out as partners.
- PREROGATIVE COURT, Die. 17:
PIED V. PIED.

Sir J. NICHOLL gave sentence in this case. This was
a suit respecting the will of Mr. John Bicknell. of Brad
ford, Somerset; the testator died at the age of St or 86,
baChelor, leaving a sister, Sarah Bicknell, older than
himself, a niece, and four great nephews and nieces. The
personal property amounted to between 10,0001. and
12,e001. and the real pi operty, except what was entailed,
visas worth about 2001. a year. In the event of an in.
testae y,the property would be divisible as follows—One
third to the sister, one third to a niece, and the remain•
ing third to the great nephews and nieces, four in num-
ber, each of whom would be entitled tonne twelfth ; die
testator left two wills, one dated September, 1787, all
the legatees named in which, except the sister, who had
a legacy of 3001. had died prior to the execution of the
second will, now propounded, dated the 13th of Ser-
tentber, 18427, ten days helote the testator's death. By
this last instrument, with the exception of some spe-
cific legacies to his sister and others, entitled to dis-
tribution, the whole of the property, teal and per-
sonal, was bequeathed to Mr. William Bird, the de-
eeaseti's nephew, alto was named sole executor.
The party coning this will was not the sister,
who' would be entitled vi one-third, in case of its
being annulled, nor the niece entitled to tl.e saute
proportion; but the stale opponent was Mr. John
Bird, brother of the executor, who would be entitled
to one twelfth only ; but it came cut in evidence, on an
interrogatory jut to Mr..) lin Bird's son,, an attorney,
that the real opposer of the bill was Mr. John Bicknell,l
a great nephew of the deceased, the heir at law, and
inheritor of the entailed property, but who was not
entitled to distribution of the personalty; instead of
Mr. John Bicknell trying the validity of this will at
common law, where a viva wee examination of the
witnesses before a July afforded the most effectual
way of detecting fraud, he set up Mr. John Bud as
the opposer of the will in this Court. This was an
extrat?rdittary mode of proceeding, and not calculated
to creAtt a favourable influence as to the opposition.—
The will had 'been regularly executed, and attested by
three respectable althea!" who, if they were believed.
prc.ved the case; the ground of opposition was the im-
paired state of the deceased's intellects', and the bad
charactet of the drawer of the will, an attorney of Wel-
lington. The capacity of the testator, the Learned
Judge thought was satisfactorily proved; and suppos.
ing all that had been so industriously raked up regard-
ing the charec.er of the Atturaey, for many years
back, to be true, the taaasactinn did not depend upon
his testimony aloe', and was supported by a variety of
circumstances. The charge of fraudulent conspiracy,
Winded ott the state of the deceased's affections, his
capacity, and the alleged control exercised over !limbed
failed; an 4 the whole cane had bees conducted with so
much acrimony, and itichsidert so *such irrelevant mas-
ter, that is pronouncing for the validity of the will pro.
pounded, he must teadeala Mr. Jahn Bird is the tau
of the suit.

•