The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-12-23 00:00:00

LAW NuTleS7l.

COURT wr
zeros* TRZ LORD eatascrt.Loi ?NIS DAT.
For Jodgtsteru—Diowshs• • Conn,.
To be spoke to.-Iwor4 Bromley • Barthwaite.
Per order—Sima • Ridge.
Bankrupt Petition—Rename Thompson v
• By.order—Const • Harris.
('.arse Petition (part tteard)—Macnaniata • Wood.
Appose. Petitions--Coorli • Sikes: and In re Bethel Hoapits.

CAUSE YErivlnits.
Wilkinson, y Wilkinson
In re Mane.bcaier Market Act
Snettord v Shefford

.
Rattriy v George
Attorney-General • Smith
Tomes v Wilkins
Garrick • Lord CamdeO
'EPODE THE TICE-CHANCELLOI THIS DAT.
Remaining Cause Petitions.
Miller v Elkins (pan lln re Cole Paterson v Vatets6l!
heard) Barker v Barker I Marshall v
Same • same (ditto) A piden v Nixon Miller v Elkins
Thirty Bankrupt Petitions.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
CAUSES TO BA TILIED IN .I.ONDON TAIS DAY, )Y SPECIAL

JURIES.
Hanniford • Huns Hower Gedge(ditto) I Palmer • gangherrs
I
(by order) Foot v. Stratton Evans • Tennant

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY; TuvliDAr, Dec. 22.

POWEYL 7). MOUbIIETT
The SOLICITOR•OENIRAL occupied the whole of yesterday tyi
his reply in support of the petition for a commission of review in
this case.

This morning Dr. J. :Inuits's followed on the same side, and
having concluded his observations--
The Lotto CH ANTE r*Loa proceeded to take a view of the ease.
His I..ordsillo went very cirrumstantially through the evidence of
the principal witnesses •,tainined on intermgatorics in the Court
below, from which he deJoced, that according to his present view
of the case he could not advise his Majesty to order a commission
of review. His Lordship said it could only be granted on the
ground that the sentence of the Court below was an erroneous sem.
tence, or that some error (and it must be some very gems error In.
deed) had taken place. his Lordship said he ahtfuld throw over.
board every circumstance connected with the issues tried at com-
mon law. One circumstance, and one circumstance only, he would
notice in reference to what had fallen from the Solicitor-General
in respect to one of them, viz. .• that the testator was of sound
mind when he executed the paper of the 18th ;thy, 1818, when he
saw it endorsed on the posted, that the Jury found him of unscund
mind at the time when the third clause (the revocatory one as to
his former will or wills) was made, dowel they found for the taro
first clauses, thereby placing them as codicils to his will of 1807."
His Lordship said, for his own part he could not bring his mind to
suppose that one part of this paper was his act and deed, bring
then of sound mind, memory and understanding, and the other
not; he should therefore look at tile case without any inferenee
whatever to the four issues that had been tried in the Court of
Common Pleats ; they were out of the question, and of no suthck.
city ; and it did appear to him (the Lord Chancellor) that it wee
so much time and expense thrown away. His lordship re..
marked upon the ignorant manner in which the paper. of
May, 1818, was drawn np, inasmuch as it would tall upon
one party to pay to himself out of a personal estate which hid
previously been devised to him, in equal proportions with what he
was also to receive from the reality, thereby showing that a total
ignorance was displayed as to the will of 1807. Ills Lordship con-
cluded by repeating, that his present opinion was, that he could not
advise his Majesty to grant this commission of review ; Ind as lie
had occupied that chair long enough to recollect that he had fri•
quently changed his opinion, he was anxious to have an oppor-
tunity of due consideration in this case. He would therefore take
a short time to consider it ; and as he should come down to girt
sonic judgments early in January, he would be sure then to inti-
mate what was his Majesty's determination in respect of the cont.,
mission.

