Star. — London, England, 1821-11-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER Is. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE COOPERS' COMPANY. This cause was in part heard on Wednesday last. ' This morning Mr. HART was heard in reply. The Learned Counsel denied that there was any foun dation for the insinuations which had been thrown out respecting the mismanagement of the school under the direction of Dr. Jeans. He had heard that a proposal for an increased salary to Dr. Jeans bad been carried before the Master ; but he had no doubt it was intended that the increase should take place from the latest possible period. • The LORD CHANCELLOR.•••-Lel this stand till Toes day, and in the meantime , if any proposal for an in. creased salary has been put in, let me see it. Mr. WETHERELL said, there was another petition in this cause from Robert Hudson, the elder and younger, who prayed that it might be referred to the Master to inquire whether it would not be expedient to reduce the rent of a farm of which they were the tenants. The petitioners rented the farm, under a lease of the Coopers Company, at a rent of £490 per annum. In support of their prayer the peti tioners have annexed to their petition an affidavit, in 'which they had very circumstantially detailed the different prices of potatoes in the Scotch and London markets, in order to shevr that it was imossible to obtain a profit from the produce of their fa p rm,which consisted chiefly of potatoes. Mr. CHINO followed Mr. Wetherell in support of the petition. Mr. HORNE, on the part of the Coopers' Company, contended that all leases would henceforth be consi dered as good for nothing, if the Court were to listen to the application of the petitioners. Mr. WETHERELL said, he never remembered an • application which rested on better grounds than that which he had made to his Lordship. The petitioners gave a very minute statement of the produce of the farm, and its relative value at the time they took the lease and the present time. It would be troubling his Lordshi t ) too much to enter into a particular ac count of the gardening-stuff, the drum-headed cab bages, and the The LORD CHANCELLOR Isere observed, that be did not know much about drum-headed cabbages, but Le was.a sheep-farmer hint,eh, and he knew that • mutton which some time since sold for l Id. per pound, Le now saw marked up for aid. per pound, as he passed thiough.Long-Acre. He did. not, however, think himself entitled on that account to call for a reduction of rent. In times of high prices he had never heard of farmers giving their landlords more than the stipulated rent ; yet now the case was re versed they immediately cried out for reduction. — Though the Cows had sometimes listened to appli cations similar to that now made, it had never gone further than to rcfer it to the Master, to inquire whe ther the lent might not be reduced for a particular period. lie had no objection to let it be referred to the Master to inquire whether any, and what reduc tion might be made in the rent of the petitioners for the present year. But the petitioners must pay the costs of the application. Mr. CHING suggested that it would be advisable to reserve the question of costs. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, No! It was a very bold petition. lle thought it would be a proper course to pursue, when the Court made an order for a reduction of rent, to engraft upon it a stipulation, that when the price of produce should rise, the tenant should pay an increased rent, or at least make good the by-gone reduction: TUF. ATTORNEY-GENERA L V. THE SKINNERS COMPANY. Mr. HEALD said this cause came before his Lord ship as an appeal from the decision of his Honour the Vice-Chancellor. The information wai originally laid by the Attorney-General at the relation of some • persons against the Master and Wardens of the Skin ners Company and their Secretary, for the purpose of obtaining an inspection of the books and papers of the Company. The object of the bill was to make the Company account for the rents and profits of considerable property which had• lately been much improved by being built upon. The property was called the Foundling-fields, and lay at the back of the Foundling Hospital. It originally belonged to Sir Andrew Judd, who was a skinner, and who devised it by will for the purpose of supporting Tunbridge School and other charities. It was. contended, on the part of the school, that that part of the property which was called the Sand-hills, and lay between the Foundling Hospital and the New-road, ought to be considered as specifically appropriated to the main tenance of the school. On the part of the Company it was contended, that it was impossible legally to separate the property, and say that any part was spe cifically bequeathed for the support of the school ; but that the whole was devised by Sir Andrew Judd, together with other property in the City of London, for the maintenance of the school and other charities mentioned in the will of the testator. The bone of contention then was, whether the school was entitled to the property called the Foundling-fields, in the parish of St. Pancras, now, in consequence