The Sun. — London, England, 1822-12-09 00:00:00

N '' ' . /C r \, . 0/ , ' ~,,,, " 4-- .' - 1 . - -;-- - V - . 0 - - = --afg 4 4,---- - 0 .*.., , N 0xv .„,0,,„*.,,, I k‘• • . S , ' iV' c ~~ \ ~` - 1 11 Th UN. ~~ 3 1 - 1 E 11- 3 j te, l / 4 , r NUMBER 9451 SHIP OWNERS' SOCIETY, 33, New Broad-street. The Right Hon. the Earl of LIVERPOOL, K.G. President. ne ANNIVERSARY MEETING of this Society will ' O7 held at the City of London Tavern, on Thursday, the 12th becember, at 12 o'clock precisely, to receive the Re p ort of that number and to Elect Eight Members in the room of •tiat number who go out by rotation: City Society will DINE together on the same day, at the St y of London Tavern, at 5 o'clock : The Earl of LivzsPoor. in the Chair. ST EWAILDS. John Easterby, Esq. J. D. Fowles, Esq. Joseph Fletcher, Esq . . Robert Page, Esq. George Faith, Esq. Thomas Rowcroft, Esq. IX Charles Guthrie, Esq. Hugh Reed, Esq. John Marshall, Esq. John Row, Esq. p.,Christr. Nockells, Esq, S. F. Somes, Esq. 'p_kickets, 21s. each, to be of the Stewards ; and at the 7 of the Tavern. PURSUANT to a DECREE of the HIGH COURT of CHANCERY, made in a CAUSE wherein Sir GE ORGE ANSON and Others are Plaintiffs, and JOHN TOWGOOD and Others are Defendants, EE JOINT CREDITORS of JAMES k ••••., STRANGE, JAMES DASH WOOD, JOHN AGNEW, 1 ; 1 311 GEORGE PEACOCK, formerly of New Bond-street, in u_e County of Middlesex, and carrying on the business of rlker s , under the Firm of Messrs. Srange, Dashwood, and I ) . ° PPny, are forthwith to come in and PROVE their DEBTS °re FRANCIS PAUL STRATFORD, Esq. one of the 844stert of the said Court, at his Chambers, in Sou t ha m p ton *ildings, Chancery-lane, London, or in default thereof ..1 9 will be excluded the benefit of the said Decree. ( C HANCERY, to a DECREE of the HIGH COURT of '' A HANCERY, made in a CAUSE wherein Sir GEORGE `INSON and Others are Plaintiffs, and JOHN TOWGOOD iti l d Others are Defendants, LIE SEPARATE CREDITORS of JAMES STRANGE, JAMES DASHWOOD, and GEORGE PE ACOCK,t formerly of New Bond-street, in the County of ""ddlesex Bankers, whose Debts were due on the lAtb day Of uty 1800, and now remain unpaid, are forthwith to cotne and PROVE their DEBTS before FRANCIS PAUL 4 i L , II 4TPOR,II, Esq. one of the Masters of the said Court, Luis Chambers, in Southampton Buildings, Chancery-lane, 4 - , nd olt, or in default thereof they will he excluded the be -"t of the said Decree. CAFE ROYAL TAVERN AND HOTEL, 4 REGENT-STREET. IN calling the atention of the Nobility and Gentry to this Establishment, JOHN CROSS deems it S s ", t esaltry to state, that the CAPE ROYAL is not a Hous for uscribers only, as has been erroneously supposed. It is i t :liar to the most celebrated Cafes in Paris, but on an ,ho principle, and combines all the domestic comforts of a ku-hou se with the advantages of a first-rate Tavern and The Coffee-room is furnished in the most magnificent y e of elegance, in the French taste, but with superior e mp 4 ile Refreshments consist of Deßun4s a la fourchette, Tea, stWeel Soups, Ices, Confectionary, and Dinners of every de- Ption dressed in the French or English style. Champagne i_ • e xquisite flavour, sparkling and creaming, just imported Prance, Rhenish, Claret, with all other approved Wines t i• le finest quality, Liqueurs, Fruits, and every Foreign deli the whole with fixed prices . a la carte. nth main object of this Establishment is to combine comfort „._ elegance, and whilst the Proprietor hopes that it will be i„ne a place of Fashionable resort for Foreigners, he begs ,re to assure his English Patrons that every attention shall be d to their accommodation. English and Foreign Newspapers. aeCRIN CROSS begs to announce, that he is also Proprietor ai l te Bedford Hotel, Leamington Spa, which is elegantly A to commodiously arranged for the reception of Families. 1 04 ;` Gentlemen attending the Warwickshire and Lord An t % 2 Hunts, will find it a centrical situation, and may_ depend t h e mleetin g with superior accommodation for their Horses at p nb , tedford Mews and Hunting Stables, which, in point of 44 -14 fert and convenience for Hunters, will ' be found equal to ..,21 1 stablishment in the Kingdom. FOR CORNS, BUNIONS, &c. ORRIS'S ROYAL BRUNSWICK 4. CORN PLASTER, prepared from a Receipt belong '.lllher late Majesty. It is an excellent Remedy for eradi 40g Corns, and giving relief to those who have hard fleshy i k . s tances at the bottom of their feet, without the least pain convenience an 4 will prove a very useful Family Plaster I ; , ° Aresh Wounds ' and Scalds, likewise for Bunions. Prepared j o _". MORRIS, Chemist to the Royal Fatally, Kensington. N o suuld I n Boxes at Is. I. and 2s. 9d. by Butlers, Chemists, ' 4 , Cheapside, St. Paul's, and' 220, Regent street (near the h u Argyle Rooms), London; 20 , Waterloo-place, Edin tiqh ; 34, Sackyille-street, Dublin ; and by the principal tliein e Venders throughout the United Kingdom. B. —Be careful to ask for " MORRIS'S BRUNSWICK CORN / 4 4 3TER" and to observe the Government S Butler, 4, Cheapside," engraved on it tamp has the. To T. TAYLOR, Esq. No. 9, New Bridge-street, London. ILIONOVRED Slit, iIdEG leave to inform you, that ever since the * h . Year 1790, I had been afflicted with the Lues Venereal, o r „ le bs trona its obstinately resisting every course at medicine ' 3 i-trib e( ' by the most eminent of the faculty here, and un ch„rOing severalsevere courses of salivation, and twice dis - V r ged from the Hospital with little relief, would appear to i tt ,,W the most inveterate nature. In the spring of last year t o "isortler had got to such a head, as nearly to put a period existence—l had a large ulcer on the crown of my head, e on each arm, and my legs were broke out in a frightful tt :. 