Star.
London, England, 1818-05-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, MAY Cs.
QUEENSBERRY LEGACIES.
THOMAS V. SIONTOOMERT.
Sir ARTHUR PIGOOTT said, this was a petition pre-
sented by Sir James Montgomery, praying that the
Report of the Master in his case might be confirmed.
The late Duke of Queensberry loft to Lady Montgo-
mery a legacy of ten thousand pounds for her sepa-
rate use, and on the 11th of October, 1811, she made
a will, by which she bequeathed all her goods,
chattels, property, &c. to Sir James, her husband, and
appoiuted him sole executor and trustee. The ques-
tion went before the Master, who, after examining
the case, reported that the will was valid, and allowed
Sir James to receive the same, with 4501. being the
interest due to the month of October, 1813. A subse-
quent Report was made, by which the Master allowed
the sum of 2,0811. being the interest due till March,
1818. Sir James came forward ite,consequence of
this Report, praying that it might be confirmed, and
'that he, as the personal representative of his deceased
wife, might be put in full possession, according to
the terms of her wilL The will had been proved in
the Prerogative Court of his Grace the Archbishop
of Canterbury, and letters of administration were
granted thereon on the 19th of March last. .
The motion not being resisted,
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, that what he bad
heard and read on the subject chewed it was highly
proper to have no further reference to the Master,
but to confirm the Report at once. Independently of
the beneficial interest which Sir James had in the
will, he was entitled to the Report being confirmed
on account of his being sole trustee and executor.
Several Petitions of considerable interest were ex-
pected to have come on in the course of the day, but
as his Honour was obliged to leave the Court at three
o'clock, they were postponed for a few days. The
Court was much crowded all day.
COURT 01' KING'S BF.NCII, MAY ti.
nusere t'. etenannsox.
This was an action by the indorsee against the
maker of a promissory-note, for the payment of the
sum of 431. to Cave Browne, Esq. The case excited
a good deal of interest. .
Mr. PARK, flar the plaintiff, produced the usual
proof that the note was drawn by the defendant at
Wisbeach, on the 14th August, 1817, payable one
month after date to Cave Browne, Esq. by whom it{
was indorsed for a valuable consideration to the plain.,
tiff, and afterwards dishonoured by the defendant.—
It further appeared, by the defendant's letter to the
plaintiff, after the dishonour of the note, that he ex-,
pressed his regret at not being able to take it up, and
promised to take it up by a given time.
Mr. Semite-rt., for the defendant, stated, that the
defence to the action was, that part of the considera-
tion of the note was a wager won by the drawer of
the defendant at a horse-race ; and he relied upon
the first section of the 9th Ann, c. 14, which declares
that, " all notes, bills, &c. where the whole or any
part of the consideration shall be for money, or other,
valuable things, won by gaming, or playing at cards,
dice, tables, tennis, bowls, or other game, or by bet-
ting on the sides of such as game, or for rcraying
any money knowingly lent for such gaming, or lent
at the time and place of such play, to any person that
shall play or bet, shall he void to all intents and pur-
poses.' To support this defence, he proposed to call
Mr. Cave Browne, the drawer of the note.
Mr. PARK took an objection to the competency of
this Gentleman as a witness ; for, it the plaintiff suc-
ceeded by his evidence, he would reader himself
liable, by the Statute cited, to an action at the suit of
any common informer, for the amount of the note,
together with treble costs.
Mr. SCARLETT submitted that Mr. Browne was,
bound to give evidence by the Statute.
Mr. Justice Hotatoxo over-ruled the objection to
his conyetency, but said the witness might object to
answer any question which might affect himself.
Mr. Cave 13rown, a gentleman of some celebrity
on the turf, was then examined; and it appeared by
his evidence that he had had several transactions with
the defendant, whom he stated to be a horse-dealer.
