Star.
London, England, 1816-07-11 00:00:00

REV. T. BETHELL V. FORRESTER, ESQ.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, one of I
the Masters of Eton School, against the defendant, a'
Gentleman of high connexions, for the board and
education of his three suns during two years. The
cause was not defeaded,and the AITOUNLY•GEWSRAL,
who observed that the non-payment must arise from
some temporary difficulties on the part of the deften.
dant, with considerable difficulty went through the
various charges in the plaintiff's particular. The
Rev. Mr. Dotty, of Etun, proved the regularity of
the claim of 110 guineas a year for each son, and
other items, which constitute l the chief part of Mr.
&theirs demand. The amount given by the verdict
was F 843, which did not include money paid by the
plaintiff to Various tradesmen on account of his pupils.

BLAWD W. lIITZROY.

This action was brought by the plaintiff, the keeper
of i livery stable, again; the defendant, the son of
Lord Charles Fitaroy, and nephew to the Duke of
Grafton, to recover a considerable sum for the hire
of horses, and for the said of a horse. The defendant ,
pleaded his infancy; and as the affirmative was on
the defendant, the Arroawer.GantßALl for Mr. Fitz-
roy, said that bis client, being an officer in the Blues,
on the return of Bonaparte from Elba. had been
anninus to joia his reginisat, which was ordered for
ettabarkation. He was, however, unprovided with a
horse, and catered into asengsgment with the plain.
fill for the purchase of one at the price 474, guineas,

for which theidefen;dant wet to ti.ht. bill. At the
time of the sitnature• howeeter) the plaintiff made the
amount 94 guineas 1 but the young gentleman not
having time to dispute the sum, gave his acceptance,
which was the chief subject of the present action.—
Under each circumstances, the plea of infancy was
very justifiable, especially as the plaintiff had refused-
to wait only a few months, when bis demand would
have been regularly paid.
Mr. Baker, steward C.) the Duke of Grafton, was
put into the witness-box ;he proved the marriage of
Lord Charles Fitzroy with Miss Frances Munday, at
St. George's,. flanovet.square, on the 20th of June,
1795, and the birth of the defendant on the 10th of
May, 1796.
Mr. TOPPING, for the plaintiff, did not dispute this
evidence, and he was accordingly notisuited.
JULY 10.—HUM; EMI. W. OLDAKEH.
This was an action of trespass against the defen-
dant for coming with a pack of hounds upon the
plaintiff's lands, and destroying certain shrubberies
and young trees of great value.
It appeared that the defendant was the huntsman
of the Berkeley hounds ; and on the 4th of April
last year, a party of Gentlemen and other inhabitants
joined in chace after a fox between Bushey Heath and
Stanimure, where the plaintiff's premises were si-
tuated; and- the game having made a lodgment in
his shrubbery, it was pursued by the defendant, who
had the management of the hounds; and in consr.
quence of which cfinsiderahl damage WAS done to
the plaintiff's property. The plaintiff had previously
given public notice, warning sportsmen against tres-
passing upon his lands. There was some difficulty
in proving that the defendant had cognizance of this
notice, but the trespass being admitted,
Mr. Guasiev, as Counsel for the defendant, ad-
dressed the Jury in mitigation of damages,. and
The Jury, under Lord accanonotruir's directions
found a verdict fur the plaintiff—Damages, 40s.

SLLLON V. °LIMNER;

This was an action of the same description brought
by Mr. Serjeant Selion, a near neighbour of the
plaintiff in the last action, against the defendant, for
trespassing with the Berkeley hounds on his lands on
the 14th of March, in the last year.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL appeared as Counsel for
the plaintiff, and called the plaintiff's brother and
other witnesses, who proved that the defendant was
seen upon the plaintiff's premises on the day in ques.
lion, and had cast off the hounds in a young shrub-
herb the plaintiff's property, thereby committing
great destruction amongst his young trees.
Mr. GuarfaY addressed the Jury on behalf of the
defendant, and declared his intention of calling wit-
nesses to prove, that although the defendant attended
the Berkeley hounds as huntsman on the thy in ques-
tion, yet, in point of fact, he purposely abstained
from going on the plaintiff's premises, and that during
that day he was never nearer than a quarter of a mile
of the plaintiff's lands.
The Hon. and Rev. Wm. Capel proved, that he
was with the Be: keley hounds on the morning of the
14th of March, and that he had his eye upon the de-
fendant during the whole time of the hunt, and that
he was never upon the plaintiff's premises during the
whole day.
On his cross-examination by the ATTORYZY-CENE-
am., he said, thathe had been accustomed for a con-
siderable part of the time, from the year 1809 until
last year, to enjoy the sport of the cline with the
Berkeley hounds, but he never was a subscriber to
the pack. He was not the clergyman of the name
of Capel, who kept a diary of his sporting amuse-
ments. He was quite clear that the defendant was
not upon the plaintiff's premises.
This erdence was followed up by the testimony of
Thomas Ogle Sache, Esq. Mr.* Simeon Howard,
Mr. Henry Plaistow, Mr. Grace, the Land Steward
of the plaintiff in the last action ; and Henry Old-
aker, the son of the defendant, and who acted as
whipper-in to the hounds, on the day in question,
and had himself suffered judgment to go by default,
in a similar action brought against him by the plain-
tiff, all 1)f whom swore distinctly that the defendant
was not a trespasser on the plaintiff's ground, during
the day in question.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL, under these circum-
stances, said he could not press the case further, and
therefore consented to be nonsuitel- And the plain-
tiff was nousuited accordingly.

PREROGATIVE COURT, JULY 10.
.
GIBBS V. 018113.

This was a cause respecting the validity of the last
will and testament of Mr. Thomas Gibbs, late of
Little Bartholomew Closd, London, deceased. It
appeared that the deceased died on the '24th of Ja-
nuary last, and the paper propounded before the
Court, as containing the will of the deceased, was
dated the 24th of January, 1815, which purported
to give to his wife, Jane Gibbs, his household furni-
ture, plate, linen, and china, and some legacies.
It then went on to give the interest of all the de-
ceased's property to his wife during her lite ; and
after her death, he directed that one moiety of his
property was to be paid to his nephew, John Gibbs,
and the other moiety was to be divided into equal
shares, and was to be paid to his nephew, Thomas
Gibbs, and his niece, Ann Gibbs. The Court was
clearly of opinion, that the evidence produced in the
case fully supported the instrument propounded, and
accordingly pronounced for its validity.