The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1825-11-09 00:00:00

~: -. - • _ hit, n taking from a parent the custody of his children. In this eau there was no pteuedent in the way. In the cue of George Selwyn. to which his Lordship alluded the preceding day, the tathet claimed no legal rights. In the cue under Powell's will, tae father, during the life of a testator, left him the care of his child, and upon the testator's death he transmitted his guardianship to trustees. In the case of P. B. Shelley, that unfortunate and in discreet young man, claiming the right to educate his children, openly avowed his disbelief of all religion, and his Lordship said he *ostld not allow the infant's mind to be poisoned with such doctrines whilst an infant, though he should not interfere with his sentiments if he had arrived at tnaturer years. The COURT—With regard to the principle of jurisdiction, Mr. ,Hart, I abide by what I said in the case of Mandeville v. 31ande. • ill. ; bat I don t mean to say that it does not require a very strong case to induce the Court to break in upon the father's powers. Ten thousand pounds, he understood, was left by will to the younger children, of which the infant (Florence) had a right to an aliquot share. )I.r. HART—As to the daughter, my Lord, Mr. Moore says, that . though hi., in point of law. she is not in point of fact. Ile duct not require the custody of the female, nor IS Mrs. Fitzgibbon unßious to give her up. The Loan CHAKCELL on—The Court cannot allow any one to ammo that those children are Until lately. I we, not aware that this was a petition in the name of legitimate infants, tnitio4t themselves to be illegitimate. Mr. HART—Our object is, my Lord, to have the petition dis. swaged with costs. The Lo an CHANCELI.OR—Bat who is to pay the costs? can't make the infants pay them. Mr. BART continued. It was a bard case that his client should Le put to the anxiety and expense of defending himself from the petition ; and, although the Conn should decide for him, he must still be innthened with costs. But, to leave this part of the ease, no doubt there were a variety of cases in which the Court might interfere to take the custody of a child from itsparencand there were others in which it would not interfere. As to Lord Brandon's opinion, it was net founded in fact ; and it was as uncharitable an !pinion as ever entered the mind of man. When the Noble and Revereisd Lord looked seriously at his affidavit, he would regret that he had thrown such an imputation upon Mr. Moore. Mr. Hiatt, argued on the same side. The LORD CU•NCELLOR said, it seemed inconsistent that the House of Lords,where he presided, should not hear in divorce cases, even from the parents, a word as to the legitimacy of the children; and when he sat here, the infants themselves, by their nearest friends, asked him to presume that they were illegitimate. The Sonrcrroa-Gxxettat. was prepared to argue that the petition. whether right or wrong, did not besterdise the children. The Imeo CHANCELLOR said, be rather thought, speaking generally, he would never be disposed to withdraw the custody a a child from his parent upon the ground of mere pecuniary pro. Simon. Mr. fitranwtxx, against the petition, commented strongly upon the character of the parties. There was no imputation upon Mr. Moore but the frivolous ground of cruelty contained in Lord Brandon's offidavit. (If the other party, it was not enough to say they were infamous. They said so themselves. No decent per sons could associate with them. As for the woman, her character was quite lost ; and as to Mr. Fitzgibbon. though he signed himself IH. P. and a grand juror of the county of Limerick, the part he took stealing those children marked his character. No doubt, if the children were left in the care of such persons, they would /be brought up in the practice of the most abandoned vice. Ile thought that it would be an indelible disgrace to the Court if the petition was not dismissed with costs. Mr. Sttnote followed on the same side. He begged his Lord ship to bear in mind that Mr. Moore swore that he believed the mole child to be his own, and that he had lived and cohabited with 'his wife during the whole period of her illicit intercourse with Co load, Fitzgibbon. From facts that had recently come to his know ledge, be believed the female child was not his own. The petition went to the principle, that any men to whom smother may be false tan choose from a family a child or children, and obtain possession of such child or children,in despite of the natural feelings 'of their legal parents. For the space ofa year and a half the male chtld was brought up as Mr. Aloore's, and this was a period when children began to en. twine themselves about a parent's breast. Ifthe petition was allowed. the mini would perpetuate not only the infamy of the mother, but the bastardy of the children, of which there was no proof. By the old law, the Illegitimacy of a child born of a married woman was never a dmitted, if the husband was within the seas, so difficult was it to prove that there had not been access; but here the father swears that he bad never withdrawn himself from his marriage bed during the continuance of the illicit connexion. Mr. TRESLOVE (at the same side) ridiculed the idea of an eqeitable right on the part of Mr. Fitzgibbon and his wife. It WAS surprising the lady dal not put in an affidavit, she may be con sidered some little authority, as to who was the father of the child. The Sotterron•Gteettax—Will you be satisfied, Mr. Tres love to decide upon her affidavit? M. TR ISLOCE—I am not prepared to say that. The Loan CHANCELLOR—It is not your province to decide 711 r. Treslove, and for my part I will not decide on her affidavit. Mr. Solicitor-General, I shall hear your reply at the sitting of the Court to-morrow. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, TursoAY, Nov. 8. ASIIBEY L. SHIPLEY AND OTHERS. This was a case involving a question of priority among several c:aitnanta, under securities on a part of the estate of the late Col. Shipley. The plaintiff purchased an annuity of 6501. per annum. secured on a lease of tithes held by Col. Shipley from the Bishop of St. Asaph. This purchase was effected in the year 1811, and for a sum of 6066/. Other annuities on the same property had been pre. riemly granted, of the title to which Dean Shipley (the personal representative of Col. Shipley) possessed himself, and claimed un. der them a priority to the present plaintiff. A marriage settlement, to which Sir W. W. Wynn is surviving trustee. was also set up against the right of the plaintiff. Under those circumstances, 11r. Ashbey filed a bill of supplement and rsvivor, for the purpose of bringing the several claims to an issue, and locating the priority of the respective parties. • 11r. 11•11 T, with whom were Mr. AGAR and Mr. PARKE, ap. pond for the plaintiff; and the SOLICITOR-GENERAL, with Mr. TII. , WEY, Mr. TEMPLE, and Mr. PETER, for the defendants. It appeared that m the !year 1803, the then Bishop of St. Asaph granted to Col. Shipley • lease of tithes amt a small portion of land in die county of Radnor, for a term of 21 years. In 1806, Colonel Shipley granted three several annuities to Mrs. Sophia Blake, which were secured on the