Star.
London, England, 1827-07-12 00:00:00

whether the sum of 421. (so often referred to) bad Wen
detained frares,or was returned by, the defendant Rus-
sell, at the time of the emotion of the deed, in respect
of the work done in drawing up that deed, because, if
not then retained or returned? The witness, White-
head, swore, be did not recollect having received the
42/. back ; hut, in point of fact, he musehave received
• it back, as was proved by his receipt ; for if not, there
was an end of-the case. Tne next question arose out
of the constroction put upon the Acts of Parliament,
• relied on by the defendant's Counsel: that if I
mantor shill employ perslns who should be the agents
also the grantee of an annuity, he Must take
• . • the consequence; and if those agenti shall at the
• very moment, when, in his name, they receive money,
return or keep back any part of it, that shall be deemed
to be his own act ; and, therefore, if the Jury should be
of opinion that Whitehead, the lerk-of the agents, at
the time when he paid over the 3501. to the defendant
. Russell. retained or received back the sum of 421. the
plaintiff must take the consequence, and the Jury must
find for the defendant.
The Jury retired, and after a consultation of an hour,
returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
, Mr. Jams hoped, its this case, his Lordship would
stay execution upon the verdict until next Term, which
• was resisted by Mr. Sergeant STORKS. But it having
appeared that that point had been 'already conceded by
the full Court, the Learned Gentleman withdrew his
application. It also appeared in the course of the pro-
ceedings, that another cause is pending in the Court of
Common Pleas to set aside the deed in question.

• PREROGATIVE COURT, Jute it.

Its THE 00001101 SAIFILS TIERNEY ROSARTS.
The deceased testator, mr.Robarts. was a resident at
Canton. In the year 1801 be visited England, where
he executed a will: he-returned to China, and in 1823
he signed, in the presence of witnesses, a codicil, which
was not attested, althougkit contained the attestation
clause. This documetit Was transmitted to England,
to accompany the will; it increased the sum allotted to
Mrs. Robatts, namely, 1,0001. to 3,000/. It contained
also certain other alterations.; particularly with respect
to some natural' children of the testator, by a woman
with whom he cohabited, named •Antonia Turner, and
for whom he had provided •in his .will. He died at
Canton, possessed of personal propetty amounting to
90.000 i. Tbe widow had Once married Mr. Robert
Dent, brother of Mr. Dent, oneof-the witnesses in whose
presence the codicil was signed.
-Dr. LIISHINGTON. now moved that, notwithstanding
the defect in the codicil; it might be admitted to probate.
Sir JOHN Nice •Lt. 'could not grant this on mere mo-
tion. witheut•the parties, whose interest was affected by
the instrument, being cited, or proof of intention on the
part of the testator to abandon the attestation, althoush
the sending -it home was some evidence of his desire
that it should operate.
`IN THE GOODS 01 HIS SERENE HIGHNESS WILLIAM, LATE
ELECTOR OF HEIM CASSEL.
Dr. LUSHINGTON stated, that in this case, the late
Elector of Heise, at the time of his death, had a consi-
derable sum Tine to him by his late Royal Highness the
Dtike of York, on a bond fer 12,5001. which bond was
deposited in ,the hands of Mr. Rothschild. He now
moved the court to grant letters of administration to
Mr. Rothschild, as the authorised agent of the present
Elector of Hesse, for the purpose of substantiating pro-
ceedings in the Court of Chancery, in a suit against the
executors of his Royal Highness the Duke of York, for
recovery of the balance due upon'the bond.
Sir JOHN NICHOLL inquired why the present Elector
was not called upon to .give -a power of attorney to
take administration?
Dr. Luau t NOTON replied, that, being a crowned head,
be did not execute powers of attorney. -
Sir J6HN NICHOLL—He could execute a power to
enable Mr. Rothschild to take administration.
Dr. LUSHINGTON said it was not usual. He was con-
tent-to take the order limited solely to the purpose of
prosecuting the claim its the Court of Chancery, which
would otherwise be lost, as there was a period beyond
which it could not be prosecuted.
• . Sir JOHN NICHOLL directed that administration should
be-granted limited to the prosecution of the suit in the
Court of Chancery; but not to authorise the receipt of
• the money. He thought that the Secretary of State, or
. Minister of the Elector, 'might grant a power of attor-
ney. An authenticated letter would do.

HANNAH AND BOOTH AGAINST THIRD.
Sir JOHN NICHOLL gave sentence in this curious case,
which was argued on Saturday. The Learned Judge I
entered pretty fully into the details. He observed that
the te.tatrix, Mrs. Frances St. Leger, had made a variety
of wills. From 1805 to 1823 there were six cancelled
wills, three uncancelled, one unexecuted, and a codicil..
Messrs. Hannam and Booth had propounded, as execu-
tors, a will of 1820, and a codicil of 18'23. Mr. Hurd
had propounded a will of 1820, save so fat as it revoked
the will of 1821; but he opposed the codicil of 1823. In
April, 1821, three days prior to Mr. Hurd's will, the de-.
ceased had been pronounced by a jury lunatic with lucid
intervals • and her granddaughter, Mrs. Beardshaw,was
nominated Committee of her person, jointly with her
husband, and continued so till the death of the testatrix.;
Two of these instruments, therefore, acre executed sub-
s quently td the lunacy, and the onus of prOving a lir,'
cid intervallaron the party setting them up. The
Learned Judge then recapitulated the Facts already
given. Mr. Hurd (he remarked) had alleged that the
deceased was disaffected towards his grandaughter,
on account of her marriage, and that it was the proxi-
mate cause of the lunacy. There was, however, no ground
for believing this, fur in every will tho grindaughter
had been the primary object of her bounty. Although
this extraordinary woman (the deceased) would abuse
her grandaughter excessively, she would praise her in
the same breath, and would allow no other person to
speak disrespectfully of her. The affection towards her
was rational, since she was the grandaugter of her
niece, as well as the daughter of her own end her hus-
band's son, in respect of whom (Colonel St. Leger) she
had a most enthusiastic regard. The Learned Judge
then adverted to the strange fancies of the deceased
during her excitement ; driving about in post-chaises,
giving money lavishly to soldiers and pretended soldiers,
collecting vagrants and treating them, and conducting
herself in a manner so extravagant and improper, that
the witnesses ablained from describing particulars. At
the age of 80, the commission referred to was .taken
out, to prevent a repetition of such disgraceful conduct.
By the will of 1820, she had not disposed of the freehold
house, which she had intended to sell. At the end of
1820, she resolved to make a new will ; but before its
execution, the verdict of the Jury was pronounced. at
sieh,ch she was highly indignant, and required Mr. Mat-
son, in whose custody the will was, to produce it. On
his declining to do so, she executed the will of Ib2l. The