THE GARDENERS’ 
The church of Hoy, in Orkney, is ene d | 
sandy bay, much Request ted by these crea- 
tars pre begs been observed that when the bell bas 
for divine rvice, all the | seals within hearing sw: 
144 
yes 
Eis eaten oad ones, and Bias e two soy 4 
go by default, but Elderton, having never vekee neatd ‘Of the 
and suspecting there was fraud, obtained a judge’s order requiring 
Beb' b described 
directly f for the ihe, and kept looking about oe = it gre ge ; Os ; = ore 
give up the residence im 
+e ped bray Sane ne Fh ster ed, ane and in like m gentleman, residing at 27, Regent-street, Ke ton-cross,” 
t all endeavours to find such a person had entirely failed. The 
cause proceeded to trial, o c] casion Jones, one of the 
mst plaintiff, a id 
Routs’ Court.— Stocker 
arbin.—Lord Langdale gav 
judgment in this cause, which has po important bearing on Ste the partnership, and that they shared = proceeds among them: 
Lo yn of wills. The testator, Stocker, devised his real | A verdict cordingly obtair: ide! eye ; butit having 
al estatesto tru to convert into morev, | since been discovered that th 2 intiff in the 
i aiter payment of his debts, to appropriate 10 . for the hewe- tion, and that Peters was aay & an imagin: nag povase's a vale nisi 
fit of tiff, hisson. By a et r, for a new trial had been obtained, and was now pending. The 
that he hi provided for his aie: declared that the le- | bill filed in this court for Cyusanie relief, before all the ec = 
‘iven y his will should be null id. This codicil | cumstances now before the court had come to ht, and 
was notattested, wren therefore operative pti in d eded upon the supposition Hist Ben peat not put forwa oa 
personal property ; an unattested will or codicil, by the then ex- inary person as plaintiff i Bebb had actually 
isting law, being rea and void, so far as concerns estates. | p' an appearance for this Fete my tae and had, more- 
His lordship held that the real and mal estat mstitut over, made the usual affidavit of increase of costs in the action. 
one fund, pel ‘were by the will to be applied in proportion to their | The met the present application was with a state- 
ive amounts in ent of the legacy, and that by the ment that the whole matter was m his clerk, who was 
ed by hi hi 
received instructions trom him from 
mally he knew nothing about the trans- 
aster to inquire into the respective amount real and x the parties concerned in This the learned counsel 
——— estate, declared that the plaintiff’s = ae = far mitted was no wer to the applicat It was immaterial 
was payable, pro rata, out of the real estate, wi hether Hebb had been eee throughout with the real state 
evoked, 
pate hee eee bya e costs of, fall ee by be epalt pe = rope estate. 
v. Fryer e touching the legal 
d ath 
pare am tied woman in pena "ty hemi made a a | di ition, and itted a soli- 
suit without conse: Mr. Kindersley moved to strike out the | citor, he was answerable here for the conseque! of his s 
name of Mrs. Fryer, a married lady, from the names of plain- | fessional misconduct, though ral guilt was not nece: ly 
tiffs in the suit. Lord Lan, ie said m was, thata | imputed to him by the pi mt application.—Mr. Wakefield op- 
married woman, who was with other plai S joined as a plain- the motion on the of Mr. Bebb, and contended there 
tiff by her next friend, aid have her mame struck out of the | was nothing to show that he had 
Pp 
action were given 
as her next friend had a right to make her a plaintiff without her ists 
consent ; and if t were she now dissent? A great vari- | who called at Bebb’s sine: eft the sites tek the ands of his 
ety of ci tances had been ‘ed. He, ho , Was not now | clerk, stating that he would on a subsequent day with the 
to determine any question in the cause, b ether it appeared | bill of exchange. . Bebb, knowing nothing of any of the par- 
that the married woman,did dissent from the prosecution of the | ties, weeded to execute the Oey conan by commencing an 