titles and land in question. Two years after another annuity was granted in • similar manner to the same party ; and the lease of the tithes was handed over to Mr. Ashbeys as the trustee of the annuitant. In 1809, Col. Shipley procured a renewal of the tithes from the Bishop of St. Asaph. for a further term of 21 years. Col. Shipley being desirous of raising a farther sum of money on the property, treated with Mr. Ashbey in 1811 for a conso:idated annuity of 6601. which be granted the plaintiff Mr a eonCderation of 11501. The payment of this annuity was also se be secured on the tithes and land in question, but it was prevl. uusly necessary to pay off Mrs. Blake's annuities. This was done, and they were extinguished. As it appeared that Col. Shipley possessed no valid title in the renewed lease of 1809. the Bishop of St.. Asaph consented to grant a new demise for an additional term of 21 years. Subsequent to those tramactions, Col. Shipley went abroad to avoid his creditors, and died. On the part of the defendants it was urged that other and pre vious claims existed to the property. They denied that Mr. Ash. bey was a ieniti fide creditor on the estate, and asserted that the pretended purchase money was never paid for the annuity. but that it was lost in gaming i b a / Colonel Shipley to the plaintiff Two worths prior to Mrs . I o's annuity, Colonel Shipley had granted one to a person named Dolby, and it was also secured on the estate in question. Dolby's right io this annuity waspurchased in 1813, by Dean Shipley, who in that way claimed a priority of locum. brance on the land and tithes. It also appeared that on Nov. If 2, 1006, Colonel Shipley married Miss Wynn, and her settlement, to the amount of 300 L per annum, was secured on the tithes, through the Medium of Sir W. W. Wynn, her trustee. In 1810, a great variety of further annuities, to the number of six, and for various amounts, were granted by Colonel Shipley, and all chargeable on the estate In Radnorshire. These, as well as that of Dolby, were also purchased by Dean Shipley. in 1816 and in the same year, be surrendered his former lease, and procured • renewal through the iustrumentality of a Mr. Hughes, the Bishop of St. Asaph's agent. • The Vics.Cumicet.t.oa-1 do not think it possible to decide this ease without sending it to the muter to ascertain the nature of the proceedings had on the deed of 1811. There exists an intrin. (ble difficulty to coming to any decision in the want of facts. If were to give Judgment in my present situation, when the case went before another tnbunal (and I think It likely to go farther) the ap. reliant Court would have to inquire into the facts of the case. It is pretty clear that Dean Shipley must have been a patty to the new lease, lee it is impossible to account for his conduct otherwise ; 1 .1,4 nos one word of all this appears in evidence. At one period of disuse I imagined I might proceed ; but I now see I cannot get on with it in its present state, and must send it to the muter to state the respective pricaiiies of the several claimants. Mr. Ansa—Will your Honour direct the master to examine into the accounts of the rents and profits of the estate ? The VICE-CMANCEELoa—The accounts cannot be taken un less it first appears the plaintiff has a right. Till that point in established, it would be useless to enter into a question of account. Let it be referred to the Alasttr to inquire into the charges and in cumbrance., on the tithes and land in question, and mate the priority tO the claimants, with liberty to mention any special circumstances that nay appear necessary, at the request of either party. At the conclusion of this case, the Cause Paper was called over twice by the Registrar, but no solicitor engaged ui any of them wu in attendance. The Vica-CasxcELLOR directed an officer to go into the other Coon c.d call over the list there, giving notice that all causes to which an appearance was not made would be struck out. It w e , !Awed that no papers in any of the canes had been deli. r , red tit the Court, and Mr. PEMBERTON, who was retained in nre of ti ent, said his brief had not been delivered to him. 'rho Vice •Cma Ncaxxost then directed that all the causes eould he snuck out of the paper, and accompanied the order by esting—" I am very sorry for it, as it is* great prejudice to the stunts itil.nse causes are to be put down again. It is altogether the fount of the tiolicitors, as I observe there are no brief, de,ivorcd to Ce:insel." THE 1311,ITISH PRtSS. note accident occurred there was a turning to the right, up &deep hill. There had been two cottages standing just at the turning of the road. It was proved by the coachman that it was the constant practiee to draw up in • certain direction. in regard to these cot tages, in passing the turn, and that he had always gone safely by observing that course, and by making the cottages his landmark. This coachman went down the west on the preceding night, and Ipetaled the two cettaget i which were then standing. Previous to ris return on the folliowng niht one of the cottages was removed, and the gable end of the rem aining cottage appeared in all respects *Millar to that of the one which had been pulled down. The coachman, not aware of the circumstance, when he came near this snot continued to drive as if both the cottages were standing, and kept the usual direction, in doing which the coach came upon pant of the foundation of the old cottage, and the consequence was the coach overturned, anti the plaintiff suffered the injury complained ' of. Mite WS an attempt at the trial (and it served to show how incorrect the observations of persons were on such unfortunate oc cnsions) to impute the accident to other mimes, and some witnesses attribute - a it to the runoius up of the coach on the footpath ; but it was proved that there was no footpath whatever near the place. The Learned Judge, however, told the Jury that in his opinion the plaintiff' was entitled to their verdict on the evidence. His Lordship, in stating this. observed, that it had been admitted that the coach was overturned be reason of its being out of the limit of rho road, and it hail also been admitted that if the coachman had bad notice, or had known that the cottage had been removed, lie might have avoided the accident, and bin Lordship was of opinion that although no criminal negligence could be imputed to him, yet in point of law he was bound to hare kept Coe limit of the road, ' and it was at his own peril - that he got out of it. So that it ap peared that the Learned Judge did not impute the slightest negli " genet to the coachman, but he considered that in point of law he i was bound to know that the cottage had been removed, and that he ought to have kept within the limits of the road. Mr. Justice Pane—Did it appear that he had lights 7 Mr. Sergeant WYLDE said it did not ; and that lights were not necessary, as it was proved to be a tine man-light night. The moot mat presented by the Learned Judge to the Jury was, whe ther this was a legal negligence or not, the coach being out of the limit of the road. It was necessary to consider what were the legal obligations on coach proprietors. There was a distinction between the liabilities of carriers of goods and carriers of