4 ner •; my right was dreadfully painful, and had been in a of ulceration for the last seven years ; my left had also p h ; large nodes on it, was very much discoloured, and gave tuck excruciating pain, particularly when warm in bed, as nearly t o deprive me of rest ; in this lamentable state, I recommended by Mr. J. Thompson, (who received so ,„tt. a cure by them here), to take Your Leake's Patent Pills, 1 0 , Ic h I began to do on the 26th o. May ; in the course of a i; l light I began to receive benefit — in little mo re than a m 2 411 the ulcers on my head and arms were soundly healed— atter, the sores on my legs healed also ; leavin:g, how -13,,rs considerable discolouratiou in the skin, and pain in the loL e of the left, which, by the blessing of God, and a little 11 1 7er Perseverance in your invaluable Medicine, subsided; ,_ th : nodes dispersing, the skin regaining its natural hue, and );,Aocturnal pains gradually going off.-1 thus became, by "r liberal advice and medicine, perfectly free from all my tt baer. q r . complaints—have recovered my former spirits a rid s i ii; l lgth, and am become jolly and fat, in which state having I t 'Untied many months, to the astonishment of all who knew R, lino at a loss in what terms to express my gratitude, but t You, for the good of other suffering mortals, to make ti o t h l llY case as public as possible, as I shall on every occa " ; in so doing you will greatly oblige your grateful, obedient, very liuntibleservant, ALEX. MURKER vu's Close, High-street, Edinburgh. Ji 3 4 n . Witnesses to the above Cure:— Thompson, No. 3, New Poultry Market, Edinburgh, to, John M'lntosh, Old Assembly Close, Edinburgh. Lik t e Pared and sold by the sole Proprietor, THOMAS TAY hous"Member of the Royal College of Surgeons , at his N:e, No. 9, New Bridge-street, London; where, after a ;ratit re s id ence of more than 40 years, in a practice parti liltipY directed to the cure ot Venereal Complaints nd those k et elltal to the Parts of Generation, C with thatin a violable which men of his profession should always observe in !ra ot ,F 4 lses, he flatters himself the advice and assistance he osejnionly"administers to persons taking this Medicine , will ktt` e tnled, by a discerning Public, as au advaLtage seldom A1. 441 ' 4 , and void of all ambignity. 4 1 .172 sold, by his appointment, tor the convenience of those 1 4 6 t'ts distance, at the Toyshop, No. 103, Oxford-street; kA ft 'eus . orough's,Fish-street-hill; Mr . . Baxter, 'bridge, Edinburgh ; M. Callwel.'s, Dublin ; and of tr42ek'son in every considerable town in Groat Britain and .1 0 41 ,i t ,.. 14 , in boxes e (only 2s. 9d. each, stamped, and sealed up, le 4 slisl 7 cure t he m lain directions,—vherebv persons, of either /4 ' selves with ease, speed, secrecy, and safety. LITERARY SPECULUM. MR. GOODIER will be the FUTURE PUBLISHER of this WORK. 5, New-street, Coven-gardeu, Dec. ti, 1b22. This Day was published, In Three Volumes, Bro.. price 365. ASECOND SERIES of CURIOSITIES of LITERATURE, consisting of Researches in Literary, Biographical, and Political History—of Critical and Philo sophical Inquiries—and of Secret History. By I. DISRAELI, Esq. Printed fur John Murray, Albemarle-street. At the same time will be published, the Seventh Edition of the First Series, 5 vols, post Bvo. price 355. MILLARD'S IMPERIAL TWINE CLOTH, superseding the Madras, and other Shirting Cloth, the most pleasant and beneficial to wear in the East and West Indies, as well as in this and the more:cold Climates, and of the greatest economy. Merchants, Families : from Abroad - , and the Public, are respectfully informed the above is Sold in entire Cases for Exportation, and by the Piece, &c. from 26 to 52 yards each, at 18c1.-2s.—and 2s. 6d. per yard, to the finest qualities, stamped as above, at their Warehouse, No. 16, CHEAPSIDE, and no where else. Where every kind of the choicest Foreign and British Goods. Linens, Muslins, Shawls, and the neWest Articles for Morning and Evening Dress, are constantly selling, wholesale and retail, on the lowest ready money terms. Family Linens and French Goods, with the India and Bri tish ditto, of every kind, are warranted, and the amount re turned if a fault appears, and no second price made. Families from abroad, &c. purchasing for entire new esta blishments, can make their selections to the greatest advan tage attainable. , Family Linens of all kinds, and Printed Furnitures, being regularly at the wholesale price, by the piece, &c. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, DEC. 7. BITHIT AND HOItSFALL IN RE DICKENSON AND OTHERS. , The LORD CHANCELLOR proceeded to read several papers in order to give judgment in this protracted and complicated bankrupt case. The petitions which had been filed were the most extraordinary he had ever read. He was so ill with a cold that he could not go on with them now. On hlonday they would be the first thing he would read. He would now read them, but he could not do it in less than an hour, or an hour and a half. THE PORTSMOUTH CAUSE. The LORD CHANCELLOR.—The affidavits in support of the app lication in the case of my Lord Portsmouth were sent to me last night, about 5 o'clock, I think. I have read them all. I think it is very material that the matter should be dis. posed of as early as possible. Mr. HEALD.—I have not seen any of them. The LORD CHANCELLOR.—.It is very material that you should see them. Mr. HEALD.—They multiply so fast that it is not easy to keep up with them. The last shower, or storm, as my Learn ed Friend called it, is quite overwhelming. There are now ten to one of the original affidavits. The ATTORNEY-GENEBAL.