t.. The rul clear ; friend of an infant ht | action, and one followed them up by prpreren appearance to 
prosecute a cause the infant’s consent, subject to the di- | the bill filed in rN br Tesi ed ci ed what there 
rection of the C a liability for costs; but no person | was in the proceeding to excite the prcabiver oe Mr. Bebb, or to 
assuming tobe the next fi woman could opting a pense different from what he had done, and 
as being without understanding a nullity. . It was not, | proceeded to enter into a lengthened detail of the evidence, and 
however, perf clearthat the lady had given instructions for | of the connexi een the ies when their trading specula- 
the present application. motion must stand over until he | tions were in progress. It appeared that J was described 
better satisfied that she desired her name to be struck out of | a law student of the Inner Temple, and a certificated convey- 
the record. She was but iinet come of see, and he must see her, | ancer of Staple’s Inn; erton as a solicitor in Lombard Cham- 
and know from her whether she gave her consent to the appli- | bers ; and Pocock, who made a consid in the proceed- 
cation. ings, an attorney in Norfolk-street. di of correspond- 
Vice-CHANCELLOR’s CousT.—Colnaghi v. Smith and the Fish- | ence had passed between some of these gentlemen and another 
pag Cincacha! The Soren s Portrait.—Mr. Richards applied | person earne, which was r the co and related 
for an injunction against Mr. Herbert Smith, the e artist, to prevent | chiefly to various projects they en’ mtertained fo att gia money, 
g with a full-le it of h jesty, which psa gad in low expressions, and showing a e intima . 
plaintiffs me Soler been by their order, and which Mr. It in the course of these 1 Rahnnaertire the bill of 
was about to part with'to the Fishmongers’ Company, for ere : ete given, which Jones swore at the trial Peters had 
he alleged it to have been pai ¥ lavits in sup- | discounted, and that the ere divided be them- 
port of the application Stated that the Fishmongers’ Company ap- | selves and Elde! Pocock also borated his t ony, 
plied to plaintiffs for a portrait of the Queen, to be painted _ w Jones and Elderton dividing the money. 
the person who now put himself forward in the 
et Elderto: 
se ececter ct fa plaintiff and i Sees Jones, who had been 
partner in the transaction, and who might haye 
pe gh ra eed Bede d ow Peters was the imagi 
that Mr. ee oe te ae nary 
they ‘was immaterial to Mr. Bebb’s case, however, 
pplied him with Ross’s original sketch. 
it 
as 
plaintiffs, and was about to deliver the portrait up | certainly showed there was; but even if it were 
to the Fishmongers’ Company case before the | Bebb’s conduct was unassailable, and this court could not inter- 
court on a previous im and ‘ed an | fere on an application which related to his conduct on 
injan tained; but as the plaint not had time | i in another court of co tent jurisdiction. 
tomeet the of defendants, it. was to be ge g eae Chancellor said that the case was a ¥! 
mentioned. affidavits in opposition to: the motion totally | gone, e had been doubting whether he Ae es to reshoooe ott it 
denied any agreement either between Mr. Smith and Messrs. | on the ab ster now before him, because affidavit made in 
Colnaghi, or between th shm: rs’ Company and the plain- | opposition to the motion tendered oa a there really 
tiffs, and gave the following account of the transaction: Mr. Bod- | such a person as Julian Hugh Peters. The only question to be 
dington, one ofthe wardens of the Fishmongers’ Company, asked | ascertained was whether this Peters drew the bill of exchange ; 
some questions of Messi naghi about bed Sgr of her Ma- | and it was a very prcome He ble thing, that after hi fae? which 
jesty te hang up in their hall, and when it was suggested that ~ had been made of the belief of those who had given evidence 
full-length portrait could be painted from the reat by. ce agct support of the motion that there was no such ieee as Peters. 
