man; adding, that the slaves were not sold for money, but were always bartered for with British merchandise. The evidence given before the Committee of the House of Commons was put in, for the purpose of showing that Mr. Zulueta knew Messrs. Martinez and Co. to be notorious slave-dealers; and that papers found in the Augusta when it was seized related to the disposal and shipping of slaves.

For the defence, Mr. Kelly took a preliminary objection-that the slave-trading, to be unlawful, must be carried on by British subjects to some British colony or settlement; which the Galinas was not. This objection was over-ruled; and Mr. Kelly made his address to the jury. He dwelt upon the high consideration in which the prisoner and the firm to which he belonged were heldThe young gentleman for whom he appeared, Pedro de Zulueta, was the eldest son of a gentleman who, though now advanced in years, had filled the very highest offices in his own country, among them that of President of the Cortes, (an office equivalent to that of Speaker of the House of Commons in this country,) and had been the representative for the city of Cadiz so long as his commercial pursuits allowed him to remain in Spain. During the whole of his life he had been engaged in commercial transactions of the largest nature and extent, under a firm of which not only be but his father and grandfather before him had been the principals. For seventy years the firm had carried on the most extensive concerns, during a period when not only Spain but also

traffic; but the firm had even then abstained from and not embarked a single copper farthing in the Slave Trade. So far from it, it would appear that when, owing to a bankruptcy, some slaves became the property of the firm, Mr. Zulueta, the father of the prisoner, immediately gave them their freedom: in short, at the only time he ever could have been said to have been the holder of slaves, he instantly manumited them.

Mr. Kelly complained of the general nature of the charge; and argued that Mr. Zulueta's share in the matter was strictly that of an agent, shipping goods and transferring money by direction of Messrs. Martinez and Co.; and that of several things relating to the management of the vessel and its voyage the defendant was altogether ignorant. It was true that Mr. Zulueta said before the Parliamentary Committee, that he knew Martinez and Co. to be engaged in slave-trading: but he then spoke of the knowledge that he had in 1842; whereas, a little further on in his evidence, it appeared that he had obtained that information since the subject had been mooted-that is to say, since the affair of the Augusta. But suppose he had known that they were engaged extensively in the Slave Trade, he knew also that they traded largely and lawfully in sugar and tobacco. Was a party, then, who shipped goods to such a foreign house-goods which he could not know would be used unlawfully-to be regarded as a felon? The reason why the vessel had an English name was, that under the Spanish laws no Spanish vessel could be

ter; and Martinez and Co. desired to employ Jennings, who had before been in their service, and whom it was convenient for them to make the ostensible owner of the vessel. As to the letters found on board the Augusta, Mr. Zulueta never saw nor heard of them until brought under his notice in the course of the law-proceedings.

Several witnesses were called to speak to the character of Mr. Zulueta; they weree-Mr. James Cooke, the Colonial broker, Sir John Pirie, Mr. Arroyue, Mr. Thomas Halifax, Mr. Sampson Ricardo, Baron de Rothschild, Mr. Isasay, a Spanish gentleman, M. José Maria Bareiro, the Spanish Consul, Dr. Arnott, Mr. Charles Dodd, a solicitor, Mr. Christobel Gulietta, a Spanish merchant, Mr. Charles Arthur Dodd, Mr. Hugh Sandiman, a stock-broker, Mr. Gibbs, of the firm of Gibbs and Son, Mr. Be

points in the case on either side. He told the Jury, that if the venture was a lawful one, or if the prisoner had no guilty knowledge of improper objects in the venture, there was an end of the case.

About half-past eleven o'clock on Monday, the Jury retired; and soon after one o'clock they re-entered the Court, and returned a verdict of "Not Guilty ;" which was greeted with a loud burst of cheers.

There was another indictment against Mr. Zulueta, for a misdemeanor in the same case; but no evidence was tendered, and a verdict of acquittal was formally recorded. On Mr. Zulueta's leav ing the Court, the cheers were renewed by the people outside.

VICE-CHANCELLORS'. COURTS,

November 4.