persons. A car rier of goods was an insurer from all accidents that might happen from whatever cause, meta two, namely, accidents arising from the act of God, or from the King's enemies. But not so with the carriers of persons. There were cases in the books, in which this distinction had been recognized. The tint ease was that of Aston v. !leaven and another, 2 Eapinasse, N.P. Rep. :al air. Ser. geant Adair, who led that ease on the part of the plaintiff, had stated in the course of the trial, that he should contend that it was the case of an action against &carrier, and the rule, as to the case of goods, applied to the case of the carriage of the person ; so that let the mischief happen under what circumstances it would (except by the ant of God or of the Kings enemies), the carrier would be liable. The Lord Chief Justice Eyre, in giving his opinion on this point. observed that the action was founded entirely in negligence, and that he was of opinion the caws of the loss of goods by carriers, and ihe one then tinder consideration, were totally unlike. Carriers of goods were liable by the custom to guard against frauds which they might be tempted to commit, by taking goods entrusted to them to carry, and then pretending that they had lost or been rob bed of them ; and this custom •f liability was founded upon the ground that the carriers could protect themselves; but there was no such role in the case of the carriage of per sons. Surely, said the Learned Sergeant, it would not be argued that a proprietor of a gage-coach was like that of a common carrier; and that as the one insured against the loss of goods, the other lammed against the loss of life and limb. The Loan CHIEF' Just' res.--011, no! brother ll'ylile, you - .ail not go any further in that line of argument. If we look at the rate at which coaches are travelling now, and any of us could get hold of one where we could insure ourselves against the dangers to life and limb, it would be a coach we should all be very glad to travel by. Mr. Sergeant ‘1"-v LDE apprehended that the present action pre gems) circumstances as distinct as possible (torn the one against a carrier of goods. It wax not meant to be said on the other side, that the coachman here had been guilty of any negligence. Mr. Justice PARK—Have you any other case, Brother Wyide ? Mr. Sergeant WYLDE said there was of " Christie v. Griggs," 2 Camp. p. 00, which also stipposed the principle for which he was contending. Ile had starched the other books, but did not find the queation to have been contested in any of the other Courts. lie would. upon those he hail quoted, contend, that as no culpable negligence was imputable to the coachman, but, on the contrary, as the whole of the circomatancis went to show that, instead of his deviating front the usual safe course, he had always hitherto pur sued, he was acting, as he %bought, in the most cautious manner. therefore it war an inevitable accident, for the consequences of which he could not be Made legally responsible. Suppose a carrier by sea, who was accustomed to steer his setael by an old sea mark, and which, in his absence, and without his knowltalge, should be removed to some °thee place, and he, as usual, were still to gnide his vessel by it, could it Ire contended that any thing that might result from the circumstance of removing that sea-mark would affect him, when his very observance of it, and his best at tention to his duty in steering by it, would be the sole cause of the accident ? . The Loin CUTE? JUSTICE-1 think you hare stated quite enough, brother Is ylde, to entitle you to a rule to show cause. The rule Nisi was accordingly granted. MUNN r. 00131101.13 AND ANOTHER. This was an action tried ...... CheLOrdUtier Justice Beat, at the late Sittings in London, brought by the plaintiff against the defendants, who had employed the former to vend their celebrated quack medicine, called " Godbold's Vegetable Balsam," on the Continent of Europe ; but the speculation having unfortunately failed, the dispenser of health applied in vain to his principals to hare the money he had paid them on the bargain, which was that of sale or return, refunded, and was driven to the necessity of en. forcing the written contract entered into between them, in which he succeeded so well that the Jury gave him a verdict for 3115/. It appeared at the trial that the agreement which was signed by the defendants had been left by the plaintiff in the care of a friend. who, in removing his place of residence, had lost it ; the plaintiff' was, therefore, obliged to produce the next best evidence, which was a draught copy of the original. But the defendants having in their possession another part of the agreement which was signed by the plaintiff produced it to the Court. when it appeared to be without a stamp. Proof, however, was given that the part which was lost bore the proper stamp required for instruments of that description ; and the Lord Chief Justice held it to be unneces sary for the one now produced to be stamped, considering only as a copy of the original, or at furthest a part of the agreement, ■od not a distinct instrument, and lie accordingly admitted it to be put in evidence. Mr. Sergeant BoasstuttrY now moved for a rule to set aside the verdict and that a nonsuit should be entered, upon the ground that as the original was lose, the counterpart held by the detendant was the next best evidence, and was therefore properly produced. Hi: was necessary then to be produced, the question was whether it ought not to have boreal stamp ? By the Stamp Act all deeds were required to have a stamp, and he contended that this counter. part was a distinct and separate deed ; and that the two instruments did not, as it had been argued, constitute one deed. but were two distinct inetruments, each of which, therefore, ought to have been stamped. There was a particular exception in the statute as to agreements which were not deeds, but the present action had been brought upon a convenant, and that instrument constituted a deed, and did not, therefore, fall within the exception. The LoaD CHIEF JEATICE thought it would ba very right that the law should be settled upon this point. The impression on his mind at the trial was, that the instrument produced did not re. quire a stamp, because the two parts were not two enumerative deeds, but constituted only one deed ; and he had refused to reserve the point for his Brother Teddy, because those who were present must really have seen that such a deed had been in existence ; and every one knew what would be clone in case the objection had been al lowed to prevail: the deed would have been required to be im mediately stamped, and probably much larger damages would be given nn a new trial. But as it was desirable that the law should be settled, he thou& the Role should be granted. The Rule Nisi was granted accordingly. At one o'clock Mr. Justice Park, Mr. Justice Burrows, and Mr Justice tiaselee left the Court ; and the Lord Chief Justice BEST proceeded to try some Common Jury Causes, at Nisi ELM:INTON. BART. F. BROWN, ESQ. AND WIFE. This was an action for use and occupation of a house, being No. 79, Gloucester-place, which had been let by the plaintiff to Mrs. APDangal, whip had since married with Win. Brown, Esq. The