ITANSON V. TME BRITISH MINING COMPANY.
Mr. HEALD and Nlr. BICIERSTETM concluded their argu-
ments in behalf of the Mining Company, and Mr.SofiCsToe-OZ.
smear. was heard ia reply. He contended that Lady Hanson'a
case differed in every essential particular from the cases that had
been petitioned on the othet side. It was tree he (the Solicitof-
licnelui) had argued in the case of the Real del Monte for the de-
fect of parties ; but in that case Mr. Kinnear, as every body would
recollect, was an individual who had gone into that Company vo-
luntarily and of his own free will ; whereas Lady Hanson btu!)
compelled to be so associated by the net of Mt. Thomas.
The Loan CHANCES t.oa observed, that an injunction could
not be granted in the present form of the motion, but that he wnukl
take the papers home, er.d dispose of the case on coming into Coat
in the morning.
1'
The SoticrTou-OEKLEt.ar. begged to ask his Lord.htp, whe-
ther the Court would sit on Saturday. as it had not been. usual
when Chflitmas-day fell on a Sunday, for the Court to sit on the
Saturday.
His Lonnswils said, it was for the Da to make the so:;citation
that he should do sot which bring made blithe Solicitor-lief era!,
his Lordship signified his acqateseence.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, TRrnsDAY, Dec.

PETITT V. PICTTIT.

Mr. ROIIPELL appeared on behalf of the plaintiff in this suit.
who is married to the defendant, Mr. Pettit. In consequence of
domestic quarrels which had arisen between the parties a separa-
tion wa. agreed upon by mutual consent, and a deed was executed,
by which the husband bound himself to allow a certain yearly sum
for his wife's maintenance. Having failed to perform his contract,
the wife tiled a bill against him its this Court, for the purpose of
compelling him to pay the arrears due on the annuity. The hus-
band, in order to evade the claim, left England, thus placing Mar-
self beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. The cause was, however,
proceeded in, and an order was finally obtained for the aequestvw.
tion of the husband's real property, to satisfy the claim of site wife.
This order was obtained in 1822. and required the secruestrators to
whom it was directed to take possession of defendant a lands, and
receive the profits until 27W., the amount of arrears then dose to the
plaintiff, should be paid, together with the costs incurred In the
prosecution of the suit up to that time. The sequestrators were
further ordered to keep possession until the defendant had cleared
himself from the contempt. Acting in pursuance of that order, the-,
sequestrarots had received a sum sufficient to discharge the wife's
claim. together with the costs, with the exception of 4W.; bnt aN,
the order had nearly expired, the plaintiff presented a petition,
praying that it may be enlarged. The object of this petition war:
to continue the sequestrators in possession of the property ; that
they should pay the plaintiff' all the arrears which accrued subse-
quent to the order pronounced in 1822. together with all costs sub-
sequently incurred in the prosecution of the suit. The petiticii.
also prayed that the case may be referred to the Master, to ascer-
tain the sum bow due fur arrears and costs subarquent to the order
of 1822.

r. IVactrit 1.7 i appeared for the seguestnunrs, who declared
themselves fatigued with their office, and desired to be disettargrd
ou payment or their casts.
The Vier-Cl:fro:cc ti.OR said he could not grant the eXHIIIIOII
of the order In the manner prayed for. The order already made
seemed sufficient to cover the- costs so far as those were concerned ;
but he did not see that he could order the further sequestratiou cre
the property as the case now stood before the Court.
31r. Rot:PELL said that the annuity was the plaintiff's only
mode of subsistence; and it did not seem that she could re: kite
upon its regular payrnent.unless the defendant's property wog keys
under setrestration. The case was very hard on the plaintiff;
The 't KM-CHANCELLOR promised to look at the order, bud
uprooted his conviction that the application should be renewed Its
another shape.