of some recent improvements, worth £4,000, or whether it was entitled only to £4O per annum, from the rent of the estates ? The LORD CHANCELLOR observed that the will of Sir Andrew Judd was made in the time of Philip and , Mary, and he died in the same reign, and then the defendants, as a Corporation, had no right to take in trust for a charity. Mr. HEALD, in continuation, said, that was what he contended for ; that the defendants were only trustees to the estates, and were liable to be called on by the heir-at-law of Sir Andrew Judd, or by the AttornerGeneral for the use of some other charity; but this never had been taken into the consideration of the Vice-Chancellor; in fact, soon after the case was opened it was discernible to every person what would be the decision of the Learned Judge— The LORD CHANCELLOR.—" We must stop short bele, Mr. Heald, as it is now three o'clock, and the Bencheis will shortly want the tiall." Further argument postponed. VICE-CIIANCELLOR'S COURT, NOVEMBER 16. EY-PARTE SHAW IN RE HOWARD AND GIBBS. This petition having been fixed fur three o'clock this day, the Court was exceedingly crowded, in ex pectation of hearing its merits fully discussed. The • CONSISTORY COURT, NOVEMBER 16. array of Counsel was sufficie ntl y imposing .—Messrs. Horne, Treslove, and Blake, for the p etition of Messrs. Shaw and Co. Messrs. Hart, Bell, Agar, Heald, Mon tague, and Rose, against it. - Mr. HORNE said, he would state the merits of this question very *shortly. Mr. HART rose, and said, that the affidavits filed stated new facts, with which he had not been ac quainted, and that he was not prepared to go on. Mr. MONTAGUE said, that he had been reading the affidavits till eleven last night, and resumed the task l at four this morning: but that at seven he found three 'new affidavits filed, and on coming to his chambers this morning, he learnt that there were three more. Mr. HORNE asked whether Mr. Montague wouli 'state when he would be ready? Mr. AGAR said, that no one could tell, for Mr. Horne's clients were going on filing affidavits. Mr. BLAKE said, that no affidavits had been filed in answer, from Friday till Wednesday, and that, therefore they could not on his side have their affi davits filed earlier. The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, that some rule must ' be adopted respecting the filing of affidavits in the present case. Mr. HART observed, that such a rule was impera tively called for. Mr. HORNE read a notice which had been just put into his hand, bearing that affidavits filed in the mat ter of Grimstead would be read in this case. Much contention here arose respecting the filing of affidavits, the handing over reciprocay copies of such affidavits, and the probable time t h at might be required. The VICE-CHANCELLOR at length ordered, that no affidavits should be farther filed against the petition, but in so far as new matters were stated in the affida vits on the other side, and that the affidavits in reply should be limited in like manner. Mr. MILNE asked who the solicitors were for the several parties on the other side, that copies might be got of the several affidavits la ithout loss of time? Mr. MotsTaotta said, the same solicitors were for all parties. Mr. HORNE.---I have no doubt of it. The solici tors are the same, and the cause is one. Mr. INIONTAOUF..—Mr. Howard has done great service to the creditors, by setting aside the first com mission, for he has saved the estate from being divi ded among the lawyers--(4 laugh). If irrelevant observations are • made on the one side, we have a right to reply to them on the other. The VICE CHANCELLOR, after much inquiry and deliberation, finally ordered that he should be ap plied to on Friday next to name a day for hearing the merits of this question. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER • I6. THE KING V. DAVID G. DAVY AND SAMUEL allowoo..v. This was an indictment for perjury. The parties were brought up for judgment yesterday; but the matter stood over for the amendment of affidavits. The perjury committed by the two defendants con sisted in the suing out a wilt of ca. sa. for £14,000 against the prosecutor, William Davy, no debt at the time being due ; and it appeared from the papers put in yesterday, that there had been extensive money tran.actions between the parties. This morning the defendant Davy produced an affidavit sworn by•bitnself. It ascribed the present indictment to the malice of his brother, William Davy, the prosecutor ; suggested that the said Wil liani Davy was a man occasionally deranged in his intellects • a nd submitted that, instead of proc eedin g to pass judgment, the Court would do well to refer all matters in difference to some Gentleman at the Bar. Snowdon, by his affidavit, denied wilful per jury, and alleged his belief that (upon the balance of accounts) William Davy was his creditor. He fur ther adverted to the distressed state of his family, and requested permission to withdraw his plea of guilty and to go to trial. Mr. SCA IiLETT declared that nothing but absolute necessity could have compelled Mr. William Davy to become a prosecutor in the present case. Mr. WILD said a few words in aggravation. The defendant Davy was proceeding to take tech nical objections to the mode in which the prosecu tion had been conducted ; when The COURT suggested that he was doing him self mischief. The defendants then requested further time in .or der that they might send into the country for fresh affidavits. The COURT thought that there had already been much delay. The utmost that could be granted was time until Monday sennight.