defendants pleaded the general issue. It appeared that M rs.M 'Due gal, the widow of Admiral Nl'Dougal, had authorised Mr. Brown, who acted as her agent, to rent a ready furnished housefor her; and that in pursuance of her instruction that gentleman had applied to Mr. Johnson, the respectable hot,se agent, of Bontl.street, to whom Sir W. Claughton had intrusted the letting of his house. No. 79, Gloucester-place. to look at it. Ac cordingly Mr. Brown„ Mrs. M - Dougal, and Mr. Johnson went over the house, and after satisfying themselves with its appearance, and the convenieneies of the furniture, &e. a memorandum of agree ment was made by Mr. Brown, on the lady's behalf, to rent the house for one month, at a rent of ten guineas a week. Much anx iety wan shown by Ma. AP/Thug - al to take possession, anti the key was accordingly given up to her servants, who went into it to make the necessary preparations for its immediate occupation by their mistress, w,to was in the mean while staying at an hold. The servants entered the house, some windows were repaired at Mrs. M`Dougat's expense, and some beef steaks cooked and ate in it by the servants. But the lady's maid all at once discovered that the house was so damp, and it would take so much trouble to put a polish upon the grates, and make the underground kitchen c,m fortable for herself and John the footman, that she thought it would be as well to persuade her mistress to endeavour to get rid of her engagement, as they could not live in the place with any comfort. A proposition was accordingly made to Mr. Johnson to give up possession of the house, but this was rejected. ft was then pretended that application had been made to Sir William Claughton for hia consent to rescind the agreement, aid thiss he had complied ; but Mr. Johpsan considered this too improbable, anal would not believe it unless sonic written authority were pro duced ; lie,, however. offered to let the house, if possible, for than within the month. No definitive arrangement was conic to. and in this state of things the house was left. Application hied been made for the rent, but in vain, and therefore the present action was brought. Mr. Brown ' ' Mrs. M•Dougal, so that was necessarily made a rittesaes. who proved the • Hamar and Ryan, the printer and publisher of a newapaper callel Common Sense, or the Weekly Globe, for a libel on Wm. Fitz. herding likrkeley, claiming to be Earl Berkeley, Colonel of the South Gloucester Militia, and one of the magistrates of the county. The libel in question was contained in a paragraph headed " Miss Foote," which appeared in the number for the '' -"-id of Oct. last. It began by adverting to the statements which had recently appeared in the Edinburgh Papers, grating, that some unmanly ruffian had secreted himself in the bedchamber of Bliss Foote. It then went on to say, on the authority of a private correspondent, that this unmanly ruffian was no ceher th.e. Colonel Berkeley, who had contrived to introduce himself into Miss Foote chamber '• in the disguise of a gentleman." Mr. Ilrougliam said. that lie had affidavits of Colonel Berkeley, In which he stated that he had not been in Edinburgh within the last four years ; that neither there nor in any other place had he aver secreted himself in the manner described, and that the whole paragraph, as it respected himself, was utterly false and destitute of foundation. Rule granted. LATIMER T. BATSON, HIGH SHERIFF OF OXFORD. This was an action of trespass, tried at the lest Oxford Antizes, before Baron (Jarrow. The plaintiff is die assignee of a bill of sale of certain property of the Duke of alarlitorough, granted under a writ of ji fa, issued some years ago. in execution of a judgment obtained by a person of the name of Richardson against his Lord 'hip. An inventory was taken of the goods, which consisted of the furniture of his sitting and bed-room, and his wines, She rest of the furniture of Blenheim being in the nature of heir.looms, and consequently not liable to an execution. Richardson assigned this bill of sale to Latimer, the plaintiff, for two HUTA of 7001. and 1.0001. Latimer put Into the house a fanning man of the name of Wilson, to hold possession, and suffered the Duke to enjoy the free use of his furniture and wines. Subsequently a person of the name of Neste obtained another judgment against the Duke of Marlborough, and levied under a f. fa. to the amount of upwards of 7,0001. of the goods which were already in execution under the prior judgment obtained by Richardson. It appeared, however. that Mr. Latimer, the assignee, instead of relyin• on his right had, at the time this property was seized under Mr. Neate's execution, procured, by Wilson's assistance, private admittance to his ser vants, who took away all the wines. Under these circumstances. the only question which the Judge left to the Jury brae, whether the assignments to Latimer was a bona fide transaction. Mr. Jr avrs now contended that there was another question still more material which ought to have been presented to the Jury, namely, whether there wassufficient notoriety of the first execution ? He argued that the manner in which the Duke still continued to hold his property, so completely disguised the real state of the case, as to justify his client in taking pos tendon under the writ of execu tion issued at the suit of Neste. Ile cited the case of Worrier v. Smith 4. Camp. 333, as containing a very strong opinion on this subject by Lord Ellenborough. He also referred to Leonard v. Baker, 2. 3laule and Selwyn. Ile insisted that there was no pos- session on the part of Latimer which would protect him from aft jrt. issued subsequently ; his, at the beat, was only a joint posies. aeon ; it ought to have been an exclusive possession. Mr. Justice BATLEY—If there is a notorious change of property may not the plaintiff leave the defendant in possas.sion ? If it be notorious to the neighbours that a person is in possession under • writ, is not this sufficient ? Was it not known at Woodstock that IVilson was in possession for Latimer ? Mr. JERVIB.—ft was known certainly at Woodstock. lilr. Justice BAY LEY.—That is the place where it ought to be known. The LORD CHIEF JIUSTICE.-1 think that the direction of the Learned Judge who tried this cause was right. It has been attempted to make the opinion of Lord Ellenborough bear upon the question ; the circumstances of that case are, however, entirely different from those of the present. There the assignment was madam the creditor without any previous execution ; here the as. signment is made under the authority of the Sheriff. In that case the goods were the property of the plaintiff himself, who was the keeper of a public-house. and the business was c'arried on as it nothing of the kind had happened. In this case it was notorious to all the neighbours that a person was in possession under an ex ecution. I agree with what has been said by Mr. Jervis, that the possession is a matter very much to be regarded, but it is to be re. garded in respect to the bona fides of the transaction. An execution unfortunately cannot be put into the house of a nobleman without being well enough known. I think, therefore, that the question turned on the bona fides of the transaction, and that the direction to the Jury was right. The other Judges delivered their opinions to the same efikt.