Star.
London, England, 1826-05-25 00:00:00

IN THE NIATTLR or SIR 0. P. TURNER.

Mr. Tag/twin presented a petition (torn Sir G. P.
Turner, praying to be allowed to try the traverse of the
inquisition at the next Bedford Assizes. It had been
found impossible to try the traverse at the Assizes la-t
year, because there was only an interval of seventeen
days between the date of his Lordship's order and the
commencement of the Assizes, and two material wit
nesses were absent in France. The Learned Counsel, in
enforcing the prayer of the petition, stated that Drs
Burrows and Haslam had made affidavits l declaring that
the mind of Sir Gregory was perfectly free from all de-
lusion or imbecility.
Mr. HEALD opposed the petition, and said that he
had the evidence of Drs.Wiilis, Sutherland, and Munto,
by whom Sir Gregory had been visited down to the 16th
of this month, that lie was still of unsound mind, and
that the unsoundness was of long standing.
Mr. SOOOEN, on behalf of Captain Turner, Sir Gre-
gory's brother, expressed a hope, tuat if the prayer of
vie petition should be granted, the Court would take
care that the peace and happiness of the lunatic and his
relatives should not be affected by it, and that a time
would be fixed for the trial. in order to put an end to the
state of anxiety and irritation in Which his mind was
kept by these applications.
The LORD CHANCELLOR again inquired why, if Sir
Gregory's mind was supposed to be in a sound state
now, a short petition was not presented to the Court,
praying to supersede the inquisition? The affidavits ot
Drs. Burrows and Haslam had nothing to do with
the queition of trying the traverse; because the point
in that case would be. not what was the state of
his mind now. but what had it been at the time ot the
inquisition. lie (the Lord C iancellor) felt a strong in-
clination at present to prevent the traverse from being
tried, as no good reason had been assigned to him for
so doing ; but as subjects of this nature dentanded the
most anxious consideration, he would think Mr. Tres-
love to state anything additional which he might be able
to urge in support of the petition on Tu. slay morning.

JUDGMENTS.

His Lonnausr took occasion tv repeat what he had said on a (De-
nser day, that as soots as Parliament separated, lie would devote
every Wednesday to pronouncing judgments, giving notice en each
Monday of the cases in which he would give judgment on the fol.
lowing Wednesday.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Gen.snact., May 24.
SNOW A ND.OTHRRS v. ROBINSON.

This was an action of trover to recover the amount of a ifty-
pound bank-bill.
Mr. &dem Boas:war and Mr. Moonv conducted the plain.
dffa case, and Mr.SerjeantWm.na and Mr. Gum the defendant's.
The facts of the case were these :—lts September,
1824, the plaintiffs, who are bankers, received the 501.
bank-note in part payment of a check, drawn on ano-
ther banker. They sent their potter to receive the
money, which either he lost on his way home or was
hustled and robbed of it. The man has since died.
Whether the note was lost through cat elessness or fraud,
however, the plaintiffs contended, would not effect their
right to recover, which would be the same in either
case. In September, 1825, the-defendant took the note
at the St. Leger Doncaster !Laces, in part payment of
a bet ; and it was contended on his part that he was
not liable, because he teceived the note in the due
course of his trade. The defendant admitted that
he had received the note on the 19th of Sep-
tember, but he did not know from whom, he having
that day paid away acid received; as bets, to the amount
of 22.0251. He admitted also that the plaintiffs had
advertised their loss by posting bills about the town,
and announcing it in the Public Ledger, and the Hut
and Lry, Newspapers ; but the defendant contended on
this that he dad not take the note for a twelvemonth
after such announcement ; and the plaintiffs had not
exercised due caution in allowing so much time to pass
without again advertising.
The laelliD Cato JUSTICE charged the Jury. If they

thoUght•the defendant had taken the bill from soniebol%
hefinew, and had not, therefore, thought k necessary
to note from whom he received it, they would find a
verdict in his favour; but if they thought the plaintiffs
had exercised a due caution in advertising it, and the
defendant had taken it without due caution, their verdict
must be for the plaintiff..
Mr. Serjeant WvLiox said there must be a verdict for the defen-
dant, there being no evidence of a want of due caution to go to
the Jury.
The Loan entity Josvica thought there was.
Mr. &ricer!' Wer.oe—Then, my Lord, I must tender your
Lordship an exception.
After some discussion as to the wording of the exception, his
Lordship received it.
The Jury then delivered a verdict for the plaintiffs—Damages .101.