—Stands over accord ingly until that day. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOVEMBER 16. The Court was occupied for a considerable part of the morning in receiving justification of bail. In one case, where the bail was opposed, an affidavit was put in, signed and sworn to, by two clerks to the plaintiff's Attorney. In this it was set forth, that front inquii ies made by deponents in the neighbour hood of one of the bail, they learned, that he was in embarrassed circumstances, and that a few months back he took the benefit of the Insolvent Act. They were also informed that he did not live with his law ful wife, but cohabited with an other woman, who passed as his wife, and that she was not the only wo- 1 man who was similarly circumstanced with respect to him : they also added, that his lawful wife was lying in a workhouse. Mr. Justice PARK (the Chief Justice not being pre sent) here interrupted the officer' who was reading 1 the affidavit, and observed, that the Court could net listen to the introduction of such improper matter in opposition to bail. They were ready, of course, tol hear anything which went to shew that the bail was insufficient, but they could not allow-charges of this kind to be entered upon the records of the Court, where the party against whom they were made could , hive uo opportunity of answering them. No doubt such conduct as that imputed to the bail was highly immoral, but the Court had only to inquire at present whether the party appearing was a sufficient security for the sum for which he offered to be bound. He stated this the more particularly, as there was a con siderable number of persons present, and he wished to have it known, that the Court would censure in a most marked manner the repetition of suck a practice. The affidavit was then rejected. The bail was afterwards examined by Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN, and it appearing that he had not property sufficient to cover the debt ; he was rejected also. RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS. TIIURLOW AGAINST THURLOW. This was a question upon the admission of a re sponsive allegation on the part of the husband, in a cause instituted by his wife against him, for restitu tution of conjugal rights. The allegation consisted of eighteen articles, and was, in effect, a counter plea of adultery preferred by the husband against the wife. The first, second, and third articles pleaded the mar riage of these parties, William Thurlow and Maria Thurlow, on the 6th of July, 1809, in the Parish Church of Gosfield, in the County of Essex; that they continued to live and cohabit in Gosfiel.!, and at other places, until the latter end of the year 1816, during which period they had several children ; that at the end of 1816, some unhappy differences having arisen between Mr. and Mrs. Thurlow, they mutually agreed to separate, the husband engaging to make an allow ance to his Lady of £BO per annum for her mainte nance ; and that a deed of separation was executed by them on the 6th of February, 1817, accordingly. The fourth article exhibited a duplicate copy of the said deed ; the fifth alleged that the said Mitria Thur low, ever since its execution, and for some time pre vious thereto, had resided at various places: among others, at Sudbury, in the County of Suffolk; at Braintree, in the County of Essex ; and afterwards at different places in or near the City of London and the Borough of Southwark; at which latter places, or some of them, she had assumed and gone under various names ; the party proponent being unable more particularly to allege and depose to such names of places, save and except in certain respects as con tained in the following articles of this allegation. The sixth article set forth, that in the months of April, May, and June, 1820, the said Maria Thurlow was residing in lodgings, No. 4, Paradise-buildings, Stan ,,ate-street, Lambeth, "and then and there was living in a state of frequent adultery with divers strange men," whose names the proponent was unable more specifically to set forth : that during the said time, William Parsanser, at whose house in Sudbury Mrs. Thurlow had lodged, being in London, Mrs. Tharlow used frequently to call upon him, and on one such occasion, in the course of conversation with him upon the subject of her situation in life, she admitted that she was in the habit of committing adultery, and was frequently visited by two young men, who were in business in the neighbourhood of Bond-street ; that one or other of them always slept with her on Satur day and Sunday and was accustomed to re turn on Monday morning to his business ; but that she had subsequently lost her friends, in consequence, as one of them alleged, of her infidelity to him.