— Rule refused. THE LING V. GEORGE HARRISON,If AVOR OF CHESTER, AND JOHN HARRISON, SHERIFF OF CHESTER. This aas a criminal information in the nature of a writ of Quo Warrant°, against the defendants, for usurpatiou. It was tried before Mr. Baron Gam., at the last Shrewsbury Assizes, and a venlict found for the Crown. Mr. Tworrrow now moved for a new trip!, on the ground that this case had not been fully tried. The pleadings were very com plicated, but the Learned Counsel said that it would not be neces sary to trouble the Court with the details of them, as the only question was, whether the custom by which the defendant,' were elected was good; the customary mode of election being different from that prescribed by the charter of incorporation: in other words, whether the custom should prevail against the charter. The Jury found ,for the Crown, by which they invalidated the custom. Mr. Taunton said that his Learned fiend Mr, Camp. bell had at the trial told the Jury that if they were not satisfied that this custom was from time immemorial they would find for the Crown ; the whole Jury rose, simultaneously at these words, and said that they were of opinion that there was no proof of the custom being from time immemorial, upon which the Judge said that there was an end of the case. Mr. Taunton contended that there never was a stronger body of evidence, both documentary and parole, than that he had produced to support a custom. Ile said that the Jury had not had the benefit or the Judge's summing and obser vations, that they were not familiar with questions like these, and consequently unable to draw just conclusions without the assistance of the bench, and that under such circumstances their decision must be considered as premature. They said they were satisfied, and I have no doubt, added Mr.Taunton, that they were satisfied— that the trial had lasted long enough. Mr. Justice BAILEY—But that was a satisfaction that did not satisfy you. The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE—Did the Learned Baron give the Jury any opinion? Mr. Tanozow—No; he did not give any intimation whatever of his own opinion. The COURT considered this as a question of great importance, and granted a rule to show cause. FENWIEL v. RIDLAR. This was an action on a contract for the sale of a horse, tried at Warwick, before Mr. Justice Park ; the contract was to sell this horse for two others and 41. One of the horses given in ex change was found not to answer the warranty, and the present action was brought to recover damages. There w.ts a verdict for the t Mr. Sergeant ADAMS now moved the Court to set aside this verdic and enter a nonsuit, on the ground that the sale and delivery took place on a Sunday. He cited Drury v. Hull. Staunton, 136, and Bloxam v. Wiggins, 3 Barn. and Ald. 332 where a contract was held bad because made on a Sunday. lie also moved, on the ground of the statute of Charles, which enacts that no tenon shall do or exercise any worldly labour, or pursue their ordinary calling" on a Sunday. The plaintiff in this action was a horse-dealer, and a sale of a horse was an act in which he was exercising his ordinary ctlline. lle contended that no calling could come more immetli. ately within the terms and good sense of the statute than horse dealing, for what could be more offensive to the decorum and observances of the Sunday than the usual mode of trying the paces of a horse before his sale? On these grounds, and for the purpose of settling the question of the validity of a contract made under such circumstances, he hoped their Lordships *cold grant him a rule, when the point would be brought before the Court, and fully argued. rho Loom Curer JUST ICE - IVhere was this contract made? Mr. Sergeant Ana/its-4n the inn-yard of the defendant. .31r. Justice Batx.s r—How were the horses tried ? - - M r. Sergeant A DA ws—ln the usual way, by running them up and down. The Court granted a rule nisi. THE aisa P. THE BAILIFFS OF IPSWICH. Mr. ALDERSON moved the Court for a yao warrant° agsinst two bailiffs of Ipswich. fur usurpation. The principal ground on which he moved was, that they themselves were the returning of ficers of their own election. Mr. Alderson said. that this gave them power to reject or accept whatever votes they pleased, and consequently gave them an opportunity of turning the election in their own favour. Thus, in the present instance, they rejected two votes for a certain reason. and yet they accepted two others be cause they toted with them, though liable to the very same bjection. Ale. Justice BAILEY—WouId these votes have changed the election s_ ALDLIISOK—No: there was, I understand, a majority of twenty. Mr. Justice Ilar LEY—I du not know that this point has ever been decided in corporation law. It has in election law ; a Sheriff cannot return himself. The rule was granteiL COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WESTMINSTER, Nov.B /n Buncu. CROFTS V. W•TERIIOI;9E. This was an actioWOitiesPasi:lootightbilhe plaintiff', who, in the early part of the present year was travelling as a passenger by the Regulator stage-coach, in the West of England, against the defendant. who was the proprietor thereof, to recover daningez for the injury he hod sustained in consequence of the overturning of the math, at one o'clock in the morning. just before it remelted Salisbury. The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Littiedale, at the last Dorsetshire and the Jury, miller his Lordship's directions, found a verdict for the plaintifi; with one kundred pounds damages. Mr. Sergeant WYLDE now moved on behalf of the defendant for a rule, callinfr oa the plaintiff to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial granted. The Learned Sergeant said. that the verdict was given in consequence of the Learned Judge's direction, who thought that although no criminal oegii gene* could be imputed to the coachman, yet the circumstances mat were proved amounted to a legal negligence, and that the plaintif was therefore entitled to recover. The questibn then would be, whether the Learned Judge's opinion as to whit was negligence ---' The facts appeared to be Mete : The coach. the *-• COURT OF RING'S BENCH, TUZIMAT, Nov. 8. Th e a cts appeared to b their br gh hl Br had marrie d was corrnt or not, le acts appear e .—The coach. nu t. r. own since man in question travelled in the night, and the coach under his instead of being called as a witness, he CRIMINAL INFORMATION. ears warn down into the west one night, and returned on the follow. principal in the transaction. Mr. PRolltin Alf vowed far a flak to show esume • hz: Criminal ing ; and always passed at the spot near Salisbury where the seri- Mr. Sergeant VA1;(111•N called two wi Winn ',formation should not against two persons, of camas of dent happcned in the night time. At the part where the unfortu. cesr as above Kesel * - % • • .......41111110 11 .