—My Learned Friend will find it a storm. Mr. HEALD.—Yes, and that, like other storms, it will soon blow over. The LORD CHANCELLOR.—I don't say whether it is a. storm or not, but it is a matter which ought to be decided, if, possible, before we part. Whether Lord Portsmouth requires the care which is sought to be thrown around him or not, it is very material that the question should be decided, pressing as it does so much on feelings and character. Mr. HEALD.—What the affidavits are I know not, but from the fist we have been anxious that the subject should be early and fully discussed. Further elucidation became necessary , in consequence of the mode in which the case was represented on the other side. That elucidation we arc now anxious to have applied to it. When I get the affidavits I shall do nothing else but read them. The LORD CHANCELLOR.— .I don't wish to hurry you, but it is material that you should read them. When you have read them, let me know, that a day may be fixed for the hearing. Mr. HEALM—Yes, my Lord; I shall read them after church-time to-morrow. `The ATTORNEY-GENERAL.—On this evening perhaps, would be better. LORD CHOLMONDELEY v. LOUD CLINTON. Mr. HEALD replied in this demurrer. The LORD CHANCELLOR.—This question came into Court in the shape of a bill of discovery in aid of a writ of ejectment. The Vice-Chancellor, in admitting such a bill, had been mis. led, if he was wrong, by an observation of his Lordship ; for his Honour had consulted him whether a bill of discovery in aid of a writ could be received, and his Lordship had said that he was not aware of such a bill having been refused. Mr. Agar had said that there had been a hundred such bills ; but whether he had advertised for them or not, he had never pro. duced one. His Lordship had failed in that source of infor. mation. As this question would probably go to the House of Lords—and he had no difficulty in saying that it ought, be the decision what it might—but as the question would be carried further, the grounds must therefore be carefully viewed before judgment should be given. But there were some points which could now be clearly stated. It was a bill in aid of an eject ment on the joint demise of Lord Cholmondeley and Mrs. Da rner, and on the separate demise of each, and also on the de mise of others, trustees, with respect to whom there was a doubt whether they had the legal estate or not. If there was only a legal title for the joint demise, the bill was good for nothing. if the trustees had power without interest in the estate, the bill could not be sustained. But when there was an equitable tide, and a legal title in one, and it was said that if the discovery sought by the bill were made the estate could be recovered at law, it was prima facie a very fair sort of thing. It was said that the record stated the one or the other to have the legal title. If so, would the Court suffer this sort of record ? It was not a case known to the Court The ques tion then arose whether the record was so or not, or whether, instead of stating the one or the other to have the legal title, it stated both to have an equitable title under an agreement. Then, the allegation failed that it was an alternative record, and it was an equitable claim in both, upon the legal title of one for the joint benefit of both. The demurrer, upon which the question bad been now argued, said, " you have no right to answer to any part of the bill." What was the Court to do then, where there was no champerty, maintenance or any thing of specific name, but where there was savouring or smelling of such things ? But before any thing could be said of such things, it must be seen whether the record stated it one way or the other. Another question was, whether the point .here did not fall within the case which had been decided by the Lords. The 20 years possession upon which Doe and D'Anvers had been cited differed it entirely in that respect from the case in the Lords. But upon that another question would arise. Another question was, whether the bill did not require more discovery than the Court would grant ; but of this he would say nothing, as the whole bill was demurred against. He would give judgment at once upon this demurrer, and up on the case as it came before the Vice-Chancellor. SIR CHARLES LONG IN THE MATTER OF BROTHERS AND LEITH. This was a petition filled bySir Charles Long, as Treasurer of Chelsea Hospital, praying to be permitted to prove debts under the commission of bankrupt, against Brothers and Leith, who had been indebted to soldiers in the army to the amount of 10,0001. of East India prize-money, and also praying to be put in possession of the books of the bankrupt, in order to establish the debt. _ Messrs. Brothers and Leith had refused payment of prize money to several soldiers before their bankruptcy, on the alle gation that they had remitted it to India. One private of the name of Thompson had returned to India to recover his prize money. An action at law had been brought, and a verdict re covered by Serjeant KAY of the 14th regiment. Upon this verdict, Brothers or Leith, then bankrupts, was committed to prison. Mr. CULLEI applied to the Court for the discharge of the bankrupt. Mr. ILEALD said he consented so far as he was concerned, but that would not liberate the bankrupt. - The LORD CHAN - OEI3Am said, it was quite evident that if the ba*krupts acted as honest upright men would do, and show- MONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1822. ed how much prize-money they owed, this person would be set at liberty. Mr. CULLEN next made preliminary objections to the peti• tion, but The LORD CHANCELLOR directed Mr. Heald to go on. Mr. HEALD pressed strongly the hardship . and cruelty of swindling men who had devoted their lives, their strength, and their blood to the service of their country, out of the little prize_ money which they had won by their valour; and contended that the Treasurer or Deputy Treasurer of Chelsea Hospital ought to be permitted to prove for them under the commis sion. The petition also prayed the appointment of a co-trus tee with Mr. Wyatt, the present trustee, who had been the petitioning creditor, and who appeared by Counsel to oppose this petition. Messrs, ROUPELL and CUING followed on the same side untill thrbe o'clock, when the Court rose. