The Statesman.
London, England, 1821-11-15 00:00:00

PREROGATIVE COURT, Nov. 14.

LS MANN AGAINST CONSAL.
In this case certain witnesses who had travelled up
from Wales in order to give their testimony appeared
at the bar, and attracted, by the singularity of their
appearance, considerable attention. The habiliments
of the females were particularly grotesque. An interpre-
ter having applied to the Court, by their desire, for per-
mission to be sworn as witnesses on behalf of one of the
parties (a pauper), took the opportunity of stating that
the parties, before the oaths were taken, were desirous of
having some allowance made to them for their expenses.
These had been already considerable, and were likely
to become still more so, by reason of the delay to
which the prosecution of the cause might subject them.
The COURT directed the Interpreter to acquaint the
witnesses, that the party on whose behalf they sp-
rayed, being a pauper, could furnish no funds; and
that it was trite impossible for the Court to undertake
for compensation. It was for them to decide whether
they would take the oaths or not—a course which,
for-the ends of justice, it was evidently very desirable
should be taken ; but the Court thought it would be
highly unbecoming and improper, if they should now
return to their homes without giving the evidence
in which it was their power to do. The witnussa by
means of the interpreter expressed their apprehension
of being detained in London, at great expense and incon-
venience to themselves, unless their charges were defray-
ed. The proctors on both sides, and the examiner, under-
took to exercise every possible diligence; and the wit-
nesses with some apparent reluctance at length con-
sented to take the oaths, which were administered to
them in the Welch language. _ .

. -
FORBES V. ..controx.
In this case the Court was prayed to admit an alle-
gation, propounding, together with the will of the
late J. Forbes, Esq. of Fitzrorsquare, London, two
testamentary papers marked A and B; tka former
being described as a codicil to the said will, and the
latter undated. It appears that Mr. Forbes died in
the night of the 20th June, 1821, leaving behind him
personal and freehold property to the amount, it is
supposed, of 500,0001. and upwards. The will,
dated May 2, 1820,-duly executed in the presence of
three witnesses, disposed of a property in valne about
220,000/. specifically. The value of the residue was
not known even to the testator. Paper A was dated
Ist of March, 1821. Paper B without a date, was
handed over by the deceased to his solicitor, Mr.
Ilutchiason, as containing instructions for a new will
or a codicil (that being a matter of dispute) which it
was his in'ention to make, and by which he meant to
alter and to add to some former bequests. This inter-
view between the deceased and 11ir. Hutchinson took
place on the 12th of Jttne, 1821, eight days before
testator's death ; but important business calling his
solicitor to the Continent, the codicil in question
could not be immediately prepared. In the interval
of this gentleman's absence, Mr. Forbes died, and
the executors felt it necessary to try the question of
the validity of one or both of the two codicillary
papers, inasmuch as they went to make a very im-
portant alteration in the disposition of the residue.--
(The facts facts not having been fully opened, we shall defer
a more enlarged report of them to the period at which
the cause comes on for argument.)
Dr.LUSHINGTON and Dr. MARIAM opposedtanil Dr.
SWABEY and lir. PHILLISIORE contended for the ad-
mission of the allegation.
Sir JOHN NICHOLL, without giving any decided
opinion as to the merits of the testamentary papers
A and B. but deferring that to a future stage of the
case, thought there was that matter pleaded. is-the
allegation which made it proper to be adtuitted.—Ad-
mitted accordingly.

POLICE.
_-..iii..-..

CuriousßOW-STREET. CASE.—Yesterday, before
Mr. M I Nsinna., the Sitiing Magistrate, Thomas White,
a young man, in the dress of a groom, was charged
by Captain C— J , now of the Bedford
Hotel, Covent-garden, with stealing harness, wear-
ing apparel, and other property, to the amount of IN/.
and upwards.
Captain J..-- stated, that the prisoner was in
his service as a coachman some time ago, when he
kept an establishment, and had been So- for a consi-
derable time. In September last, witness came to
town, from his cottage, at Southampton, and resided.'
at Hatchett's Hotel, where be bad been but a short
time, when he was unfortunately arrested for debt,
and taken to a lock-up house in Carey-street, Liucaln's-
inn-fields. At that time he wts indebted to thi:pri-
soner, about 201. for wages and other matters. The
prisoner and a boy, named Charles Meads, alma a ser-
vant of his, came and attended upon bim for a few
days in the sponging house, and witness employed
him to go down to Southampton, to acquaint his
friends there of what had befallen him, in the hope that
they would be prevailed upon to ralesse him from his
difficnities. The prisoner did not return to him, and
he soon learned that he had been to Ilatehett's, and in
his name obtained all the things he left there, and; at