was immediately refused, Mr. Boddi that t there should have been by aeashy statement on the part 
company wished mr obtain her Majesty’s gracious Reeperria df sit om efendants; but instead of statement was put forward 
the artist. Mr. Boddington and other members of the company t Jones, at the trial, swore to the fact of Peters money 
obtained an yma iors with Prince Albert, to whom they s out of et to discount the bill, which was in effect swear- 
their wishes, an 
hny 
ing person. Thi 
Highness, the seniiee they sought. Mr. Ross’s portrait of the | ment bs et to show there was such a person ; but for some 
Queen, which was painted for the Baroness Lehzen, was | reason not assigned there were no direct affidavits by either of 
Mr. S: together with her Majesty’s j , Tobes, and dress, | them as kro e existence. individuals migh' 
and appointed for Mr. to waiton hér Majesty at | certainly have reasons which might induce them not to make any 
Ww: the sittings took Colmaghi and | direct affidavit of the f if they were applied to; but it 
Co. found that Mr. Smith’s portrait of the Queen was admit did not appear whether they were sea to or not, His hono 
be the most faithful resemblance of her they, at aninter- | was, therefore, of mene = pore of the matter, 
view with Smith, urged him to give up the inal and it would rere art to interfere im the 
rtain 
ce 
pe 
to direct an issue to bays the fact, upon which all parties 
Th 
obtain the high favour of the | would 
royal sit the benefit of M . Colnaghi.—The Vice- | who had niede affidavits could be examined. e form of the 
Chancell we judgment, refusing to on Mr. Knight Bruce | issue that he should therefore direct would be, whether Julian 
and Mr b, who for the defendants, to answerthe | Hugh ape drew the bill of exchange, in whic h issue Bebb 
application. His h said this application must be discharged | should plaintiff, and Elderton the defendan' 
with costs ; he did not wish to harshly M . Colna- romana CHAMBER.—The Manchester Ctr farsniMinatte v. 
ghi, but at least they had ivi ves. going over } Chi an.—Their lordships bled and gave judgment in this 
the facts of the 5» a8 abo his said no | case, the validity of the charter by five voices inst 
bargain had been established by the plaintiffs, either between the | two. The judges who voted in favour of the charte: 
company or Mr. Smit! For some , Which did not appear, | Justice Coltman, Mr. Justice Coleridge, Mr. Justice 
Messrs. Colnaghi had entered on their books a memorandum of | Mr. J Bosanquet, and the Chief Justié of the u 
eement, but whi vas totally unsubstantiated by the letters | Pleas. Lord Denman and Mr. Justice Willi dit from the 
missions of defendants. Mr. Smith acted throughout under | rest of Court upon that point. Mr. Justice Coleridge was of 
the ene pne impression that there an ent een in, that although the charter was valid, the charge of the 
e Fi: as to 
mn 
was agreem: hat 
shmongers ; and although there had been a meeting | judge at Nisi Prius was erroneous 
ntitis and the parties previously to the Isthof July, i 
yet, after that date, all incipient trafficking between Seog ceased, |. upon which the charter was granted, and upo 
and Mr, Smith an i f lordship beripred that there ought to be a venire de nore. 
XN mi d the ct nape Company were the only 
parties inthe matter, asfully aj ee mye by the athdavits of differ- | majority of the Cort was, therefore, in favour of the defendant 
ent members ofthat caiiany. - therefore should dismiss the | upon all the peknhs, and the charter was ingly confirmed. 
costs. —Mr udianie asked permission to bring Court or Excusever.—Rasitrick Bee Lambert. —This was an 
x 
Pp: ed 
rarer bef 
other genth m, amongst whom, it 
sought to establish @ rival co: bers d to under the 
ure @Tival and, as et eo a better line of 
. 
a 
H 
a 
43 
> 
‘ 
mo alter eft 
eeSott the splamnti were = oy int ies same ccuailbaees as era other 
= her Majesty’s subjects ete. There was | of the Legislat 
calling for the | railway provisio: ommittee was formed to superintend the 
~ laerton v. Peers ‘and ethers: —Mr. x. eee (with Mr. Tripp) | proceed in Parliament, and oppose the Dublin and Drogheda 
moved, on behalf of the —— to take ® the bill off the file, or | Bill, and a Mr. Pentland, a solici was employed to conduct 
that the suit might pega out of court, _ that . | the opposition. The plaintiff made surveys, examined maps ani 
Bebb, the solicitor of Mr. Peters, and for whom he plans, attended before a co ttee the House of Commons. 