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, DEc. 7. STEWART V. STUART. This cause, our readers will recollect, was in part heard a few weeks back, upon which occasion the Vice-Chancellor express ed an opinion that the question at issue between the parties could be better decided in a Court of Law than in a Court of Equity, and he therefore directed that it should stand over in order to give the Counsel on either nide an opportunity of mak ing out a case for a trial at law.—This morning Mr. BELL in formed his Honour that Counsel could not agree upon a case for a trial at law, and were of opinion that the question could not be decided in a Court of Law in such a manner as would preclude an appeal to the Court of Chancery. The Vice- Chancellor hereupon said he would hear the case argued after Christmas, and decide it according to the beit of his judgment. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DEC. 7. DUDDING V. SAMS. This was an action brought by the Proprietor-of the Royal Hotel, St. James's, against Mr. Sams, a bookseller, in Pall mall, to recover a bill amounting to 121. for two dinners provided in March, 1821, for the defendant and parties of friends. Mr. SCAN LET T, for the defendant, stated that the dinners were ordered, not by Mr. Sams, but by Mr. Wesborough, a literary man,who had been introduced to Mr. S. for the purpose of engaging bins as his publisher ' and who, having been en tertained by the bookseller, wished to invite him in return. In point of fact, however, Mr. Sams paid his share of the first dinner, not choosing to be treated : and though invited to the second, he never attended to partake of it. He therefore felt that it was his duty to resist the present claim. The Learned Counsel was proceeding to call witnesses to prove this case, when The LORD CIIIEF JUSTICE suggested that the dispute would be more properly adjusted out of Court; and the cause was accordingly referred to Mr. Starkie. TAYLOR V. O'SHAUNESSEY. The plaintiff in this case, an advertising tailor, sought to recover of Mr. O'Shaunessey, the fencing-master, the sum of 61., being the stipulated price, of a suit of clothes furnished to his order. The defence relied on was, that the clothes were not such as any customer ought to receive or wear. They were produced in Court, and appeared to have been repaired before they were worn. The Jury having expressed their opinion that the clothes in the state produced were not such as a purchaser ought to receive, Mr. SCARLETT, for the plaintiff, recalled his witnesses to prove that they were not in this condition when they were deli vered to the defendant. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE left the Jury to judge of the probability of the suggestion that they had been altered by the defendant for the purposes of. the cause, which was now neces sary to the plaintiff's case. The Jury found a verdict for the defendant. ROUND V. PRICE. This action was brought by a market-gardener, against the owner of a hackney-coach, to recover damages for the ovetturn ing a cart, by the negligent driving of the coachman. The accident took place on Blackfriars-bridge, between two and three o'clock in the morning of a day in July. The plaintiff was driving his cart to Covent-garden Market, when he was overtaken by the defendant's coach, in which a party were re turning from Vauxhall. The carriages came in contact on the bridge, in consequence of which the cart was overturned and broken, and the horse sustained a slight injury. On the part of the defendant, the coachman was called, who attributed the accident to the conduct of the plaintiff, in draw ing his cart a little out of theline as the coach was proceeding ; but the Jury, without hearing the reply of Mr. SCAR LETT, for the plaintiff, found a verdict for him, damages. M. 103. COLORAVE V. DIOS SANTOS. The plaintiff, Major Colgrave, sold a freehold house in Essex, called Dounsell-hall, to the defendant, who is a Roman Catholic clergyman, without any reservation or mention of the fixtures. This action was now brought in trover, to recover the value of the fixtures, chiefly consisting of stoves, ranges, and set pots, which it was alleged ought to have been distinctly valued and paid for. Mr. GrinsEv and Mr. STORKS, for the defendant, con tended that fixtures of this description were portion of the free hold, and consequently passed with the premises to which they were attached; and cited the case of " Wynne v. Ingleby,' 5, Barnewell and Alderson, 109, in support of this polition, The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE intimated an opinion, that stoves and ranges were not portion of the freehold, but that other articles were. The value of the former being 801, he recommended the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff for that sum, giving leave to the defendant to move that a nonsuit should be entered in its