— The seventh article charged, that in July, August, and September, 1820, the said Maria Thurlow as sumed and was known by the name of Taylor or Tur ner ; that she was frequently in the habit, under that appellation, of calling on a Mr. Fergusson, who lived at a ehymist's, in Tower Royal, and of going up to his apartment, staying there, and taking her meals with him, and remaining for very considerable pe lriods of time; that on such occasions they addressed each other in the words, " My love" and " My dear;" and that they were observed to be guilty of indecent eedoms towards each other. The eighth article pleaded, that one day in particular, happening in September, 1820, she called upon Fergusson, and inquiring of the servant whether or no he was at home, went up stairs and breakfasted with him, and remained during the whole day. In the evening, five of Fergusson's friends came to drink tea with him, and a servant deposed that she saw the whole of the five men leave the house before twelve o'clock ; that shortly afterwards Fergusson Came down stairs, and was let out by the servant, Mrs. Thurlow being left up stairs; that the servant, on going tip to Fergus son's room, found the door locked ; that shortly af terwards Fergusson returned; the street-door was fas tened, and Mrs. Thtulow did not leave the house until the evening of the next day, when she was pri vately let out by Fergusson. The ninth article de scribed the state in which his room was found ; -the keyhole of the door being stopped up with paper, and a sheet being suspended at the bottom of the bed facing the door. The tenth article alleged, that on the next day, Fergusson and Mrs. Thurlow called together at his lodgings in Tower Royal ; and having gained admittance, Mrs. Thurlow was about to pro ceed up stairs, when she was prevented by the mis tress of the house, to whom the servant had com municated the several suspicious circumstances which she had observed in the conduct of Mrs. Thurlow, who was thus compelled to quit the house. • The eleventh article set forth the fact, that Fergusson, be coming embarrassed in his circumstances, was, in the latter end of 1820, confined in the King's Bench Pri son, where Mrs. Thurlow lived with him as and under the name of his wife. The twelfth article re lated to the identity of Mrs. Thurlow, which was sought to be established by the evidence of the same servant, who deposed that she met the Lady on Fish areet-hill, in the City, soon after—that is, in the be ginning of the present year; and that Mrs. Thurlow said to her, " 1 am living with Mr. Fergusson now." The thirteenth article went to spew, that at the lodg ings which Fergusson took after his release from the King's Bench Prison, he and Mrs. Thurlow gave themselves out to be, and were reputed and taken to be, man and wife ; hat they so lived and cohabited together in all respects, and continued so to live and cohabit until the month of June last, when Fergusson went to Scotland, leaving Mrs. Thurlow in the last named lodgings, behind him. That the 14th, 15th, 16th, and 17th articles were solely devoted to prove the identity of both these parties; and the 18th con-'' tained the usual concluding allegation of the faith' and verity of the premises. • Dr. PHILLIMORE and Dr. DODSON took a variety of objections to this allegation, on behalf of Mrs. Thurlow. Those objections related principally to the insu ffi cient identification of the party, and to the diffuseness and irrelevancy of parts of the plea. Dr. JENNER and Dr. LUSHINGTON were heard in reply, on the part of Mr. Thurlow. Sir C. Roatarson, after observing upon the original nature of this suit, and on the responsive allegation now ppoanr sty presumed b tmoi r ne o r d u pe gbi to oa t t db ne n ge tr , prt o a e lhev m eaa a r i a sl a dul ter y k alleged e himself of againstff h object such iswaliue m: ofsubes must t t the not t e o siprocurenuiptos spisupposing present te s h o n et s t fe h o a fr atocriteshmsahedod should becomel i e c hp one no h ev e eo l d a j w prescribed, a Thvereyccaousme., plicated nature. It vrte, towever, clearly of species the whole expense of whirls the hush Ind w,,, bound to bear. Now this being a plea j O3 the part of the husband, there would Ise the less red. son to object to particular parts that might teem to • require some revision, but u i -on grounds more of a critical than a substantial nature; inasmuch a , Ile admission of such parts would not be likel ) to be at . tended with any inconvenience or injury to ally one, except the individual introducing such plea. On t h,. t account the Court would be very unwilling to en courage objections to any part of the ple d t h at it should deem to be not substantially injuriou s to a other party. After some further observations, the Cou r t l a mined the allegation, rejecting only the Galati& H ATTON -GA RDEN.