- entered appearance, mig! ight: be ordered to pay ge casts of | and in other respects performed s of great importance i 
i and the other defendants, and also the costs of an action le bern of the views of those, who projected the rival line. 
at law. aos circumstan with this The area vd = position was that, m the Dublin and Drog- 
. cae, Which havi dy im part disclosed te the public in ieee: got before the. Ho € Lords, it. was deem 
the course of the ac’ at law, are these:—In or of 1838, canines. 1: oo off the opposing company, which was effected 
prema: a plaintiff, gaged with two upon the ofa enemas sam of Some cid The defend. 
named - Med. scnss, in a eding' specciatins WAGE com | aut une onal co mittee of the ri 1pan 
timued fora very short time, Above ayearafter the indenture of iaisd wasiplarved tied 
CHRONICLE. 
Covent-GasDEn, in ug Ao 
tisements and Commani 
[N° 9. 
committee. The defen up was that the oy 
was ni not a genuin ne Cases: but a mere experiment 
’ 
ed b 
, he —— retain the plaintife on their cleat if on 
rere ne cessary. The jury found for the plainti_— 
TATTERSALL’S.—Tu 
The feeling towards the Rosalie colt w far from favourable, 
that, although pontnaly at the v9 of the list nearly the whole of 
yin _ doubt that Co: ronation Seg whom 
‘e bee nm, was at an: Tiod quite as gooda 
check on culatio have taken less 
‘toa 1. Pri ice Gareads acuped two or Papo points, but 
in other respects the betting, which languid. eed with the 
quotations of M' ‘y- DERBY. 
4 to 1 agst Mr. Sadler's lot (tak.) 33 to LagstSir Hans (taken) 
1000 to 15 Mr. apes 's two (ta.) 35 to 1 Mongolian (taken) 
7 to 1 Rosalie colt 50 to 1 bo grade (taken) 
i7tw 1 Coronation to 1 rioletta colt (taken) 
20 to } Ban of the Whistle 50 to 1 t b (taken) 
2 to 1 Pala ; to 35 pre Star (taken) 
20 to 1 Sesiraenl 1000 to 1 nightsbridge (taken: 
20 to 1 1000 to 15 inchl nae 
25 to 1 pancleen careaes (taken) 200 to 1 Warlock (taken) 
to 1 Ralph (tak ace 1g! Eringo and Wahab (ta. 
DERBY, 
agst The Artful Dodger 20,000 to 250 agst Rover (taken) 
(taken to £175.) 20,000 to 250 Brigand (taken) 
MAR eee Frrpay, Fes. 26.—On referring to the return, 
it ap, 3 that the arrivals of English red and Flour are in- 
creasing ; ne gene ion fine diy W! sale is small,and 
such descriptions lize Monday’s prices, eatteeob aay qualities 
have been sold rather cheaper. There ee asteady demand 
for Foreign at thi ne rates. Higher ‘e asked for Oats, 
but the sales pail en ioe limited ioe 
H. mperii s 
ent; Mewex, Kant, and. fad oe a ; Red 
Norfolk, Lincol: and Yor! took White ones 
‘shire 
Malting bs distilling ~ to32 Grind. 24t030 
Oats, Lincolnshire and Yorkshire . . 3 ts ids 22to2 Feed 2to3s 
a hehe and Seotch . 5 241036 Potatoe $9 0 39 
— Irish 5 ee ee we ee Feed 19 to 22 Potatoe20 to 26 
Moyet iss! ot. Fa ate siresed BG. 2 it . : 36 to 42 
Beans, Mazagan, old and new to 4a “Tick 36to 44 Harrow 38to 4 
Pigeon, oe sores . ne to43 Winds. ped gong itd 
Peas, White s 32 to37 Maple 
WEEKLY m™ PERIAL apekoon 
Wheat. ey. 
January35 . 3s «| G& 7} 32130 
2 ot) es] gen 
seicuartec! Foo eae Sat 
‘ebruary pore a ole 
_- - . +} a 
. . 61 10 
} 6 weeks’ se cae Avar- 
GAZETTE OF THE WEEK. 
DECLARATIONS OF INSOLVENCY—W. Epmonson, Liver- 
pool, tailor—E. Sparro’ ws ashall, “Ranges gone iron—dealer— 
D. Witiiams, shopkeeper, Car marthen.—S. Tur Nn, M. A. Tor. 
Ton, and C. Turton, milters, Bristo! tol. 
ms pete t Lg nog 7 PS —H. Rows, Great- Tower- 
s' rchant—E. Wo tingham, iron-merchaat—G. 