room. The jury accordingly found a verdict for the plaintiff— Damages 001. JOHNSON V. HILL. This was an action of trover, against an innkeeper at High gate, for converting a horse and cart of the plaintiff to his own use- . . It appeared that the cart was proceeding up Highgate-hill with a load of pea sticks, when it was stopped by an Informer named Pritchard, on the ground that the owner's name was not painted in front, and taken to the defendant's inn. Afterwards it was shown that the board, on which the name was painted, had been left by accident in the wood whence the sticks were brought ; but the defendant refused to give up the horse and cart, unless 10s. were paid for the keep of the horse for the five days during which he had remained in his possession. The Loan CHIEF JEsTicE informed the jury, that, in ge neral, an innkeeper had a right to detain the property of a customer, until paid his reasonable charges; but in this case they would consider whether the defendant had been a party to the wrongful caption ; and if so, they would find a verdict for the plaintiff. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Drc.7. A BARRISTER'S WIG.—RAVENSCROFT V. ARCHBOLD. The plaintiff in this case is a head and wig dresser, residing in Serle-street, Lincoln's-inn.fields; the defendant is a bar rister. The action was brought for works, labours, and ser vices done by the plaintiff for the defendant, in dressing his professional wig on divers occasions within three or four years.. The sum claimed to be due by defendant was 131. 10s. Mr. Sergeant ONsLow stated the case to the Jury. It was, he observed, the practice with the Gentlemen of the Bar to leave their wigs at Guildhall or Westminster-hall after the close of their duties each day, and it was the custom with persons in the situation of the plaintiff to send for them to either place, and have them ready dressed when and where the next profes. sional business required. Mr. Ravenseroft sent for the wigs of his customer thrice a week, and charged for each dressing something about threepence halfpenny—no unreasonable charge, when the labour done and the distance which he had to send, were considered. It would be proved that plaintiff had continued to put the defendant's wig in order, thrice a week, for a period from 1817 to 1821. For this he now brought his action, and he (Mr. Sergeant Onslow) was at a loss to know what resistance could be made to so reasonable a claim. The proof of the various dressings of the wig having been gone through, Mr. Serjeant TADDY addressed the Jury for the defendant. The plaintiff's claim, he observed, was resisted on these grounds—first, that he had not dressed the wig for the time specified, the defendant having resided out of the country for a great part of the time, when his professional wig could be ef no !Particular service to him, and when, there.. fore, the plaintiff could not be prepared to dress it; the se cond ground was, that of the sum claimed, 3/. Os. was due to, and only recoverable by the plaintiff's assignees, he having become a bankrupt in the early part of their connection, when his credits became the property of his 'assignees. 'lt would also be proved, that another hairdresser had dressed the plaintiff's wig for a part of the time mentioned in the plaintiff's declaration. He {Serjeant 'Paddy) could not concur in the position laid down by his Learned Friend (Serjeant Onslow), that it was the uniform custom with gentlemen at the bar to have their wigs dressed three times a week. That must depend not only on the taste, but on the extent of business of each individual ; for it was well known that many gentlemen, particularly in the early part of their professional career, had not those frequent occasions for their wigs which afterwards occurred, and therefore they avoided incurring so unnecessary an expense. " The case," continued the Learned Sergeant, " is, no doubt, different with my brother Onslow. He has his wig dressed every day; and, on the present occasion, I may presume that Mr. Ravenscroft has taken' articular pains to set his wig off to such advantage, as to be equally a credit and ornament to the dresser and the wearer. lam glad to see my Learned Friend look so well in it. I am always pleased to see him in excellent condition, even to the wig. It will, I have no doubt, continue an ornament to him even after death. I say this in the supposition, that in his case will be kept up the practice adopted in that of some of his ancestors, whose images I have seen in Guildford church-yard with full flowing perukes, " Well buckled on in Parian stone;" and I trust that my learned brother (though I hope at a very distant day) will shine among them, the rival even of that ce lebrated one, Mr. Speaker Onslow, in the full flowing marble wig of the sculptor. Leaving this subject, I submit that my Learned Friend has not made out his demand, that he is not entitled to recover for the whole time claimed, nor for the sum which ought to belong to his assignees." Mr. Shuter, a solicitor, proved the commission of bank ruptcy against the plaintiff in 1317. On his cross-examination, he admitted that Mr. Ravenscroft had paid debts due to him by sevaral barristers, to prevent their being called on by the assignees, and thereby the chance of losing their funire custom. A hair-dresser proved that fora part of the time mentioned he had dressed the defendant's wig. Mr. Serjeant OsfsLovr replied. Lord Chief Justice DALLAS, in summing up, expressed his deep regret that a Gentleman, so well known as the defendant, the author of many learned and ingenious treatises, which were always spoken'of by the Bench in terms of deserved respect, should be exposed to such an action as the present. However, the Jury had but one duty to perform, which was, to abide by the justice of the case. That, he conceived, was at the side of the plaintiff. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the whole amount claimed. FEES IN CIIANCEIVY.-PICACOOK V. W. K. JENKINS. Mr. Serjeant PELL stated this case to the Jury. It was brought under the following circumstances :---The defendant, Wm.:K. Jenkins, Esq., had a suit in Chancery, in which he was the plaintiff, against Sir 'E. Sandy's, the High Sheriff of Gloucestershire. In the courselof that proceeding, Sir E. Sand's was ordered to be taken into custody tbr a contempt of Court in not putting in an answer. In consequence of this order, Mr. Peacock, the plaintiff; who is the messenger of pursuivant of the Court of Chancery, took Sir Edwin into custody, in which he continued for 531 days, viz. from the 6th of February, 1819, to the 19th of .July, 1821. For fees of custody and other ex penses, amounting to 1661. Os. &1., and a further sum of 121. lfis. Bd., the plaintiff brought this action against Mr. Jenkins, who was the plaintiff in the suit in Chancery on the ground that as the former defendant, Sir E. Sandys, had not paid them, the present defendant was liable. Stephen Vesey, the clerk to the plaintiff, proved the arrest of Sir E. Sandy's, under a warrant of the Lord Chancellor ad dressed to him (plaintiff.) He .was in actual custody for three weeks, but was then allowed to go into Gloucestershire. This liberty was granted by the written authority of Mr. Leblanc, the Solicitor in Chancery for the present defendant, which stat ed to this effect :—" You may discharge Sir Edwin Sandys on the payment of his fees." Sir E. Sandys did not pay his fees, but was nevertheless allowed to go at large. lie was at large for a considerable time, but witness considered him still as no minally in custody, as he was not discharged by the Court.— Witness was the deputy appointed to keep Sir E. Sandys in custody. He would not have discharged him but for the au thority given by the defendant's solicitor. Another witness a clerk to the plaintiff, proved the custody and discharge of Sir E. Sandys. On the plaintiff's application to Sir E. Sandys for his fees, he did not receive them. He then applied to the present defendant (as the plaintiff in the forma case), but he refused to pay any, on the ground that Sir E. Sandys alone was liable, and that if the plaintiff discharged him without having received his fees, he was to blame himself for the loss. An application had been made to the Court of Chan cery on the subject, but that Court refused to interfere, adding that the plaintiff's remedy, if any, was by action against the defendant, in whose suit Sir E. Sandys was committed Butt, Esq., the Deputy Serjeant at Arms of the Court of Chancery, proved that according to the practice of that Court, for the 23 years that he was in office, the plaintiff in a cause was called upon for the fees of a commitment for contempt_ when the defendant did not pay them. On his cross-examination, he said, that when a party was committed for con tempt,he was notregularly discharged until a motion to that effect was made in Court, and then it was only on payment of fees It was not, however, un frequent, that a party committed in contempt was discharged . by a private arrangement between the parties out of Court, and in that case the Court heard nothing more about it. In such a case die fees were generally arranged by one party or the other before the discharge. Mr. Serjeant LENS was addressing the Court for the de fendant, when it was agreed that a verdict should be taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court in Banco upon the question, whether, under the circumstances, the defendant was liable for the fees, and if so, whether for the fees accruing in the three weeks of actual custody, or for the whole term of 531 days. COURT OF THE DEAN AND CHAPTER OF ST. PAUL'S, DECT:MBER 7. ADAMS v. ADA)IB. This was a suit of separation, by reason of adultery, brought by the husband against his wife. Dr. BURNABY opened the pleadings on the part of Mrs. Adams. The evidence having been read, Dr. Lutist iN6TON addressed the Court on behalf of the hus band. His learned friend (Dr. Burnaby) seemed in this case disposed to rely on the insufficiency of the proof of the adultery alleged against Mrs. Adams; but he thought the Court would consider that adultery was necessary to be inferred from the continued intercourse which the evidence showed to have sub sisted between her and a Mr. Potter. Indeed, there were three distinct courses of transactions from which the Court would ar rive at this conclusion. That Mrs. Adams on one occasion committed adultery with Mr. George Potter, was proved by a witness of the name of Ashden. Ile observed one afternoon Mrs. Adams waiting on Cornhill, and, as he presumed, for her husband ; but, to his great surprise, a gentleman totally un known to him (the witness) came up to Mrs. Adams, took her arm, and by a circuitous sort of route (for the parties seemed sensible that they were watched) accompanied her to Elbow lane, where they entered a notorious brothel. If there was ;waling to impeach the credit of Ashden, as the Counsel con tended there was not, the Court must be satisfied with the strong presumptive proof on this point. But another witness, Char lotte Bond, deposed to facts that too strongly corroborated the . other testimony to leave a doubt upon it. It had been laid down by a series of authorities, which it was not within the power of his Learned - Friend to