In the month of September, 1815, the defendant lost
to him at Doncaster Races a considerable sum of
money on the famous horse Fah° da Pula (son of a
svh), witness having bet ninety to twenty upon the
favourite against the whole field. About that time,
a friend of witness had bought a horse of the defen-
dant, at his recommendation, for one hundred gui-
neas, which turned out to be unsound, and which af-
toward sold by auction for 121. and witness conceiv-
ing himself liable to his friend for the amount, repaid
him the money, and then applied to the defendant
upon the subject ; nod in the result it was agreed be-
tween them that the latter should give him a promis-
sory note for 1001. pay able at a month, which was
composed of a commutation of witness's winnings
upon Filho da Pula, and the loss upon the unsound
horse. The note was accordingly drawn in witness's
favour, but it was afterwards dishonoured, but about
201. was paid by the defendant on account, which
n itness considered as applicable to that part of the
debt referable to the debt of honour. Finding that
he could not get the remainder of the money, he sued
out a writ against the defendant, and gave it into the
hands of an attorney at Wisbeach to have it executed.
The defendant, however, proposed to give witness
two promissory notes for the sum of 43/. each, to
cover the remaining part of the original note, and 61.
the expenses of the writ. This was acceded to, the
notes were drawn, and one of them was discounted
by the present plaintiff, and teat note formed the
subject of this action.—Under these circumstances,
Mr. Scanaierr contended, that these subsequent
notes were tainted with that part 41 the original 1001.
which formed a gambling consideration, and conse-
quently that the plaintiff could not recover.
Mr. Paste contra submitted, that as the plaintiff
was an innocent holder for Gonaf de consideration, his
rights could not be affected by the taint of the origi-
nal note, for which the subsequent notes were substi-
tuted. But supposing the corruption of the first note
to descend to the substituted ones, still the drawee of
the note had sworn that the 201. which formed the in-
fected part of the consideration, was paid before the
fresh notes were drawn ; and, therefore, it was clear,
that quoad the note in question, the consideration was
good, and consequently, the plaintiff must recover.
Mr. Justice HOLROYD said he should reserve the
point, whether, supposing the substituted notes to be
tainted by the partly illegal consideration of the orl

ginal note, the rights of the plaintiff, as an innocent
bolder for ♦aluable consideration, could be injured.
It was fur the Jury, however, to determine upon t 11::
evidence, whether any part of the gambling debt
which was applicable to the original note, formed a
past of the consideration of the note in question. If
they were of opinion that it did not, the plaintiff
would be entitled to a verdict.—The Jury retired for
an hour, and found a verdict for the defendant.

HIGH COURT OF DELEGATES, MAY 9.1.
KERBY AND THOMPSON V. BLUNDZLL.
This was an appeal from the Prerogative Court of
Canterbury, prosecuted by Mr. Kerby and 11r.Thomp-
son, the executors named in an unexecnted will of
John Phiniton Keith, against John Blundell., the hus-
band and administrator of Margaret Blundell, the
mother of the deceased. The Judge of the Court
below pronounced against the validity of the paper,
but gave no costs. The personal property of the de-
ceased amounted to about 6001. The circumstances
of the case were as follow:—John Keith, the party
deceased, a servant of Lord Dillon, arrived on the
11th of August, 1816, at the house of John Wood-
row, No. 15, Mill-street, Hanover•square. He was
very ill, and went to bed as soon as it could be got
ready for him. On the 15th of August, Mr. Kerby
called on the deceased, %silo was very glad to see
him, and spoke to him in terms of very great regard
and affection. Oft the 21st, Mr. Kerby came down
stairs to Mr. Woodrow, and informed him that the
deceased was inclined to make his will. Woodrow
recommended him to employ Mr. Capron. Between
eleven and twelve o'clock on the next day, Mr. Ca-
pron took these instructions from the deceased:—
" John Keith, of Ditchley House, Oxon--Property
about 6001. part in cash, and part in the Funds—
trustees and executors, Edward Kerby, of Stafford-
street, bookseller; George Thompson, of Hayes—divi-
dends and proceeds, to mother for life; and after de-
cease of his mother, respectively to executors equally."
