The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-02-28 00:00:00

dicil under which the plaintiff clai

servants generally of two years' wages, and.to thosgei who the
had
lived with the testator while he wag Lord Yarmouth three
years' wages. The next of the codicils in question gave the
servants who bad lived with the testator three years three
years' wages and board wages, and one year's wages to those
who had lived with him one year. The presumption would he
that this legacy was additional; but the court was not left to
presumption, for the testator had expressly said that all
the bequests by this codicill were to be in addition to what
had been previously given. The third codibil gdve to Nicho-
las Suisse, the plaintiff, if he was living with the testator at
the time of his death, £l,OOO over and above any (

quests. On this, therefore, there was no ques

r be-
!. in the

fourth codicil, £2,000 is bequeathed to the laititif

again is expressly stated to be over and above the
ceding legacies. The next codicil had been a subject
of argument, the sum which it purported to bequeath being
the same as the amount of the two legacies which had gone
before—namely, £3,000. It was said that this must be taken
as a mere substitution for them; but this codicil also con-
tained this expression, " I give these legacies in addition
to what. I have in most instances given to the same persons
by other codicils." These words applied as well to the
legacy to Suisse as to those given to other persons by the same
instrument, and the Court must hold the legacy in question to
be cumulative. The sixth codicil under which the plaintiff
claimed gave him a legacy of £2,600, which also was distinctly
stated to be above all other bequests. The seventh codicil
again contained the words " independent of, and in additic
to, all other legacies ,to Suisse, £2,000, fpr continue

I good

services." There was no question that the £2,000 given
by that codicil was cumulative. The whole of the sums given
by these codicils amounted to about £10,600; and the entire
question then was, whether the £BOOO bequearhed to Suisse
by the last codicil was intended as a substitution for the
£10,600 previously given. It was less beneficial to the lega-
tee than the gifts in the preceding instruments ; the presump-
tion, therefore, would be in favour of the legatee, and against
the construction which would hold the legacy to be substitu-
tional. The ezwasedintention to provide for the servants
appeariagin the last codicil had been !hitclt. upoirwith refer-
lres oble
akilhiwiamPir amtd"oetilt,lfttrle.,udid
not apply in the case of strangers ; it wds applicable only to
bequests to persons as to whom a testator stood in loco pa-
rentis. With regard to strangers, as there was no reason,
in a legal point of view, why the testator should give them
anything by his will, so there was no reason why the court
should raise any presumption to limit the amount of his
bounty. Throughout the whole of the codicils, the testator
had gone on diminishing the amount of the benefit given to
those who had natural claims upon him by increasing the
amount of his gifts to other persons, and there was no prin-
ciple on which the court could bold that these legacies to the
plaintiff were not cumulative. The executors having admit-
ted assets, the decree must be made for payment.

-----•►~

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-SATURDAY

(London Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Lord Chief Justice
TINDAL and Special Juries.)

MOORE, CLERK, V. DRUMMOND, CLERK

Sede rtgheea npti
i'ln'at
ilfffo,us rcda ande;
Sira nTo.t
dl raini edd
Mgentleman
conducted the pisintiff's case; Sir T. Wilde and Mr. Creesy
This was an action of slander.
ave rise to this action made, at
conMdru.ct
appearedThecir
cufo rmtshteandceefewn
hd
jacnht.g
the time they occurred, considerable noise in the world, and
were fully published in all the public journals. They were
as follows:
The plaintiff is the Rev. William Carter Moore. B.A , the
curate of St. Peter's and St. Mary'.
Marys, at Boston, in Lincoln-
shire; and the defendant is also a clergyman, and the in-
cumbent of the Chapel Royal, Prince's-place. Brighton. On
Saturday, July 30, in last year, the plaintiff, accompanied by
his son, a member of St. John's, College, Cambridge, went
to Brighton for the recovery of his health ; and on Sunday
morning, the 31st, the plaintiff and his son, being then en-
tire strangers to the defendant, entered the Chapel Royal, in
Prince's-place, just as the Litany was concluded, they having
been detained until that time at the baths. At the close of
the sermon the defendant said—" My dear friends, I know it
is not usual to address you after the sermon, but I beg to
inform you that there are two notorious pickpockets in the
congregation, and therefore be careful. That announce-
ment turned the eyes of the congregation to the strangers,
who had before attracted some attention by coming late into
church ; considerable confusion ensued, and the plaintiff and
his son were followed from the chapel by a crowd of persons.
Upon inquiring the cause of the assemblage, they were in-
formed that they were the persons against whom the defend-
ant had cautioned his congregation.
Sir Thomas Wilde addressed the jury for the defendant,
and contended that this action ought not to have been
brought—inasmuch as the defendant, as soon as he disco-
vered he had made a mistake in respect of the persons whom
he considered the plaintiff and his son to be, wrote a letter to
the plaintiff, expressing in the strongest terms his regret that
the circumstance had occurred, and stating the manner in
which it had happened—viz., that shortly before the plaintiff
and his son entered the church, information had been received
by the defendant that two notorious pickpockets had been
driven from Christ Church, they having come there in a fly,
and that they had afterwards gone to several other chapels in
Brighton. That the close arrival of the plaintiff and his son
led him to believe they were the parties, and to make the
address to his audience, which bad given rise to these p
ceedings.
The Lord Chief Justice having summed up, the jury re-
tired, and, after having been absent for some time, found a
verdict for the plaintiff--damages, 40s.

REFUSAL OF PROTECTION TO AN INSOLYENT.—On Thurs-
day last, Joseph Schofield Shaw, formerly. a grocer, druggist,
and porter dealer, at Ashton, but now living .t Oldham, ap
plied for protection under the new insolvent debtors' act.
it appeared that he had taken the benefit of the insolvent
act in July, 1842, when his debts amounted to £5,000 and
upwards; having previously compoundedesent with his crediamoun-
tors,
when he owed about £1,200; and his pr debts
ted to £267. It was also discovered that he had secreted
some property, and his schedule was very
artfully drawn up,
with the view of concealing the real state
man of his Pffaires.—
Mr. Commissioner Jemmett severely reprimanded th in-
solvent, declared him not to be entitled to the benefit of the
act, and refused to grant the final order for protection.—We
understand that this is the first case at
this c
uarourt, where the
final order has been refused.—ManaesGdian.