dispute, that in order to prove adultury, it was not necessary to specify particular dates, and a variety of places ; but that if all the circumstances, as in this case, and proximate acts tended to establish a sufficient, case of suspicion, that was enough for all legal purposes. This was more especially ruled in " Elwes v. Elwes" and " Lo'eden v. Loveden," where the late Judge of the Consistory Court said, " it is a consequence of this rule that it is not necesary to prove the fact of adultery in time and place." The next course of incidents was that which was involved in the proof, that Mrs Adams resided for some time in Crosby-row, Kingsland, at a. house in which Mr. George Potter was also a lodger ; having a room with a turn-up bed in it ; that here he lived for fifteen months, during which period he was almost every day visited by a Lady, .whom he described as his cousin ; and of whose identity with Mrs. Adams, sufficient proof would be brought before the Court. Now, for what other purposes, but those of 41 criminal connexion, those visits could be paid, it would be difficult to guess : for it was deposed, that she not only continued with him alone in his room for many hours to gether; but would sometimes call upon him three times in a day ; 4ind Potter sometimes left letters for her, addressed to her as " Mrs. Stanhope." The third case was this— it was shewn that Mr. G. Potter, being confined for some time in Whitecross-street prison, was repeatedly visited there by this lady; and her servant deposed to Mrs. Adam's habit oileav ing her house of a morning, soon after Mr. Adams had 'gone out to his business, -aed taking with lier variotts articles of PRICE SEVEN PENCE. food and provision, such as-wine, - plums,llgs, &c. (in a beak; lent to her by the deponent), and ,not returning until a late hour of theafternoon. Witness added, that her mistress, on those occasions, used to dress herself in her best, and to take off the clothes she had , so gone out in when she returnel home : having told to witness, by way of accounting for INS conduct, a long story about a Mr. and Mrs.. - Donolly, whom she described as very old friends of her oivn, but as being disliked by her husband. These persons, she told het , isar want, were in reduced circumstances; and it was to theM she took, for the benefit of the unsuspecting Mr. Adams, his neck-kerchiefs, stockings, and shirts. It was hardly. ttee cessary to say that no such person as Mr. and Mrs. Downy existed—the real party being this Mr. Potter. Here, them, were strong additional grounds for presuming the - adtilrery which was charged. The assistant-keeper of the prison de posed, that while Potter remained there, he Was visited altuvet daily by Mrs. Adams, whom he used to call his wife. Now the plea set up on the other side did admit that Mrs. Adam* used to go and visit Potter in prison, but denied all criminality on that account.. The Court, however, would scarcely know how to reject so natural an inference. But it was proved, moreover, that Mrs. Adams and this man were frequently A en together in the prison, when she had her arms round his neck, and he had his round her waist ; and yet the Learned Gentle men on the other side would wish to persuade the Court that there was no adultery in the case !—that these indecent fa. miliarities were the result of a mere Platonic attachment, for- sooth, between the parties !---That no improper intercourse sub sisted between them, although she carried him a considerable part of her husband's wardrobe, and a reasonable proportion of her husband's larder too ! There was in the prison a partial. lar recess, in which the actual commission of the adultery most probably occurred; but for the reasons he had already submitted to the Court, the Learned Counsel contended it was unnecessary for him to prove the charge in any one particular place, the pre: sumptions being so very strong in support of the continued illicit intercourse. Similar opportunities for the consumma tion of the crime had been afforded to, and most probably ac cepted by, the parties in the porter's lodge and the surgery of the prison. Two letters, which were proved by Mrs. K. John: son, the sister of Mrs. Adams, to have been intercepted, were ad mitted by Mrs. Adams herself to have been intended for her. They were in the handwriting of Potter ; and No. 2 began thus " Destroy this immediately, before you get home." So here was a correspondence secretly, by letter, between Mrs. Adams and Mr. Potter. It was addressed to "Mrs. Stanhope, Post-office, Borough." (This lettter was an odd mixture of reproach and ex postulation : after recapitulating the distresses incident on 'the lady's want of punctuality in not keeping an appointment she had made with the writer, and descanting on the miseries of a bad pair of shoes, a ret night, and a broken assignation, it entreated the favour of a speedy interview, and of some relief in the mean time). In the other letter Mr. Potter expressed himself jealous lest the lady's favours had not been confined to himself. (This epistle reproached her with having been dragged into ginshops by female friends, who madeher pay for them that which should have been reserved for the writer ; and assured her, that " if she continued true to him, he would most certainly stand by her.") True ?