The Sun. — 1851-08-13 (London, England)

FRANCIS V. LEACII AND ANOTHER. _ _  Mr. Crowder,. Mr. Barstow, and Mr. Leigh were counsel for the plaintiff; and Mr. Butt, Mr. Fitzher. bert, and Mr. M. Smith for the defendant.  This was an action brought to recover damages against the defendants, who are attorneys in this county, for negligence. The defendants had prepand a will for a Miss Bondfield, who was tenant in tail of an estate, and by this will she devised her estate and interest to the defendants, in trust for the plaintiff. She subsequently suffered a recovery, barring the entail, and acquiring the fee. This had the effect of revoking the will. The testatrix then became lunatic, and a commission of lunacy was issued, under which she was declared to be a lunatic. Shortly afterwards she had a lucid interval, and then republished her will, and subsequently died. The plaintiff was all this time abroad, and was a minor. The defendants received the rents. The plaintiff came of age in 1835, and in 1838, upon his marriage, a settlement was executed containing a power of sale. The property had been mortgaged. It 1848 the plaintiff became embarrassed, and the estate was offered for sale under conditions which did not contain any notice of the lunacy, nor was that fact mentioned in the abstract of title, though the fact it was presumed was known in the neighbourhood. The purchasers afterwards refused to complete the purchase, and the question now was, whether this suppression of the lunacy was an act of negligence. For the plaintiff several attorneys were called, who gave it as their opinion that it amounted to negligence.  For the defendants it was urged, that as the fact of the lunacy was well known in the neighbourhood, it was not requisite to mention it in the conditions of sale.  The Learned JUDGE having summed up, The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for 2501.  OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Gloucester, Aug. 11. The commission was opened on Ssturday. The Court sat to-day at ten for the dispatch of business. On the civil side there was an entry of fifteen causes, of which five were marked for special juries. Of these, one, which was expected to occupy several days, has been arranged out of court. This was " The Queen at the relation of Lovegrove v. Pruen," which was a proceeding by quo warranto to try the validity of the election of the defendant as coroner for the Cheltenham district of this county, it last August, on which occasion it was alleged in the declaration that 300 freehold votes, of the value of is. each, were fraudulently manufactured during the progress of the election, and recorded for the defendant, who, however, by his pleas, denied the truth, of this allegation. The private arrangement of this cause will, it is thought, enable their Lordships to bring the assizes to a close about Thursday. It is considered quite I certain that the calendar will be disposed of by that time. The number of cases in it does not exceed the average, and is 63. Of these, lis charged with murder, 2 with manslaughter, 6 with rap, 2 with assault with intent to commit rape, 1 with bigamy, 7 with robbery, 8 with burglary, 3 with forgery, 1 with poaching, 1 with arson, 2 with forcible entry, 1 with uttering counterfeit coin, and the,iest are common larcenies.  CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Jusice ERLE and a Common Jury.)