About two o'clock, Mr. Capron returned with a
will drawn from these instructions; but desired that
some medical gentleman might be sent foe, as he
could not let the will be executed by the deceased
until it was certified to him that the deceased was in
a proper state to do so: upon which point Mr. Kerby
and Mr. Capron had a little altercation, but Mr. Ca-
pron still adhered to his purpose. Dr. llooper ap-
pointed to see the deceased at eight o'clock in the
evening, and in the mean time, the will was left with
Woodrow to deliver to the deceased, that he might
read and consider it, and make any alteration he
thought it in it. In consequence of the arrival of
visitors, it was not delivered t 3 the deceased until sir
o'clock. He got out of bed, sat in a chair near the
window, looked at the paper some little time, then
folded it up, put it under his pillow, and laid himself
down, without making any observation whatever.—
Dr.
Hooper saw him at eight o'clock, and told Mr.
Capron he might take his signature. Mr. Capron,
then read to the deceased that part which rcntained
the bequest to his mother and the exi,:utors, and re-
quested the deceased to sign it. He replied—" Pre-
sently.' Upon being repeatedly urged, he signified
that it was all right, but said he would not sign it
then—he would sign it presently—" not yet—but I
will by and bye."—Mr. Capron stated, that the de-
ceased declined signing it then, but whether from ex-
haustion or what other• cause, he (Ed zct know. He
required it to be explained to him, and was asked re-
peatedly if it was righ.l? and though he did not ob•
'M r 7.17 part of it, or express a w►sh to have any
alteration made in it, he still repeated his desire that
it might be read and explained again, saying, " Aye,
let me hear that again—read that again." He said,
it was right, as far as it went ; but when it was sug-
gested to him that he might make a codicil the next
morning, he said, " Well, call in the morning," add-
ing, " perhaps I may think of something else. The
only reason he gave for his refusal to complete it that
night was, that he had said he would not, and there-
fore he would not. Mr. Capron thought that the de-
ceased's refusal proceeded from an obstinate adhe-
rence to what he had said, and not from any objec-
tion to the contents of the paper; and as Mr. Brand,
the apothecary who attended die deceased, did sot
apprehend immediate danger, Mr. Capron consented,
to postpone the execution of the will ; but next morn-
ing the deceased was found lying dead, at the foot of
his bed.
Dr. LUSHINOTON and Mr. Amaassiat were heard
on behalf of the appellants; and the Judges were
pleased to affirm the sentence of the Court below,
and condemn the appellants in costs.

PREROGATIVE COURT, MAY AO.
BEAVER V. FORSTRA ♦ND LYNN.

- - Richard Bolt, of Pond-street, Hampstead, died on,
the 'Anil of August, 1817, aged 75, leaving a widow.
After his death, a paper was discovered, purporting'
to be a will, in the hand-writing of tlms deceased,'
dated the .20th of September, 1813, but without a
signature, except at the commencement, and appa-
rently in an unfinished state. It bequeathed the in-
terest of his property to his widow for lite, and after
her death to her sister and nephew, Mr. Richard
Beaver, whom he appointed sole executor. lle also
mentioned his intention of making some further do-
nations. An allegation had been given in propoun-,
ding the paper, and which was fully proved by the
evidence adduced in support of it. The principal
facts pleaded were, that the deceased had not fur 40 1,
years been visited, nor was he acSuainted with any
person who could claim relationship with him.; that'
he was attached to his wife's family, and particularly
to Mrs. Richard Beaver and Mr. Richard Beaver,
who managed his business of child-bed-warehouse-
man, in Sidney's-alley, Leicester-fields, for the last
40 years of his life ; that he had made repeated de•
clarations of his intention to benefit these persons in
his will, and appoint Mr. Richard Beaver his heir
and sole executor ; that he had purchased a book,
called Law Sarctions, by which, lie repeatedly de-
clared, he could make his will without the asNistance
of an Attorney, anddie need not sign his name to it,
as. he had no freehold property. It also appeared
that, about a month before his death, he communica-
ted the contents of a will which he declared he had
made, which corresponded with the paper propoun-
ded, and ten days before his death he read over his
will to Mrs. Bult, and having so done, pinned it up
carefully in an envelope, and deposited it in a box hi
his bed-rocm, of which lie always kept the key.
The COUNT Wa:, Of opinion that the deceased con-
sidered the will (however imperfect) as valid, and
fully intended it to operate ; and therefore pronoun-
ced for it, ai.d decreed probate to the executor.