Mr. Jones Loyd, the eminent banker, Mr. Frederick Huth, a Bank Director, Mr. Mocatta, of the firm of Mocatta and Goldsmidt, Mr. Edwin Gore, Mr. Rougemont, Mr. Saddler, Mr. Vantzeller, the Portuguese Consul. Most of these gentlemen had known the prisoner and the firm to which he belongs for many years; and they vied with each other in eulogizing Mr. Zulueta's personal character, as distinguished for honour and probity; while they testified to the high respectability of the firm. Mr. Jones Loyd spoke generally as to the reputation of the house, being personally unacquainted with the prisoner.

Mr. Justice Maule summed np;

WOOD.

This suit, the object of which was to determine one of the remaining questions, and in magnitude of amount not the least important question, arising out of the administration of the estate of the late Mr. Wood, was instituted by the corporation of Gloucester against the late Sir Matthew Wood and his co-executors, for the payment of a legacy of 200,000l., which the plaintiffs insist was bequeathed by the testator to the corpora tion. The claim was founded on expressions in a codicil which was sent through the Post Office, by some unknown hand, to Mr. Helps, one of the legatees men

at length.

honour this day delivered ent. By the bill and ansit appeared that there were testamentary papers adto probate-the first eninstructions for his will, the 2nd of December, 1834, hich the testator appointed ecutors, and directed them tain all his personal estate, ct to the payment of such ies as he might afterwards , the second dated the folg day, in which he declared ish that the executors should all his property which he t not dispose of, and that whole should be divided gst them in equal proporsubject to any legacies he at afterwards make; and the instrument was the codicil we stated) under which the of the corporation on this was made, and was in these Is "In a codicil to my I gave to the corporation of cester 140,000l.; in this I my executors would give 001, more to them for the e purposes as I have benamed. I would also give my friends Mr. Phillpotts 007, and to Mr. George neil 10,000l., and to Mr. mas Helps, of Cheapside, don, 30,000l. ; and Mrs. abeth Goodlake, mother of Surman, and to Thomas od, Smith-street, Chelsea, 20,000l. ; and Samuel od, Cleveland-street, Mile,14,000l., and the latter genman's family 6,000l.; and I firm all other bequests, and the rest of my property to executors for their own in

This codicil referred to a former codicil which was not forthcoming, and of the absence, of which no explanation was given. Sir Matthew Wood, by his answer, stated that he believed this paper, although admitted to probate, to be a forgery, and he, and the other executors insisted that the legacies which referred to the corporation were void for uncertainty. The Attorney-General, who was a party, had filed merely a formal answer. The defendants had also, in their arguments at the bar, insisted on the supposed revocation of the codicil referred to in the last testamentary paper; and that if the legacy for 140,000l. was revoked, the legacy of 60,000l, must fail also, inasmuch as the purpose of both legacies was the same. This Court must exclude from its consideration the circumstances which took place before another jurisdiction, preceding the admission of the instruments to probate, without however expressing any opinion whether the admission to probate must in all cases preclude a Court of Construction from adverting to the circumstances under which the paper referred to had disappeared, if they were brought before it on the pleadings, and without deciding whether, if the plaintiffs had made out a primá facie case on the question of construction, and it became necessary to consider the question of implied revocation, it might not have been proper to inquire into the circumstances under which it happened that the document so referred to was not forthcoming. The Court must also consider the case as wholly unaffected by the

ter;

and Martinez and Co. desired to employ Jennings, who had before been in their service, and whom it was convenient for them to make the ostensible owner of the vessel. As to the letters found on board the Augusta, Mr. Zulueta never saw nor heard of them until brought under his notice in the course of the law-proceedings.

Several witnesses were called to speak to the character of Mr. Zulueta; they were-Mr. James Cooke, the Colonial broker, Sir John Pirie, Mr. Arroyue, Mr. Thomas Halifax, Mr. Sampson Ricardo, Baron de Rothschild, Mr. Isasay, a Spanish gentleman, M. José Maria Bareiro, the Spanish Consul, Dr. Arnott, Mr. Charles Dodd, a solicitor, Mr. Christobel Gulietta, a Spanish merchant, Mr. Charles Arthur Dodd, Mr. Hugh Sandiman, a stock-broker, Mr. Gibbs, of the firm of Gibbs and Son, Mr. Be

points in the case on either side. He told the Jury, that if the venture was a lawful one, or if the prisoner had no guilty knowledge of improper objects in the venture, there was an end of the case.

