The Express.
London, England, 1853-12-06 00:00:00

iLaw iinteittaence.

EQUITY COURTS.-YESTERDAT.

ilibull• TEN aural Or Till, sow,.
JERTOISI V. JAZYWAR.—PAAAPHZUNALIA AND FAMILY

JIWILL
This was a dais by Lady Jervoise. of Brook House,
Lewisham, widow of tkit late Rey. Sir Samuel Clarke Jer-
WM!, that she be declared to be entitled, absolutely fer her
owe. use, to certain jewels.
. . . .

It epigram! that -the claimant was 'serried to her late
husband in 1799, and shortly sfter the marriage her uncle's
wife, Mrs. Ann Clarke, gave to her a set of pearl orna-
ments, which she caused to be reset. She paid for the re-
setting out of her own money, and always seed and treated
them as her own property. In 1813 Sir Samuel C. Jervoise
bought Lady Jervoise a diamond bracelet, gad shortly after-
wards, observing that " the other arm looked jades's,"
he purchased another. These bracelets, as well as
the pearl ornaments, Lady Jervoise was in the habit
of wearing at parties, and treating them as her
awn property ; and besides these, there were
family jewels, which she wore only at court and on
state octagons. Sir S. C. Jervoise died in October, 18.52,
and by hie will he bequeathed to his wife, beside. other
'bier, the use, dune' her life, of all his jewels. Under
this clause it was contended by the trustees under the will
that Lady Ji rune, had no interest in any of the jewels,
further than the use of them for life. Lady Jervoise, how-
ever, considered that she was entitled to the pearl orna-
ments and the diamond bracelets absolutely, and this claim
was filed to have that question determined. On the part of
Lady Jervoise, an affidavit had been Bled deposing to the
above facts as to the acquisition and use of the jewels, end
to a declaration made by the testator in May, 18.52, when he
went into Lady Jervoise's room, and saying to her, "I
shall give you the bracelets," he gave her the receipt of
Itundell and Bridge for the price of the bracelets-3981.
His lloooor said he did not think the transaction last
named amounted to a gift of the bracelets, nor did the
family jewels belong to Lady Jervoise ; bat he considered
that Lady Jervoise was entitled to the jewels she claimed.
That she had a right to the pearl ornaments there could be
no doubt, they were the gift of another person to her, and
he was of opinion also that she was entitled to the fiance.'
lets, which were acquired during coverture. They
were paraphernalia suitable to het tank in life,
and it was in evidence that they were bought by
the husband for the adornment of his wife, and
that he allowed her to make use of them constantly,
and it did not appear that they were bought to form a poi,
tien of, or to be connected with, the family jewels. There
must be a declaration therefore that Lady Jervoise was
absolutely entitled to the pearl ornaments and the bracelets.
The costs to come out of the estate.
Mr. Olasse appeared la support of the claim, and Mr.
Baines for the treeless.

ST. JOHN r.

RAISTIHN STAB.

The plaintiff in this suit was Mr. Percy Beliogbroks St.
John, the well-known author, and the defendant was
Pericles Rostopulos Aleaandrides. The suit having been
instituted, this was a motion for an injunction to restrain
the defendant from selling the type used in printing the
Eastern Star, a newspaper r•cently established is London
for the purpose of advocating the independence of the
Greeks in the Turkish dominions. The motion also asked
that the defendant might be restrained,from interfering with
the publication of the above newspaper. The defendant
did not appear, although he had been served with notice of
the motion.

The court made the owder.
LINIIS.

This was the petition of Mr. Henry Lines, whom peti-
tion stated the following extraordinary story :—Several
years ego the petitioner purchased two sums of 1131. and
1111. Three-and-a-Quarter per Cent. Annuities, but the
petitioner wished to conceal the transaction from his wife,
and he, therefore, nadir the purchase in the name of Wil-
liam Frederick Cannon, of Kirton, Hertfordshire, an
entirely fictitious name, Si the petition alleged. The
petitioner received one dividend upon one of the sums, bat
all the other dividends remained unpaid for the space of 10
years, and the sums had therefore been transferred into the
names of the Commissimers for the Reduction of the

National Debt. Loder these circumstances, supported by
his affidavit, Mr. Linea prayed that the two sums might be
transferred into his name, and the dividends be paid to him.
Mr. 0. M. Giffard was is support of the petition.
Mr. Wickens, for the Comaissionen for the Redaction of
the National Debt, stated that it not 'infrequently hap-
pened that a claimant having seccecded in =Wag out an
apparent title to a sum transferred into the commissioners'
name', other claimants subsequently established • good
title and were paid, and thus the public was defrauded. In
the present ease, he submitted that the court ought not to
accede to the prayer of the petition without • previous in-
quiry into the extraordinary circumstances.
The petition was ordered to stand over, with the direction
that an inquiry should be made whether there was any such
perms as William Frederick Cannon, of Hertfordshire,
with a general inquiry into the circumstances.

