The Statesman.
London, England, 1822-06-06 00:00:00

COLO •YD CO. V. JONES.

Mr. Sergeant Vftvonatt said this was an action
brought to recover 181. 3s. 101., the value of a carpet
and rug, furnished by the plaintiffs to the dekisdant,
who hail fitted up his chambers In New-square, Lin-
eolo's inn :—He called witnesses to prove the selection
of the pattern, the delivery of the carpet—and the
lapplieation for payment of the value of it.
Mr. Sergeant Lutes, for the defendeat. examined
witnesses, who proved his elient had paid as uphol-
sterer. named Deeble, the amount of the'caret is a
general account; and be contended that as *order
had bees given throegh the recommit:lo4ft of the
upholsterer, the parties claimiag the valise of the arti-
cles ought to have preferred their application to him,
as Mr, Jones could not be considered the responsible
person. The affair. however, the L-arned Sergeant
said, was easily seen through. The upholsterer had
now become Incapable of carrying os basiness. sad
his client was called upon to pay the value of the oar-
pa. which had been previously discharged.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN, in reply, said the plaintiffs
had never considered the upholsterer responsible, nor
had they ever any transaction with him. It was truel
they knew hies by his succeeding to a haziness carried
on by a persons named Cox, and by whom they care
considerable losers; therefore it was net very likely
they should trust a person succeeding another under
those circumstances, without having some knowledge
of his responsibility. Mr. Jesse had been repeatedly
applied to, end Deeble had never been eolidited hut
once to pay the itialugg. sail liat at al* iseifeat4aaiss.
'of Jones.
The Learned Judge (Menai:Dann) summed up the
evidence, leaving it to the Jury to determine, whether
the order was to be considered as having been given
by the defendant or by the upholsterer. if the former
was to be considered as the responsible person, then,
notwithstanding his having already paid the mosey,
the Jury would find a verdict for the plaintiff; if the
latter, for the defendant —Verdict for the plaintiff,
181. 3s. 10d.

—+..—
PREROGATIVE COURT—WitaNZSDAT.

GOODS OW HIS LILTS lilatllTT °SOROS TOR THIRD.
Dr. LUSVINOTON stated that this was an application
to the Court, requiring its authority towards carrying
into effect the testamentary directions of his late Ma-
jesty to his heirs and successors to pay a certain sum
or sums of money after his demise (no mention was
made either of the sum or the pieties to whom it
should be paid.)
Sir J. Nterrot. observed there was no eolietat for the
present application, and the Court would wish to have
some precedent before it took any steps towards in-
terposing its authority to give effect to such a paper
as that containing directions to our present Sovereign.
It should also wish the Officers of the Crown to have
notice of the application previous to its inquiry bow
far it bad authority to call upon the Sovereign to do
an act as directed by the will of his late father.
Dr. LUSRINGTON observed the Court was surely an.
thorised to carry into effect an Act of Parliament, which
he recited, empowering his Majesty to will and devise in
trust to his heirs and successors, all and singular his
lands, hereditament', freehold, copyhold, and personal
estates, and which called upon them to convey, assign,
and make over in manner aforesaid: and that such his
Majesty's will and testament, shsuld be as effectual in
willing and disposing of the same as the testamentary
instrument of any of h►s subjects. Dr. L. concluded lie
should be happy if his Learned Friends on the other
side would put the case in any form in which it might
be proper to argue it. The most convenient way, per-
haps, might be in the shape of protest, in order to ar-
gue the question.
Sir J. NicooL—lt is probable there may be a mu-
tual understanding between you as to what course can
be pursued.
xo's ADTOCATS—We should undonhtedly re-
quire instructions before interposing in a matter of so
much delicacy.
Sir J. Nicitot.—The Court would wish to proceed
with all manner of caution, but withoutcompromising
its jurisdiction as to whether or no the matter in dis-
pute could he settled here. It also desires to know if
the testamentary paper referred to has been brought
into the Registry.
The Registrar answered in the affirmative.
Sir J. Nicnob—Your coarse is, to apply for a de-
cree against the King's Proctor, who will show cause,
and of course the Court will take steps ; but this be-
ing an extraordinary case, the Court should not like
to take any steps without some instructions to be
guided by.

SAVO V. ATKINSON •ND WESTCOTT.

This was a question respecting the validity of a
paper, propounded by Mrs. Susannah &kph, purport-
iug to be the last will of William Hancourt; E 9. of