About half-past eleven o'clock on Monday, the Jury retired; and soon after one o'clock they re-entered the Court, and returned a verdict of "Not Guilty;" which was greeted with a loud burst of cheers.

There was another indictment against Mr. Zulueta, for a misdemeanor in the same case; but no evidence was tendered, and a verdict of acquittal was formally recorded. On Mr. Zulueta's leaving the Court, the cheers were renewed by the people outside.

VICE-CHANCELLORS'. COURTS,

November 4.

Mr. Jones Loyd, the eminent banker, Mr. Frederick Huth, a Bank Director, Mr. Mocatta, of the firm of Mocatta and Goldsmidt, Mr. Edwin Gore, Mr. Rougemont, Mr. Saddler, Mr. Vantzeller, the Portuguese Consul. Most of these gentlemen had known the prisoner and the firm to which he belongs for many years; and they vied with each other in eulogizing Mr. Zulueta's personal character, as distinguished for honour and probity; while they testified to the high respectability of the firm. Mr. Jones Loyd spoke generally as to the reputation of the house, being personally unacquainted with the prisoner.

Mr. Justice Maule summed np;

WOOD.

This suit, the object of which was to determine one of the remaining questions, and in magnitude of amount not the least important question, arising out of the administration of the estate of the late Mr. Wood, was instituted by the corporation of Gloucester against the late Sir Matthew Wood and his co-executors, for the payment of a legacy of 200,000l., which the plaintiffs insist was bequeathed by the testator to the corpora tion. The claim was founded on expressions in a codicil which was sent through the Post Office, by some unknown hand, to Mr. Helps, one of the legatees men

the vacation, and argued at length.

honour this day delivered ient. By the bill and ansit appeared that there were testamentary papers adto probate the first eninstructions for his will, the 2nd of December, 1834, nich the testator appointed ecutors, and directed them tain all his personal estate, ct to the payment of such ies as he might afterwards , the second dated the folg day, in which he declared ish that the executors should all his property which he t not dispose of, and that whole should be divided gst them in equal proporsubject to any legacies he t afterwards make; and the instrument was the codicil ve stated) under which the of the corporation on this was made, and was in these s:-"In a codicil to my I gave to the corporation of cester 140,000l.; in this I my executors would give 007, more to them for the e purposes as I have benamed. I would also give my friends Mr. Phillpotts 007, and to Mr. George ncil 10,000l., and to Mr. mas Helps, of Cheapside, don, 30,000l.; and Mrs. abeth Goodlake, mother of Surman, and to Thomas od, Smith-street, Chelsea, 20,000l. ; and Samuel od, Cleveland-street, Mile14,000%., and the latter genman's family 6,000l.; and I irm all other bequests, and

the rest of my property to executors for their own in

ter City Old Bank, July, 1835." This codicil referred to a former codicil which was not forthcoming, and of the absence, of which no explanation was given. Sir Matthew Wood, by his answer, stated that he believed this paper, although admitted to probate, to be a forgery, and he, and the other executors insisted that the legacies which referred to the corporation were void for uncertainty. The Attorney-General, who was a party, had filed merely a formal answer. The defendants had also, in their arguments at the bar, insisted on the supposed revocation of the codicil referred to in the last testamentary paper; and that if the legacy for 140,000l. was revoked, the legacy of 60,000l, must fail also, inasmuch as the purpose of both legacies was the same. This Court must exclude from its consideration the circumstances which took place before another jurisdiction, preceding the admission of the instruments to probate, without however expressing any opinion whether the admission to probate must in all cases preclude a Court of Construction from adverting to the circumstances under which the paper referred to had disappeared, if they were brought before it on the pleadings, and without deciding whether, if the plaintiffs had made out a primâ facie case on the question of construction, and it became necessary to consider the question of implied revocation, it might not have been proper to inquire into the circumstances under which it happened that the document so referred to was not forthcoming. The Court must also consider the case as wholly unaffected by the