Star.
London, England, 1826-01-16 00:00:00

LAW HUPUR'r.

COURT OF NINO'S BENCH, WESTMINSTER, JAN. 14.

°DANE V. 11-LLAND AND ETHERS.
This was an action by the Cie► k to do: Commissioners
appointed to ca:ry into execution the Act of the 48th
Lien. 111. c. 86, for paving and light.ng St. Pancras,
against the a-stgnees of Marsh and Co. to
'his
the
sum of 3051. 17... paid by the plaintiff in his official
chitlcier into the Bank, previous to the failure of the
firm. The action was founded on a clause in the sta-
tute, giving to the Commissioners, in case of the bank-
topic,- or death of their Bankers, an absolute prefer.
ence to all other creditors. Two similar_ actions have
been brought under like circumstances, in which the
right of the Cle:k to sustain the actiol\ remains to be
decidad by the Court on special cases. It was there-
fore agteed that this action should be determined in
a similar way ; and accordingly a verdict was taken
for the plaintiff, sdbject to the opinion of the Court on
a credal case.

DULL V. DE I.IEILHEIM.
as an action by the endorsee against the ac-
ceptor of a bill of exchange, bearing date the 31st of
December, l 821•, drawn by Messrs. Haydon and Planate,
in favour of a Mr. Robson, for 573/. at three months,
and by Mr. Robson endorsed to the plaintiff.
The defence opened by Mr. GURNEY was, that the
bill WAS given to Robson on account of differences in
stock ttaw,actions, and received by the plaintiff with a
knowledge of that citcumstaner. To prove the latter
p.ttt of the case, which was necessary to impeach the
plaintiff's tit'e, Mr. Robson was called-, but did not ap-
pear. The plaintiff, there:ore, recorded a verdict for
5_931. the principal and interest due on the bill.

DVNN t"N TIM DENISE OF BULIEELEY, V. WILFORD.
This was an Action of ejectment brought to recover
the possession of certain freehold premises, at Chelsea,
adjoining the ground where Ranelagli formerly stood.,
The lessor of the plaintiff, an attorney, was the heir at
law of the late General Wilford, and the defendant was
the*Generars widoiv. By Will, General Wilford, de-
♦ised all his reel estate, and bequeathed his person3l
ptorerty, of very considerable amount, to the defendant;
but a few peeks before his de,th, having contracted for
the sale of a piece of ground to Chelsea Hospital, levied
a Cne, shich, in as far as it extended, operated as a
revocation of his will. After his death, which happened
suddenly, while he was sitting at breakfast, the lessor of
the plaintiff claimed the landed estate as heir at law.
The Tiestion now at issue was, whether the premises
for v.hich the action was brought were included in the
operation of the fine? and in reference to this, much
evidence was adduced respecting the parcels of the
es:ate, and the past and pre.ent condition of the property.
The MINIRMRY-GUIRRAI., with whom were Mr. SCAKIATT and
Mr. CAMIIHML, contended, that the premises were within the
operation of the fine, and consequently that the title of the heir
at law mu't prevail ; end
Mr. BROUGHAM, assisted by Mr. TitosaL and Mr. Wtaurnso,
argued that they were not so affected, and consequently the will of
the deceased ought to prevail.
The Loan Cum Jornca left the case to the Jury on the ques-
tion arising front the facts in evidence before them.
The Jury returned a verdict for the defendant.