—CAUTIoN TO Scn ooL .B oys B. Davenport, J, * Cox. J. Osam, :and H. Kempton, weR put to the bar, when Mr. Thompson, of Pei- C il ia ': street, Clerkenwell, stated, that two daughters of hi one six and the other five years of age, who were lately vaccinated, were taken o ut by the maid i f , a little chaise; and as she was drawing them a l ong th e foot pavement, a large shepherd's dog, with a sauc e . pan tied to his tail, ran atter them en!: great sp ee d ; the maid being dreadfully alarmed, strove to puit the chaise out of the way ; in. doing which she siie je d off the curb-stone, and sprained her :mete; the cleit was overturned in the gutter, one child had its col. lar-bone broke, and the other received a seven: con. tusion on the face. The prisoners and sevei al eth ers were in pureiit of the dog, and seemed to take g ee delight at the mischief, when the complainant and s friend succeeded in securing the prisoners. The pi. soners stated that they had no knowledge of the per. sons who tied the kettle to the dog's tail; they we t ' coming from school, when they raw the dog rundile along, followed by a number of boys acid pe: . 11 sons, they followed also, and were present when the accident happened, which they were story fur, be could not prevent ; on a constable being sent for, el the transgressors escaped, but they having nothingto fear, remained until they were taken into feem e Several respectable witnesses corroboratee. f..e soners statement, and gave teem a most teaks character.—The Megieeete ceetioned then. never mix in future in following such sight-, 01 join in ii gal crowds. The prisoners were then discha.ged. MARY-LA-BONNE OFFICE.—Mr. Littlewood,lines draper, in Oxford-street, attended yesterday, pit: sum to a summons, on all ieformation under the Meets polis Paving Act, wherein he was charged eith afe. letting to remove an obstruction after notice hell given him by the surveyor of the pavements. re nature of the obstruction was proved by Mr.Smie, also a linen-draper, and living next door to the it. fendantewhich was, that the said defendant had, its a length of time, been in the practice of es; ot shawls, pelisses, and other articles, at his ~hop which articles projected on the footway f aemetat about a foot, consequently was an °bet-Intim., and within the meaning of the Act. Mr. Littlew.:.e con. tended, that the articles placed at his door e ere not an obstruction, and that the complaint was instituted from motives of malice. The Magiseate said, the offence was proved, but he had no doubt that them. plainant would not press for a coavictioa, if .11eLit tlewood removed the nuisance; ane, cot the presete, the penalty would not Le inflicted. UNION-BALL. — 11. J. Crew, a man residing in Lock's-fields, Walworth, was charged with acts d the most shocking brutality towards his son, sera years of age.—Mr. Maynard, of Walworth, saido4 prisoner was in the constant practice, when drunker beating the child with his clenched fists, and Wit; him about till he could scarcely stand. He hake when the child offended him, pitched him•itsele water-butt, and compelled him to stand in hint clothes till he was in a shivering fit. The blowsgia to the child had been heard a considerable disuse He had also kept him for a day or two together 4 out food, locked up in a room, in the depth of eina l without fire. He used also to fasten him agate wall with a thick strap, and a padlock, and in sal a situation that he could scarcely change his tion, and keep him in that state for a day to;- without food, until some of the neighbours titter to him through the window.—A number of -• came and confirmed the above facts.—The in his defence, said the child was a bad boy, aid robbed him, and he was obliged to chain hiall because be was in the habit of running awayl joining a gang of juvenile thieves. Several with said that this statement was a complete falsehrAa The prisoner's wife admitted the charge, and buted her husband's conduct to excessive passiell intoxication.—The Magistrate gave up the boytil mother, and committed the prisoner to Horsetail lane Jail, for. want of bail, till the Sessions. MARRIED. Wednesday, at Fe%ridge Park, Sussex G en eral the 111 Frederick Sr. John, to Caroline Elizabe th Parsons, 7C daughter o f the late J. Parsons, DIED. At Brighton, on Nednesday night, Mary, the Nada' Shewell, Esq. of Stockwell Common,Surrey. , At Kirkcudbright, on the Bth inst. Bailie Jo hn Aed merchant in Ships at Market. 34 Newcastle n Sunderland 2 Scotch Coal 4 Cannel Coal :OAL MARKET, Nov. 16. Ships So ld. Price* 21 36s 6•1 toeil s 00s 01 O M ; 2 32s Od la ss ', 0 00s Od le C/I' COUNTRY MARKETS. UISILIDOR, Nov. 15.—Wheat, per load , £ l6 Os to til! New Wheat, £8 to £lB 105—Barley, per quarteo" 32s—Oats, Ns to 30s—Beans, 255 to 56s—EYes 0 " W Peas, .114 to 545. NawsuaY, Boaz!, Nov. 15.—Wheat, 20s to fits--_,e, 20s to 305—Oats, 16s to 30s—Beans, 26s to 405-- ,ute ra u r to 56s.—Rye, Os to Os—Bread, Is 60 to 151310 Per rl OXFORD, Nov. A.—Wheat, per bushel, 9s. Id. tbree Price of the Half-peek Loaf (Wheaten) Is. 10d. k 4 BAXIWILY, Nov. B .— Wheat,4s. od. to 11s. 01-Bez s to 5s 6d.—Vetches, Os Od per bushel. —Barley , 20 1.„ te d Oats, 24 441. to 545 od per quarter.—Bread, is 10d liar and smaller in proportion. I r 63s persack. ,00 MAILS THIS Der.—ARR. DUL I Dublin 2 0 Lisbon Waterford 1 0 France 1 Guernsey and Jersey 1 0 Haraburgb Holland 1 0 Flanders 00 00 j t e :ur waerdnc,baigslandsh . Malta HIGH-WATER at LON DO Morning . Afternoon T3l-IIFIGI-T;FV-10.7 7 minuteee, S 4 MIND UN Printeits:ci;,publishedrLr KO. lei bil tlw