Guildford, Saturday, Aug....
The Times, 1824-08-31T00:00:00

tai nx was all action or ejectment, to recover thtc ossess!pn of cer- taill bitildings and lands, at St. Alury's,Lambeth, frO ing, and other paves in this county. Ttic object of this ejectment was to deter. irnine tie right beta ecn the contending pTTties to the great Angell Estate, wljiclt has been so miiuchi the subject of litigation, both at law and equity. Tte lessor ot tle plainriff, Airs. Alary Bayley, -claitued as the heir at law of the common ancestor ot' both pat'eijs liamely, William An wo was a citizen and fishmonger of London in 1623, and third son to a Al r. Angell, who hield the office * S2crgeant of tue . eatery (ptastry coo,k or confectioner) to James I. adt Charles 1., ald who had tmarried Joan, the daughter of Jolin Povey, (Een'., andl sister to Justinian Povey, wvho was Au- iO.tor-(reneral to Queen Anne. The defendant claimed as devisee, under the will of the person last scised of the immense estates in queriot. t V3was expected that the trial would last at least two days, ut after two or three witnesses were examined, the plaintiff's cause eOnigretelv broke down. As already mentioncti, Ilrs. Byleycicycain ed as *2urvis'ing heir-at-law of ,he comimon ancestor, but it appeared thatc she Itad still a brother li-ving, wvho Itad issue, and whose title, if lhe hatd any, veu1d rake precedence wf hers. In consequence of this unexpected di8covery, Ai21 r. Adolphus, fo: the plaintiff, submitted to al honsut; qthe counSeit the otber sidd exprestsed the[r convictdon that the solieitors fortthe plaintifhad been grossly deceived and mis- informed by their client; and it it were necessary, thev said *thev could have proved that the plaintiffhail been seon in coniniunication, during these assizes, with her nieces, the two daughters of her brother .lartin, and perfectly well knew who they were.-The plaintiff was then nonsuited.-She sat in Court wvith her daughter Alss Bnyley a lady waning towvards G0, of portly diEmensionp, ant both anpeare3 perfectly unmoved at tire result of a cause whicil had becri carried on from motives cf' benevolence, at the expense of some worthy per. sons wlho had been induced to advance mnoney, in the coo fidence that her title was vnxccptionable. Somze of the persons who had bcen induiced to advance the monev were in Court anxiously but confi- dently expecting that the plaintiff woul(d succeed but the action having failed UpDn a point so little expeated, the defeatoperated upon themlilke a thunder-clap. One ind(ivi(diual, a respectable tradesman with a large family of childreni, and who had advanced 1,0001. rushed out of court, wvrnging his hands in despair. It was stated that a grocer and cteesemongrer had for the last four or hlve years been tiv tbe plaintiffcredit tor goods, in the a'ayof his tra le, to the amoint of from 4001. to 500)1. inu the coifidence that she would recover the estates in iuestion. The dismayand disappin tmentmaniiest in thecountenances of the different persons intereste( in the result of the cause wax in. conceivable. It is impossible to account for the want of candour on the part of the plaintiff towards her friends and Ic,al advisers. Af4ter the cause was over, it was asserted by the defendant's counsel, that they cou.d have proved an acknowledgement on the partof thie plain- tiff, that she had all alonf' known the existence of her nieces, and that sbe had pur530scly wthheld the fact firom her solicitors. Inconi- sequ-nce of the sudten breaking up of this cause, ^the parties were nor ready in the tmnaining catuses, anti therefjre it became necessary to witthdrawY the records. The assizes entded about two o'clock. Air. Baron GPAIIACI and the Hligh Stteriff left thc Io n ear", the next morning. 'IL~~~ GUILDFORD, SrT IRDAY. A13c..2R- DOE AND BAYLEY V. ANGELL.