29.—At the Norwich Assizes, before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and a special jury, was tried a libel action, in which Mr. Samuel B. Cory, solicitor, Yarmouth, was the plaintiff, and Mr. T. W. Bond, publisher of the “Norfolk News,” Norwich, the defendant. The libel was contained in a letter written to the newspaper by a Mr. Fabb, who alleged, among other things, that Mr. Cory had laid informations in certain game cases, with the object of putting the fees into his own pocket. Mr. Fabb, it was understood, had indemnified the “Norfolk News.” The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, with one farthing damages, as to that part of the libel above quoted, and for the defendant as to other portions of the libel, on the ground that they had been justified as true. The effect of the verdict was that plaintiff had to pay his own costs and half the costs of the defendant. In a second action, Mr. Fabb sued Mr. Cory for malicious prosecution, and obtained a verdict for £30 damages. 30.—Died, in her 63rd year, at Cheltenham, while on a visit to her son-in-law, the Rev. J. F. Fenn, Lady Bignold, wife of Sir Samuel Bignold. APRIL. 2.—An important will case, Wright _v._ Wilkin, commenced at the Norfolk Assizes, before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and a special jury. It was brought in the form of an action for ejectment to recover possession of certain tenements and lands held by the defendant, Thomas Martin Wilkin, solicitor, of Lynn, under the will of an old lady named Mary Mann. The plaintiff, who was heir-at-law, alleged that the will was obtained from an infirm and weak-minded person by fraudulent practices and contrivances. The will had already been disputed, and in that trial a verdict was given in favour of Mr. Wilkin; this action was brought because there had come to the knowledge of the plaintiff facts and circumstances which had been entirely withheld from the former jury. The trial lasted until the afternoon of the 3rd, when the jury found for the defendant, subject to argument upon certain points reserved. These were stated in the Court of Queen’s Bench on April 9th, and were to the effect that the devise to the defendant was defeated by his neglect to comply with a condition of the will, namely, that the devise was conditional on the devisee paying off certain legacies within twelvemonths in case the personal estate should be insufficient for that purpose. It transpired that the personal estate was insufficient, but the defendant did not pay one of the legacies within the time stipulated. It was also contended for the plaintiff that the devise to the defendant was void, inasmuch as it was a contrivance to defeat the Statute of Mortmain, several of the legacies being for charitable purposes, and that the defendant had misled the testatrix by not telling her that, under 43rd George III., she could leave as much as five acres of land for the repair of the church. Lord Chief Justice Cockburn granted a rule _nisi_.