Star.
London, England, 1826-04-20 00:00:00

LAW REPORT.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Aran. 19.

IX-PARTE DANIEL IN THE MATTER OP SOLARTI.
Mr. Soaping said, that this was a question involving I
the consideration of 200,0001. said to be lent upon
usurious interest, and his Honour the Vice Chancellor
had directed an issue to the Court of Common Picas ;
but the parties being desirous to have it tried in the
Court of King's Bench, he had beeit instructed to make
an application to that effect to his Lordship.
The LORD CHANCELLOR declined acceding to the
application, observing that the Vice-Chancellor was
perfectly competent to decide upon the proper Court to
try the issue, and it would be a very unusual thing in
this Court to interfere with his order in that respect.—
Besides, from what the Lord Chief Justice had told him,
he (the Lord Chancellor) did not think that the issue
could be tried there for twelve months:

• MELLISH V. MELLISH.
The Sotictros-Gessism. moved to discharge the order of the
Lord Chancellor, directing the money to be paid out of Court.
After some observations with respect to the drawing up of the
Order, the motion was directed, on the application of 31r. HOILNI,
to stand over to Friday ;lest.
EX PARTE ORISISTEAD IN THE MATTER OF HOWARD

AND GIBBS.
This case stands fur judgment un the same day.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Aron. 19.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL mnved for a rule.to thew
'cause why a criminal informatitm should not be filed
against the Proprietor of• the Reading Mercury, for the
publication of several adiertisements' reflecting on the
character of Mr. Wakefield, sen. inasmuch as the articles.
charged that Gentleman with being privy to the design
of his son in the abduction of Miss Turner.
In support of his application, the Learned Counsel
read the affidavit of Mr. Edward Wakefield, sett. stating,
that previous to the marriage of his son, he did not
know of the alleged abduction or marriage ;.that the
first intimation which he had of the marriage of his son
was by the receipt of a letter from his.son, in these words:
" Carlisle; March sr
• "My dear Father—l write to you instantly after my marriage.
I would not on any account that you 'Would hear it otherwise than
from me. I shall be in London immediately, hat not to stay.
" Yours, ever, E. 0; WAKEFIELD."
The receipt of this letter greatly surprised Mr. Wakefield,
and in a day or two afterwards, having seen a letter, in
the hand-writing of his son, directed to his (►Mr. W.'s)
clerk, he opened it, in order if possible to obtainan ex-
planation of the former letter.. In the letter directed to
the clerk there was enclosed an advertisement, an-
nouncing the marriage, with a request from Mr. Wake-
field, jun., that the clerk would send the advertisement
to the London Papers for insertion, and in pursuanceof
this instruction Mr. W. sen. sent the advertisement • to a
Newspaper, but denied positively that he knew anything
of the circumstances under which the marriage took place.
The Cones, after bearing all the advertisements read, were of
opinion that the character of those publications vrastim such u to
warrant the interfere= of the Court. The appllialtoit*was Come-
apreatly refused.
PREROGATIVE COURT, Ants Ill.• -
•
USTICICE C. BAWDEN.
This was a suit instituted to try the validity of a will,
executed by the late Mr. Stephen Usticke, brewer, of
Falmouth, and involved the importantgoestiOn whethei-
the cancelling of a subsequent will was,•of itself, sot&
tient to restore to full force and posies the former will,
'which it had superseded, bat which had, nevertheless,
not been destroyed. . -
The question derived further interest frottelbi set•d how
elecibions of this Court on the same point hub. bits at imbue
with those of the former Law Courts. •

The facts of the case were as follow t•
Mr. Stephen Usticke was a brewer, residing in Fab•
mouth, and about the year 1805 had formed an attach.;
went for a young lady of the name of BaWden, also a
resident of that place, but their union being opposed by
his uncle, Sir Michael Noel, did not take place. In the
year 1806 Sir Michael Noel died, and by his will be-
queathed personal property to Mr. Usticke to the
amount of 8001. per annum, with, however, a reserva-
tion, that should he ever marry Misss Bawden, the
property from that time forward to become forfeited,
And descend to the next heir. A short time afterwards
Mr. Usticke and Miss Bawden eloped from Falmouth,
and returning shortly after, gave out' that they were
married, and cohabited together as man and w ife.—
The consequence was, that the next heir brought an
action of ejectment, but which he afterwards withdrew,
on finding that no marriage had actually taken place.
The following year Mr. Usticke, impressed with the,
necessity oftnaking some provision for Miss Bawden,who
still continued to reside with him under the assumed
name of Mrs.Usticke, executed the will now propounded,
and by which he bequeathed to her the whole of his
personal property, amounting to about 4,0001. and a
life interest in his real property, which was of the value
of nearly 9001. per annum. After this she continued to
reside with him up to his death, which took place in
1823. In the year 1821, however, he made another
will, in which he reduced her annuity from 8001. to
2001. per annum, but which will he about six months
afterwards destroyed, leaving the first will still in ex-
istence; and the question therefore became, at his death,
whether the first will had, by the destruction of the
second one, become again operative, or whether • Mr.
Usticke was to be considered as having died intestate?
Sir JOHN Nrcuer., in pronouncing judgment, enterei
into an elaborate review of the various judgments
passed by his predecessors on that point in which they
had held that the first will could not be restored to
operation without a formal republication, or declaration
by the testator of his continued adherence to its con-
tents. He then proceeded to cite, in contrast thereto,
various decisions of the Court of King's Bench, in
which it had been held th t the canceling of a second
will was of itself a prin►o facie proof of the intent of the
testator to restore the furtner one to fa. force and vali-
dity, and concluded by expressing his own opinion
to be in concurrence wiih that of the Judges of the
Court of King's Bench. The Learned Judge next entered into a
minute recapitulation of the •arious 'woof the present case, and in
conclusion expressed his opinion that the will propounded was a
good and valid will, and that Mu Bawden was accordingly 'ridded
to probate of the same.

SECONPARIES OFFICE, Aram If.
• FARLAR b. COBIETT.
This was a Writ of Enquiry, escorted before the
Under-Sheriffs at the office ut the Sheriff of Middlesex,
to assess the amount of, debt due to the plaintiff, the
defendant having suffered judgment to go by default.
The facts of the case were Cobbett entertai,:ing
a high opinion of a brewing machine, the invention of
the plaintiff, gave orders for the purchase of a one-
lurshrl machine; and a lour-bubbel machine having
been su ,sequently sent to •Mr. Co belt, he (Mr. C.)
at sued that the tatter was intended as a prc-ent, fof