—to whom ? why, not, as the Court must per. fectly well see, to Mr. Adams, her husband ; but to Mr. George Potter, her paramour. It would be difficult, indeed, for the lady's counsel to contend that these letters were mere promises of future adultery, rather than recognitions of past incontinence. The moral conviction of the Court must be, that the criminal connexion had really subsisted between the parties; and it would therefore hold the husband entitled to his prayer for separation. On his part there had been nothing like collusion or consent to his own wrong; for it was on the 27th of July, 1821, that Mrs. Adams was detected pawning the clothes of her husband, who thereupon sent her back to her sister's, being then ignorant of her adultery. This was not discoveredb y him until August, and then he refused to take her back, and insti tuted proceedings against her. Dr. DODSON followed on the same side. Drs. BURNABY and JESSE ADAMS, on the part of Mrs. Adams, relied on the total absence, as they thought, of all di rect proof, and still snore of all probable circumstance in this, case. These parties, Mr. and Mrs. Adams, were married in 1808, and lived together, as it was admitted on the other side, until 1818, in the most perfect harmony ; the latter period being that at which the adulterous intercourse now charged against her was said to have commenced. It was said to have conti.. nued until 182), and to have remained undiscovered by the husband until a late period of that year. 'tiny, could it be believed, that for a period of three years, and from day to day, these criminal intercourses should have been carrying on, in places the most unlikely and uncouth. and, as it seemed that the other side would infer, almost in the presence of 40 or 50 persons ? As to the visits paid by Mrs. Adams to Mr. Potter, they might be indiscreet and s improper; but it was going a great way indeed to infer any thing of a guilty complexion ,rota them. In the case of " Williams and Williams," in which " Elliott and Elliot" Was particularly referred to, Sir William Scott said, " though the Court may think these virds paid by a married woman to a single man very improper, yet it must be convinced, in its legal judgment, that the wo man has passed the boundaries, not only of delicacy, but of duty." The Learned Counsel then adverted to another case, noted in " Williams and Williams," namely, " Ricketts and Taylor," also decided by Sir W. Scott, when Judge of the Consistory Court; and they concluded by submitting, that no ground was laid to found the husband's prayer, and that Mrs. Adams, therefore, ought to be dismissed from all further ob servance of the suit. Judgment postponed. MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, DEC. 7. LIBEL OW THE DUKE OF YORK, DU RE OF GLOUCESTER, &C. Thomas Webb was indicted for a series of libels upon his Royal Highness the Duke of York, as Commander-in-Chief of the Forces, his Royal Highness th:. Duke of Gloucester, as Colonel, and Surgeon-Major Hay, and the other Surgeons, of the 3d regiment of Guards. Mr. Arlo ',lulus, for the prosecution, stated, that on the 26th of April, 1816, John Haig, a private in the 3d Guards, died of an inflammation in his bowels, and from that period to the pre sent time, the defendant, who is married to a sister of the deceas ed, continued to stick up written placards about Westminster, headed " Notice—Military Black Job," reflecting most severely' upon the conduct, not only of the surgeon who attended Haig in his last illness, but upon the character of the Dukes of York and Glocester, falsely represented as refusing the prisoner the information which he considered necessary respecting the cause of his brother-in-law's death. The prisoner made various ap plications to every department of the War-office as well as the regimental officers on the subject, and received satisfactory an swers from all quarters; but that did not prevent the prisoner from grossly libelling the persons above alluded to, from May, 1816, to the present time. It was not, said Mr. Adolphus,' the wish of the prosecutors that heavy punishment should be inflicted on prisoner, but to convince him and the public that his statements were totally void of foundation. The prisoner per sisted in saying and publishing that Haig came by his' death from a mortification in his arm, which was let blood on th 2 2d day of the month in which he died, although he was permitted to see the reports of the medical officers who examined the body. 111 r. Hay and the other surgeons were called, who proved the' Learned Gentleman's statement as far as they were concerned. Witnesses were also called to prove the remaining parts of the Counsel's speech. The defendant read a written defence, which occupied about 2 hours, and which embraced various topics, such as Radicals, Boroughmongers, Reform in Parliament, Corrupt Ministers, Felons, the late Queen, Navy and Army, &c. In deed, it touched upon almost every subject excepting his own defence. The Jury found him Guilty; and Mr. BRODERICK again stated to the Court the desire of his clients not to press for even an exemplary sentence, on condition or his desisting in future from such proceedings.—Judgment deferred. MYSTERIOUS AFFAlR.—Thursday some Gen tlemen from Mansfield, who were hunting, in passing through Harlow-wood, found wrapped up, in a rough manner, in a bundle, a gown and frill, which were much torn and clotted__ with blood, appearing to have been recently done ; also a pair of black worsted stockings, which had every appearance of hav ing been hastily pulled off, and the whole looked as if violence had been used. What adds to the suspicion that murder had been committed is, that a man and woman were seen together near the wood, and the man was afterwards seen alone with an umbrella and a bundle. The articles above stated are deposit ed at the toll-bar,- near the 'Hut Tavern, and we sincerely , hope they will lead to an elucidation of the affair..--(Nottingham Journal.) _