• - 111%. The defence made was, that the house was taken with a Loma fide intention of being immediately occupied by Mrs. Al.frougal, but that wten the servant s went to examine minutely the condition of the beds and furniture, and to prepare the house for their mistress's reception, they suddenly felt an involuntary shudder come over them, and began trembling as if the chill of death were upon them. The cause of this extraordinary sensation did not long remain a mystery, for on looking st the walls they perceived an oozing mois. ture bespangling them all about, and they seemed for a moment as if transported from the splendid drawing.roorn h Gloucester-place to some subterraneous cavern where spars and water-pearls gilt , tered around them in all the fantastic shapes that imagination could picture forth. With the mild agency of a good kitchen fire, this fairy vision soon vanished, and after qualifying their astonishment by partaking of a substantial beefsteak, they began to inspect more minutely the things before them. But much as they had already suffered, the comparison between it and what they were doomed to endure, would be as " Una to a wart." Damp walls and runty grates were mere trifles ; things that a good fine and strong ann would effectually remove ; even black and filthy blankets might have been borne with, for the new reservoir would be able to supply water sufficient to bleach them' lily white;' but whose olfactory sense is proof against the effluvia of living vermin ? What nerve in so wirey as not to shrink at the sight of little full-bellied animals crawling about the pillow canes; and what imagination so nnintaginative as not to recoil at the idea of actually cohabiting with, nay sleeping amidst an army of these little horrors, " whose persons are not known in the country, and whose name, are never uttered in town?" The sight was enough ; many turned pale, and called John ; John peeped and was convinced; and so off they ran to their mistress, with the declaration that • bugs' were in the house, and that straw would be better to sleep on than the beds and blanket, where such things were. Mr. Sergeant W'eust haling called the servants to prove these facts, contended that no contract could be binding under such circumstances, for that use and occupation meant a serviceable use and occupation, and of a place such as cou:d be used and occupied, and which this house was not. 3lr. Sergeant Vatroftaw replied in a strain of humour that made the Court echo with laughter; and concluded by impressing it upon the Jury not to sanction by their verdict these fastidious and captions proceeding on the part of servants ' who, by the extremely civilized state of present society, were Buffe red to possess a most un due influence over the minds and actions of their masters and mis tresses. 'l'he man servant forsooth would rather sleep on straw than on the beds that were in the house I Better, perhaps, for all parties, were he and all like hint to sleep on straw ; servants would then be a hardy and useful race of men, instead of those effeminate and pampered creatures which the over.reflnentent of modern man. ners now made them. The whole of the complaint had originated with the servants; and he trusted the Jury would not encourage by their verdict such a mischievous influence to prevail. Lord Chief Justice BEST observed that the question for the Jury to consider was, whether this House was in a fit state for oc. cupation when let to Mrs. sl'Dougal or not? If not, then they must find- a verdict for the defendants, as it was a bounden duty with all persons who let out furnished houses to put them in a re. spectable and proper condition for use. But they must remember that last winter was a remarkably wet one, and it might be that the da-np was only the consequence of there not having been any fires in the house for sonic days. One of the witnesses had indeed said that the damp was of such a nature as not to appear to be merely the consequence of the slll3ofl : they would, however, consider the evidence, an If they should be of opinion that the pl aintiff' was entitled to their verdict, they must give him the sum o 0 guineas, which was that mentioned in the agreement. Ten guineas a week might appear a moderate sum for a house which had been let, as it was proved, to Lord Strangford afterwards for 500 guineas fur six months; but ten guineas a week for a house in Oloucester.placa was a very fair price before Christmas, though it would be a small sum after Christmas, when families came to town. . . The Jury, after consulting a few minutes, found a verdict for the plaintiff', 421. THE NEW COURT. The LORD CHIEF Jusrice„ on Making his seat to try the above causes, found that he had no means of addressing the Jury, as they were entirely out of view, the box appropriated for them being considerably too low. One of their Lordships' desks having been removed, the difficulty was a little obviated. The front of the box almost reaches the heads of the jurymen who Mt on the first seat, and a similar objection exists as to the wit ness box. Some alterations must be made in tbeie respects at least. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, TUESDAY, Nov. 8. WARDE V. BOTTELLI. Mr. BARBER moved for a rule to show cause why the judgment in this cue should not be set aside. Mr. ltrctramos opposed the motion. but AS neither oi: the Learned Counsel were sufficiently provided with facts to satisfy the Cuurt, the further hearing was put oli till to-morrow. INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, TUESDAY, Nov. 8. William Bell was opposed by 3lr. COOKE, on behalf of n per. son of the name of Batchelor, to whom he had given a promissory note for 12.51. in payment for milk, had by his grand-daughter, who carries on an extensive business in this article in Bond-street. It appeared from the evidence, that the insolvent's grand daughter persuaded him to accept the bill in question, when she assured him that debts were owing to the concern by his Majesty, Prince Leopold, and Lord George Cavendish, sufficient to meet it when it became due. The insolvent was pointedly . interrogated respecting a legacy of 2001. bequeathed to his wife In the year 1821, but nothing was elicited to warrant a suspicion that any part of it was concealed with a view to defraud his creditors. Mr. Commissioner Law said, that as the promissory note was drawn subsequently to the contract for the mill: having been en. tered into, and as it did not appear that any extension of credit was sought for in consequence, the insolvent was entitled to the benefit of the net. Discharged. GAME LAWS. The following curious case occurred at the Bolton Petty SPERi01111:- On Saturday, the 10th of September last, James Latham, of Norwich, glazier, a person unqualified to kill game, was seen to kill a hare with a gun in the parish of Dean. Latham, being aware of this, on the Monday following went to the Session Room in this town with Thomas Jolly, who, at Latham's request, laid an information against him under the sth of Anne, c. 14, for using a gun to kill and destroy game, to which information Latham pleaded guilty, and was convicted before Ralph Fletcher, Esq. in the pe nalty of 5/. half of which was paid to Jolly the informer, who returned it to Latham, and the other half was of course distributed according to the Act. On the 10th of September another information was laid against Latham, under the 9th of Anne, c. 25, which is an extension of the .sth of Anne, for having the same hare in his possession after he had so