Bayest cman ela :. 
B RUPT: EMERSON, @' , Antrim, Ireland, distil- 
; Viret and T. Reckitt kite, Ludgate-hill, linen- 
ealer. GeoRGE, 
Lo 
mel 
3 
x cd 
ge 
ss 
ao 
eel 
@ F 
ee 
S 
a 
“ 
a 
=] 
® 
5 
o 
a 
ee 
© 
5 
Duc 
Flee 
well, Irish ante merchant— ADER, -street, 
Walwor th-road, map- publisher SR. M'Ga ReGor, Chester, grocer 
—E. Bennett, Cambridge, builder —W. Mason, Heywood, Lan- 
©. Lancashire, 
builder—J.M. = » Ca i 
— —E. ge: Newcastle-u yne, scrivener—S. G- 
‘EHOUS picts mpton, coal-! merchant—J. ProrFitt, J} 
Darlaston, Statfordshire, Lats manufacturer—J. GunTon, Cam- 
bridge, butcher —J. ,» linendraper, Cheltenham - 
M‘Krneay and A. aR, , Silver-street, Loodon G. 
Waup, miller, York—L. Ep , grocer, Merthyr Tyafil—W- 
RSTER, grocer, Fenchurch- W. Tempest, innkeeper, 
Chester—H. Cuarke, ironmonger, Portsea—H. J. Storzy, vic- 
ns op cen Ss t, Aldzate—J. Mace, victualler, Totten- 
wer 2 sBY, chemist, Wotton-under-Edge, 
Glouces' eee fastian-m: ‘acturer, Manchester. 
SCOTCH S! SEQUEST sibreies sie-merchant J 8 plumber 
chant— 
=F. Cianaatreme thine 
Linwood, Renirewshire, qhossbakier Ac M‘Nas, , Spirit- 
dealer—. S: Piv , Edinburgh, flesher. 
eee ere 8 
BraTas.—On the 12th inst., the lady of T. J. B. Angell, Esq.» 
of a daughter.—On the 25th inst. at is Boisicigh- -street, MIs. 
oo A inst., oe se John’s 
—On 
Ww. , of a son.—On Mo: nda: lay, t 
Wood, the lady of the Rey. S. Robins ore id inst» 
¢ Stubbings, near the lady ow. powell Esq.» 
of Malsgwynne, , of a daughter. 
Mararep.—On the 25th inst., at St. Mary’s, of 
E. I. Company’s service.— 
rylebone Church, H.T. teas org tn St of Lower Seymour 
Portman-square, Ge of G. Green, Es4-, 
iment. 
_ Drgp.—On the 16th of Dec., at Nevis, aged 23 Mary; 
instan’ icy secon 
Berkeley-place, Cheitenham.—On the 21st instan’ 
Egham Hythe, J. M‘Clellan, Esq., in his 53d year.—On the On 
imst., at Esher, Mr. J. Masters, in the 71st year of - one Oe 
the 3sth i inst. in Hartey-stresty K. Co lett, Esa. 0 loleronts, 
Fulham, the year of his age, one of thi 
M ajesty* s , Court Exchequer of Pleas.—On W: 
imst., ike es residence 59, Cambridge-street, Loni 
A. Vigo x, C.B., late of the 45th regiment, i 
On | ednesd y, C > at 
uare, Dr. J. Weir, late Senior Medical Commissio! 
the Navy: —On the 23d inst., at. &: Amsinck, oa 
aged 7, Eien -On the 24th inst., in her 88th year, Esther, wife of C- 
arne, Esq., of Nelson-terrace, Stoke eicomacsomond 
d by Be SSRS. iessas. BRapBU BURY and Evans, Eombar 
” Printed ard. 
ee at Precinct of Whitefriars, in the City ©! 
doa, and yer- 
Communications are to be . 
¥» February 27, S41, 
street, 
of Loa- 
them at — Orrice, 3, ecm ge 
County ddlesex, where a! 
addressed to the Editer 