COUNT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-YESTEEDAY.
UTTINOS AT P 111 Utlk-111711al WAD CANTIOLA IMO COUR=
MUM
CHIVIRS IL Dia.-LIBEL.

The plaintiff conducted is cue in person. Ifr. Slade and I
Mr. Coles represented the defendant.
This was au action brought to recover damages for a libel
alleged to be captained in a letter written by the defendant
to a surgeon named Britten, in which he called the plain-
tiff " a liar, scoundrel, and coward." The defendant pleaded
not guilty and justification.
It appeared that many years ago the plaintiff, whoa is en
attorney, had paid his attentions to the defendant's deter,
and, as he stated. had lammed various expense@ upon her ac-
, oeuat.such as having bee 'Ware taken and jiving her a wed.
I ding ring. Bhe had afterwards at the ego of le gone to India
and had married Captain Bartley, whose acquaintance she
had formed on the pelage oat. Oa Mrs. Bartley 's return
to England, the plaintiff had made a claim of NOL oa her,
and had published a pamphlet respecting her, upon which
Captain Bartley, accompanied by his wife@ father, went to
the plaintiff's residence at Bath, and horsewhip d him.
Upon Captain Bartle 's death, his widow awried Colonel
Ferrier, a retired officer of the East India Company's ser-
vice, to whom than plaintiff bad written, after the lapse of
several years, renewing hie demand, which ultimately was
reduced to lent. It was in consequence of this application
that the defendant had written the alleged libel. The
plaintiff called the defendant to prove the publication of
the libel, and himself gave evidence of the rest of the feats.
In crow-examination the plaintiff said he had first
thought of making a claim of 2001. against Miss Day when he
wanted money. (Laughter.) He had never asked her father
or mother for repayment. When their acquaintance began
the young lady was 16, and he was 28. He was now 68.
Ho had published • pamphlet relating to Miss Caroline Day,
in consequence of which Captain Bartley and Mr. Day had
visited him at Bath. They had asked him to come out of
his house and get horsewhipped, but he stayed indoors be-
cause Captain Bartley and Mr. Day were about four times
his weight. He had gone in pursuit of them. He had
written to Captain Bartley, end had poed him in the Bath
Pump-room for his " blackguard visit." That was all the
satisfaction he had. He first applied to Colonel Ferrier in
1847. The libel was written in November, 1848.
Mr. Slade addressed the jury for the defendant, con-
tending that the epithets applied by him to the plaintiff
wire really merited.
Lord Campbell, in summing up, characterised the claim
of the plaintiff as an infamous demand made for the pur-
pose of extorting money. He was astonished that any one
should have written such a letter as that which he had
written to Colonel Ferrier, and still more woodshed that
having written it he should dare to show his face in a court
of justice.
The jury, without hesitation, returned a verdict for the
defendant ; sod regretted the time of the court should have
been taken up with sash a case.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-YESTERDAY.
OTITIMOS AT PIN PUTS IN - WO= Mir ATTICS

JTAVI• 11,1) • SPACIAL 11:111%
LIAISE V. MILLS.-BIEACIL OP PROMISE OP MARRIAGE

This was an action to recover damages for the breach of
a promise of marriage; and when the case was called on
the counsel on both sides consulted together, with a view to
settle the m Ater.

-----
Mr. Temple, Q.C. (with him Mr. Hawkins) at length
said that it hail been agreed that there should be a verdict
fur the plaintiff for 751. ; and he would also state that no
reproach of any kind or character could fairly be made
against the young lady who was the plaintiff in th;s action.
Mr. Serjeant Bylas (with him Mr. Manistp) was happy
to say that the young lady's character was quite irreproach-
able ; and, in fact, the match was only broken off from pru-
dential motives, and in the propriety of which motives the
young lady's father himself concurred.
Verdict for the plaintiff for 75/.