killed it. The Magistrate, however, not being satisfied that he had a power of convicting in 3oth cases, directed the subjoined query to be submitted to Mr. Starkie, " Whether he could or ought again to convict Litliam under the 9th of Anne, c. 2.5, in the penalty of SI. for having the same hare in his possession on the same day, and in the same parish, as when he killed it, and for which he bad been so convicted ?" The opinion of Mr. Starkie having b:en obtained, the Magistrate directed it to be read to the defendant. It was nearly as follows: . . I am of opinion, that in strictness the party is liable to be con victed for having a hare in possession on a particular day, notwith standing a prior conviction for having used a gun on the same day. For the offences are, in point of law. distinct ; a man may incur a penalty for the using of a gun, although no game be in fact de stroyed. On the ether hand, though gams be destroyed by the using of a gun, yet, if the offender were afterwards to expose that game for sale (and whether he did so on the same or on a different day would be immaterial), it is quite clear that he would, by so doing, incur a second penalty. 'sow as the statute 9 Ann, c. 25, s. 2, makes the possession of game by an unqualified person to be equivalent in all respects to his having exposed it to sale, it appears to me, that in such a case as the present, the party must be regarded in the same point of view as if he had actually exposed the hare I,r sale, and that consequently he is liable to a second penalty. lam not aware of any provision in any of the Game Acts which exempts a party from conviction for having game in possession, or for hav ing exposed game to sale, in respect of a previous conviction for using a gun, although the gun may have been used for the destruc tion of the game afterwards had in possession or exposed to sale; and, in the absence of any such clause, It appears to me that the offences are to be considered as distinct, and that the offender is liable to distinct and separate penalties. But in the present instance it *poems to me that the first conviction is merely null and void on the ground of collusion between the informer and the party informed against: for this is a mere evasion of the law, by which an offender g e ts rid of one h a lf of th e p ena lty w hi c h t h e Legislature intended to impo e; and the law will not, in general, permit a party to avail himselt of a fraudulent and evasive judgment, in a collateral pro ceeding. See the Duchess of Kingston's case , 11„ S tate Trials, 261 ; Crosby r. Levy, 12, East, 4(19; Martin Lolly's case: and see the St. 4 11. VII. c. 20, which, although it be applicable in its terms to actions only, yet seems to be declaratory of the common law in cases of collusion. • " THOMAS STARKIE. " Inner Temple. Oct. 12, 1825." Such an exposition of the law, of course, rendered a con viction imperative, and the defendant was adjudged to pay the mitigated fine of St. including costs.—Buitun Exprcis. HORRIBLE MORD,: a.—A horrible event, which recalls the crime of Papavoine, has occurred to shock every feeling of morality and humanity. A cook, named Ildwiette Cormier, 22 years of age, has murdered, without any ap parent cause er motive, a girl yet in her infancy, the (laughter of a fruiterer in the rue de la Pepiniere. The details of the murder arc too horrible for publication. Henrietta Cormier has declared herself pregnant, and pre tends to have lunged to commit a murder. She was taken to the Prefecture.—Constiktionnet. POLICE. MANSION-HM.7'SE. A gentleman who holds shares in a company called the narc. politun Fish Company, yesterday applied to the Lord Mayor, for the purpose of obtaining the return of the deposits paid to the bankers upon his shares. He stated that there was no pretence whatever for detainin g , what remained of the deposits from the Shareholders, as the corn: pony had drawn its last breath. lie had, when the shares reached a premiutn.'been advised to sell, but as be had no idea of gambling and as he had been toltt that there was great probability of signs ' he had locked up his shares, upon which he had p a id I/. each, d e: terniined to abide the result of the experiment. The proceeding s of the managers showed how ill qualified they were to undertake an extensive business. They appointed Mr. Myers the fishmonger to a sort of nominal superintendence, and purchased his business' which it is well known was very great. He enlarged the premise; at a considerable expense, and operations commenced. The mana. gen, however, set up two or three other concerns in the seat end of the town, and placed over them persons ignorant of the trade. The premises selected were wholly unfit for the be sinsaa, and Mr. AI yen, the moment be saw them, declared that th e fish could never keep : The predictions of failure began to pour in from oil sides, and the business began to flag. After the managers bad wasted a gre a t deal of money in dabbling in fish, 1111 r. Myeds became rather an. easy, and, as he was still in possession of his shop, lie determined that the Company should come to a perfect understanding whit him. He succeeded, gin a good deal of trouble, in obtaining lb s , i n the pound noon the debt of the Company to him ; and lie was now en. deavotiring to get back the basiness he had lost. The least the Directors (of whom Lord George Seymour was one) could de was to make a speedy division of what remained of the deposal amongst the shareholders. The LORD MAYOR advised a meeting should be called of d e shareholders that the directors should be required to lay before them the state of its funds--and as the company was in such an unfortunate condition, that an immediate settlement should nid e place. BOW-STREET. Sm;th Sisec, a tall lad of eighteen, was brought up on A warrant, charged with assaulting Susan Rose, a servant girl, untie the following circumstances : Mr. Shee, it seems, is an apprentice in the house of Mr. Sco tt , linendraper, of High Holborn, whose culinary concerns are super. intended by Miss Rose. Oct Saturday evening last, during the absence of Mr. Scott, his apprentice, who is cleanly to a fault, Rif extremely anxious to purify his complexion from the defecatirg influence of Holborn smoke. and in order to effect so desirable consummation, descended from those realms of light in which he I( accustomed to act as viceroy over gingham' and bombuines, to the regions of comparative darkness where Susan Rose has long ruled the roast. This invasion of the lower territories WAS far iron agreeable to this fair Proaerpine, who in gond set terms, according to her own account, rated the intruder ; nut that Susan had any ob. jection to Mr. Shee's going as nice and clean as hands could make him—she merely objected to the locus is quo, and the conversion of her kitchen into a dressing-rooro. In spite, however, of her remota. strancer ' Mr. Slice approached the sink, and app ro p r i at i ng to him. self a wooden bowl, which stood therein most convenieetly for his purpose, proceeded to his task of depuration. Susan, angry enough at being thus rendered a cipher in her own dominions, seised the bowl by the handle, overturned it, and in a twinklin g a ll Mr. Shee's soap-suds disappeared, with a gurgling sound, through