Star.
London, England, 1826-11-09 00:00:00

LAW REPOUT.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Norms= 8.
The Court was occupied the whole day in hearing arguments on
appeals..
The LOAD CHANCZLLOR said he should give judgment on Monday
next in the case of " The Attorney General v. the Earl of Mansfield. ,

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nor. 8.
TAAVE V. ZILLLZW.
This was a bill filed, by the representative of a legate
against the widow and executrix of the testator. It ap-
peared, that in the year 1806. the deceased, Mr. Bellew,
then residing at Amboise, in France, wrote a letter to
the late Mr. Taafe, stating that he would not make a
formal will, because be did not wish his 'Wife to know
the dispositions which he might choose to make of his
property; but he bequeathed to Mr. Taafe, by the au-
thority of this letter, one half of whatever property he
might die in possession of. In 1824 he made a regular
will, in which he bequeathed all his property to his wife,
and then d'ed. Mr. Taafe claimed the benefit of the
testamentary letter, and the widow demurred to his
bill, on the ground that the will effectually revoked the
bequest in the letter.
Mr. SUPDZX now supported the demurrer; but the letter and
the will being read,

His HONOUR was of opinion that the will did not
effectually revoke the testamentary letter, because the
will did not dispose of the whole of the property, and
therefore the will must be considered as a codicil to the
testamentary letter, which must prevail so far as its
previsions were pot contravened by the subsequent be-
quests of the testator. The demurrer, therefore, could
not be allowed, though his Honour thought it would
be only proper that the cause should stay for the deci-
sion of the Spiritual Courts upon the validity of the two
instruments.

Mr. Swaim prayed time to put in the answers, which was granted
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WiSTIEUMU, Nov. 8.
sawn aa v. sums.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a mer-
chant, living in North America, against the defendant,
the surviving executor of Mr. Andrew Burner, to re-
cover the sum of 9,0001. and alleged to have been re-
ceived by Mr. Andrew Brymer, from his Majesty's
Victualling Board. Mr. Andrew Brymer had been the
partner of the plaintiff, but had, in consideration of the
sum of 50,0004 conveyed by deed, his interests in the
joint contracts of the partnership with the Victualling
Board to the plaintiff. It was under this deed that the
plaintiff claimed the sum which formed the subject of
the action. The action was tried before the Lord Chief
Justice, at the London Adjourned Sittings after last
Term, and it then appearing that the deed of convey.
ance was not drawn upon a sufficient stamp, the plain-
tiff was nonsuited.

The SOLICITOR GINIRAL now moved for a Rule to
call upon the defendant to 'hew cause why a new trial
should not be granted—first, on the ground that the
deed was prepared by Mr. 13rytner's attorney, and the
plaintiff had no knowledge that the stamp was insuffi-
cient ; and, secondly, on the ground that the deed had
been properly stamped since the trial.—Rule granted.
Mr. CAMPRILLL moved for a writ of habeas corpus,
directing the keeper of the Petworth House of Correction
to bring up the body of Mary Ann Martin, who had
been illegally committed for refusing to submit to an
examination, touching *he father of her illegitimate
child. • To shew the illegality of the proceeding, it was
only necessary to read the warrant under which the
plaintiff was committed. It was issued by a single Ma.
gistrate, and ran as follows:

" Whereas information bas been given before me by Edward
Gibbon, clerk to the guardians of the poor of the city of Chichestei,
that Mary Ann Martin, of the parish of has been delivered of
a child, which is likely to become chargeable to that parish, and
refuses to appear before a Justice of the Peace to be examined,
touching the father of the said child ; and whereas the said Mary'
Ann Martin having appeared before me, and shewn no cause why
she should not be examined, touching the father of the said child, I
hereby direct and authorise the keeper of Petworth House of Cor-
rection to receive and keep the said Mary Ann Martin in custody
until she shall submit to be examined as aforesaid."
It newer had been determined (the Learned Counsel
contended) that a woman was liable to be committed
at all for refusing to affiliate a child ; because the act
which she refused to do was one whereby she might
criminate herself. It was not, however, necessary to
raise that question
.in the case before the Court; for
there were several fatal objections on the face of the
warrant. In the first place, it did not appear that any
complaint had been made by the parish officers, though
it was only upoh such complaint that Magistrates ac-
quired jurisdiction in such case's.
Mr. Justice Baniv—The warrant, you say, is signed by only
one Magistrate?
Mr. Canraw. said the fact was so. There were two cases in
which it was decided that such a warrant was invalid. The Brat
case was," Billings and Prynne," in 2d Blackstone.
The I.OIID CHIEF JUSTICE—Take the writ on that ground.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Wesssunseis, Nov. if.

•
SIR JOHN MIMI AND OTHERS P. HONE.
This ease was tried before the Lomb Cunt Jusrica at Guildhall,
on Saturday last, when the Arad was nonsuited.
• Mr. Sergeant TADDY now moved to obtain a rule that
the nonsuit should be set aside,. and a new trial granted,
on the ground that the evidence which had been pro-
dnced was not sufficient to prove that the firm of Sir
John Peering and Co. were paitners In the Imperial
Distillery Company, the only evidence on that point
was, that Sir John Peering and Mr. Barber, another
member of the firm, had purchased a number of shares
in the Company, but had almost immediately after dis-
posed of them again. This was not a transaction of
the firm, but merely a private one of Sir John Petting
and Mr. Barber.—Rule granted.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Nov. 8.
Upoti•tbe motion of the Kinct's ADVOCATE, administration of the
effects of several persons deceased, intestate and without legal re-
presentatives, was granted to the Solicitor to the Trcasury, his
Majesty's nominee.

• OR‘HAM V. VOID.
This was a suit to decide to whom should be granted
tho•administration of the effects of Joseph Solomon Ford,
late a victualler in Billingsgate, who died intestate in
, November, 1825, leaving six daughters, one married to

Mr. Graham, the other five unmarried, and, with the
exception of the eldest, minors. The property amounted
to 8,0001.

Dr. Lussitscrox, on behalf of Miss Ford, the -eldest_•
(mantled daughter_ and the minors, contended that
Mr. Graham, the husband of the deceased's eldest
daughter, and on whom the distribution of the property
would devolve is case of administration being granted
to his wife, had so misconducted himself, that he *As
not entitled to confidence; that if he obtained possession
of the property, it might b 2 necessary to have recourse
to expensive suits in Chancery to recover it; and that
the deceased, just before his death, had distinctly mani-
fested a want of confidence in Mr. Graham, and an in.
tention of appointing a person as guardian of the inte-
rests of his unmarried daughters.
Dr. JCNNIR (for Mr. Graham) argued that the Court,
in a case of this kind, would look to the interest of the
property, and would net deny the right of distribution
to the eldest child, unless there was ample reason to ap-
prehend that the property would be mal•administered.
Now, no imputation rested on Mrs. Graham, and her
husband, whc held a respectable post under the Corpo-
ration of London (that of oyster meter), was able to give
security for the-due execution of his trust.
The Court decreed administration to Miss Ford, and condemned
Mr. Graham in costs.