Star.
London, England, 1828-01-19 00:00:00

lamed Sittings after Michaelmas Term, before the Loan Cum

JUSTICL, and a Special Jury.

We have much pleasure in stating, that the I.onn
CHIEF Juar.cs is again able to resume his judicial
duties. His Lordship's bodily health appears to be
quite restored. but his feet and legs are still so much
affected by the severity of his late attack of the gout,
that the power of walking, or even standing, is totally
denied him. He was con,,equently borne into Court in
the arms of bis attendants, and quitted it in a similar
manner.

HANCOCK AND VASES V. HuDGSON, BLEADZN, HONE,
ROBESTS AND HAWLSIR.

In this action the plaintiffs sought to recover a sum
of 1,7561. the amount of two instalmcits w hick the de.
fendants, as Directors of the Goonearl Mining Com-
pany, had agr. ed to pay the plaintiffs in part payment
of a Cornish mine which they had purchased of them.
The terms upon which the purchase was made were
contained in a deed which was set forth in the decla
ration. The defendants pleaded first, that this deed was
not theirs, inasmuch as that ►everal alterations and
interlinea:ions had been made in it subsequently to their
signature. being affixed; secondly, that the alleged teed
was not executed as a deed,but as an escrow; and thirdly,
that it had been obtained out of their possession by fraud.
It was proved, however, on the part of the plaintiffs,
that the deed had been properly executed, and it was
;accordingly received in evidence; but when read, it was
discovered that the word " did" had been reci7ed in the
record instead of " do." as appeared in the deed ; and
.the Counsel for the defendants submitted, that it was a
material variation, and must prove fital to the case.
The LOAD CHIEF JUSTICE said, he was of opinion that
it was not a material vat istion, and he should therefore
overrule the obj ctioa, adding, that technical objections
of this kind had long been a disgrace to the law, and so
long as he sat upon the Bench, he would never sanction
or encourage them.
The deed having been read, it was contended on the
part of the defendants, that the mere signature of the
parties was not sufficient to make a deed good and va-
lid in law. It was necessary, after the signatures, that
it should be delivered to the proper party. In the
present case it had been obtained from defendants'
Attorney, upon the understanding that it was not
finished, and that it should be returned. It was insisted,
therefore, that it was not obtained as a deed, but merely
-111 an escrow, and that consequently the plaintiffs could
not recover upon it. For the difeirdait Hawl:r it was
stated that he had paid a sum of money as part pay-
ment of the debt to the plaintiffs, which they'hasi :e•
turned to some of his to-directors, who had retained it.
It was insisted, theseforearat this claim could not be
prosecuted against him.
Evidence was given in support of this statement.
The Loan CHIRP Juartca, ill summing up, left it to
the Jury to say whether the evidence which had been
adduced was sufficient in their opinion to establish the
defence ?
The Jury were of opinion tbat it was not, ncd without
hesit4tion returned a verdict for the plaintiffs—Da.
usages, 1,7501.
HIGH COURT OF DILEOATES, jaw lc

The argument in the case of " Clack and Clark
against Dew" occorged the whole of this day: Sir C.
WETHERELL, who commenced his speech on behalf of
the appellints yesterday, resumed it at tett o'clock this
I morning, and did not conclude till a quarter past lour,
I having spoken for more than six hours.