the aperture of the sink-hole. An outrage like this might, perhaps, an the middle ages, have escaped with impunity, considering the sex and quality of the offender ; but, alas 1 . the age of chivalry is gene, sad Mr. Sher, in particular, is no Bayard : so, turning round, with his hands still dripping, and extended in the attitude of a (lancing bear, he dashed one of his moistened wsnekys into the face of his antsgo. nim the effects of which were immed i at e ly a pp arent i n t h e shspeof a blase eye; and for this discolouration of visage the indignant maiden now sought compensation at the hands of justice. On the part of the defendant, these facts were not denied. lie only pleaded the strong provocation he had received, which, hoe. ever, the worthy Magistrate did not consider sufficient to junihou vigorous an attack, or indeed any attack, upon a lady; but ordeal him to find bail to answer it in another place. Mr. Sher, in the meantime, was locked up, without Millet son? or towel, till his sureties should be forthcoming. LAMBETH-STREET. Yesterday, George llfabbs Shelley, et parish clerk, was again brought up for re-examination before Messrs. Wyatt and He'd. wicke, upon a charge of sacrilege. The anxiety created in the parish of IVhitechapel caused a rt. merous attendance of the inhabitants about the office, anxious to hear the investigation of the charge. Mr. A Nonr.ws appeared as counsel for the prosecution. The defence aras conducted by Mr. Menai E 11. Mr. Hammer, one of the cburchwardene, stated, that in cone. quence of information that the prisoner had taken a green cloth from the vestry, he applied for a warrant to apprehend him. The cloth now produced he believes to be that used in vestry. Was not aware that the prisoner had previously pledged the cloth. Samuel Milkr, Chief Constable, seated that, by directions of the Rector of the parish of il'hitechapel, he went to Mr. Law. the pawnbroker, anti found the property now produced, but on the 2d of November the prisoner surrendered himself to the warrant issued against him. George Oiler., the pawnhroker's shopman—On the 29th of Sep. (ember prisoner came to the shop, and said, unless helmet the cloth he was a ruined man, but witness refused to deliver it up. as :11r. Aliner had directed he should not do so without his consent. 'f te cloth had been previously pawned on the 30th July, and redeercei on the lith of August. The following extract of a letter was produced from the pri.:oncr • " I never made use of any property belonging to the Choral ,t -cent the green cloth, which I had frequently borrowed publicly, and was compelled from dire necessity to pledge, to enable mem parr.. execution out of my house." The prisoner said, that whatever might be the fate of his he would not attempt to deny the pawning, but that he was dam to it by the keenest distress. He concluded by begging to be re. manded in consequence of the non.attendaoce of Mr. Harmer, to whom he had intrusted his case. Remanded accordingly until Friday. On Saturday last a fine specimen of the great black est mnrant, the pilicalus corho of Linnrens, was shot by Mr. Brown, of Wood Bank, near this town. This bird mea sured between the extremities of the wings 4 feet 6 inches, and weighed Silbs.—Sioikport Adrertiser. StNGtJLAR RECOVERY OF STOLEN PROFERTY.—It may . , perhaps, be remembered, that some time ago we gave the particular' Dia daring burglary in the dwelling-house of Mr. Stowe. in Homer -street, Alarylebone, between the hours of four and six o'clock, on a Sunday evening, during the absence of Mr. Stowe and his wife. The burglars had regaled themselves with veal, pudding, and brandy, and ransacked every room, closet, and cup. board, carrying off an iron chest containing upwards of 300 love. reigns, 80 guineas, some half-guineas and seven-shilling pieces, lids in silver money, a Bank of England note for 1001. another for 301. three bills of exchange for 841. GU and 517., some silver plate, 10 leases, and several important deeds. This sudden and extensite loss had nearly rendered Mr. Stowe distracted. lie applied at the 31arylebone Office and to the Secretary of State, and in addition to the exertions of the police, a large reward was offered for the di'. covers of the robbers, and a free pardon to any of the accomplice, tut no intimation has been gained up to the present moment. (in Monday night, however, a parcel, directed to Mr. Wm. Hewitt. the Chief Constable, was left at the Marylabone Office, by an errand cart from the city. Upon opening it, Mr. Hewitt was sur- prised to find the three bills of exchange, the ten leases, and all ple deeds and papers which had been stolen from Mr. Stowe's house. but no message or account of the remaining property. Hewitt lad the contents before Mr. linwlinson, who sent for Mr. Stowe Mi. mediaiely. His satisfaction may be very easily imagined; cocci the bills of exchange became due on Monday, and another will be due on Saturday next. Exclusive of the deeds returned, the value of the property thus singularly restored, is between 5001. ar.d GO V: BIRTHS. On the 24th ult.. at Lesgram Hall, in the county of Lacuna. the lady of George Weld, Es of • daughter. On illonday morning, at Woodford, Essex, the lady of Win. Whitaker itlastiand, Esq.. of a son. On the 6th inst., in Illeeklenburgh-square, the lady of Willi% fa Albin Barran, Esq., of Hampstead, of a daughter. MARRIED. On the 2.1 inst., at Lea Church, Thomas Rawlins. Esq.. BE. rioter-at-haw, only son of Joseph Rawlins, .Esq.. of Dublin, to Magaretta Christiana Lloyd, youngest daughter of Lloyd APlohr,. Esq., of ',infield, Limerick, and Sabine Fields, in the gown County. . _ - , - On the '23th ult., at St. George the Martyr, Geo. Bryant. DS. of Queen-square, Bloomsbury, to :Hiss Isabella Byne, youngt ,l daughter of the late Henry Byne. Esq. On the tid inst., at St. Janice' Church, Sam. Raymond Jars. Esq., of Fair Oak House, Hants, to Elizabeth, daughter of the late Rev. Peter Muttliwaite, 8.D., Rector of the Hinted Paruhet of Northetoke and Newnham, Oxfordshire. On the 7th inst.. at St. Clement Danes, Mr. C. Frankrotr. Little Badminton, Gloucestershire. to Ann, only daughter et 'I! Henry Butt. Carey-street, Lincoln's inn-tields. DIED. On Friday. aged 77, Henry Varburgh, Esq.. of Heslirgter , Hall, near York. - - - - - On' Wednesday, at Brampton, Robert William, the infant zoo of W. Wilberforce, jun., Esq. On the 4th inst., in her 22t1 year, Miss Maria Elizabeth Taylor. daughter of the late George Taylor, Esq., of Nine Elm.. N. On the sth inst., William Gosling, Esq., of Edmonton, NI& dlesex, aged 82. On the 2d inst • at Brighton, Sarah, the wife of Cbristopter Dowson, Esq., of blind:wise. On the 30th ult., at his house in Warwick.place, %%hitecrost . street, 31r. Thomas Dallisson, aged 59, late surveyor of the panoh of St. Luke. On 31ont'a, evening, in Lancaster-place, of a long and Fai th ' illness, which her purity of heart and sublime greatness of soa enabled her patiently and piously to endure, Mrs. Byrne, waft of Mr. N. Byrne, of the Morning P ort. HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE THIS 1h Morning, 42 min. after 12. 1 Evening, 14 min. after I. ——-- - - - Printed at THE BRITISH PRESS Office, by J. W. CAllrox, 181, Strand, and publiaked by R. CANNON, NOW ,4