•
8111 A. if. GIBSON v. ENOWLIS AND OTHER&
Mr. HARl'stated this to be a petition for the division of a suns
now in Court, and which had been paid in under several orders. fs
appeared that the late Sir Thomas Maitland, being Colonel of the-
411di regiment of foot, appointed W. Giffin is agent for that rtgt..
.tent. la the course of transactions which arose in consequence.
Sir T. Maitland became debtor to the agent, who *bora., attar be-
came a bankrupt, and his aseignees claimed payment of the debt.
The representatives of Sir T. Maitland expressed their wading's' ter
pay any sum that was really due, but as 3lr. (Mini had received
various sums from the W.cr.office on atiesunt of the regiment. titer
were advised that they ought not to pay Sir T. Man/Imre tlehtsia,
unless the sums received at the War-office were deducted Irmo bp
The assignees of (Mkt) contended that Sir T. Maitland's tithe
should be paid, and that the Crown must conic in under the Cott,
mission, and share with the other cretinous whatever balance
l'nder those circumstances this suit was instituted by Sir
Aleasuider Maitland Gibson and Mr. Maitland, repteseittatives oR
the late Colonel Sir'}'. Maitland, against the assignees of Mr.
Chitin, the agent. On the hearing of the cause, the Lord Chap-
cello, directed an issue for the purpose of trying the legal ques-
tion which arose, vie. whether the representatives of Sir T. Mait-
land had a right to set off the iLlit due to the lA'ar-otfiee against hi*
debt due to the estate of Mr. Ohio. 0:1 the trial of that issue D.
verdict was had for the representatives of Sir T. Maitland, and the-
tight to Set nit' was established. The petition now presented proles*
that the funds in Court may be divided.
Mr. Itourt3.l. thought the case must go bark to the Lord
Chancellor, because the fact that the late Sir T. Maitland bad glycol
a power or attorney to Mr. (}ilfin, under which he received the
money at the War-office, had sot been stated on the hearing of
the rause. _

Sir. WaAT appeared fee the Croon, to demand payment of sums
due so sa! War-othaa

The VlCE.CHAlycrLioit thoaght the fact stated b► Mr.
Rottpell, that Mr.lifin had received the toms at the War.oflicr
by power of attorney from Sir T. Maitland changed the femur,' of
the case. That circumstance placed the agent in the pante situa-
tion and under the same responsibilities as Sir T. Maitland himself.
The verdict at common law was therefore perfectly botisfactory, to
it estroblishitt that single point into which the dispute had been re-
pelted, which was, whether Sir T. 31.ittliind'it representatives ought
to pay Mr. (fillip's assignees', without any deduction, tke aunt dew
from the regiment, or whether he ought to deduct from that sem
the debt due to the War-nice. He should therefore direct, as.
was prayed in the petition, that the stun of l,kt 1, should be paid
to tbe Solicitor for the Treasury. with costs, and that the costs yr
the other patties thould be plod nut of the residue of the sons in
Court. The balance be would direct to be paid to the assignees..
of M. Gildn, in discharge of the debt due to the estate by its
Lie Sir T. Mai,:ind, as Coldre: unit 49th

COURT Of RING'S BENCH. GUILDHALL,
TRVIVIDAY, Dim 22.
0. tti nip its Loatiost beftre the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE aLt Special.
Juries.

CRIAL CON.
PARKES V. criswicirr:._

This was an action against the defendant for crimi- al consigns..
boa with the plaintiff islrife.
fhe Anorney-Oeheral and Mr. Chitty conducted the plaintiff's
ease. Mr. &Arlon and Brougham that of the defer.dant.
The Arroawev-GrYta.it, in opening this case to the Jury,
put it NI a case of great injury to the plaintiff. of violated feelings,
and of the most artful seduction by the defendant. It appeared,
however, in the result of the inquiry, that no very great damage
bad been sustained except by the plaintiff's wife, who earned to
have been most unfortunate in all her smatery crornexions. The
defendant resides at Ilanoam Court, near Bristol, and is a Magis-
trate tar that district of the county of (Bowater, and also for the
county of Somerset. The plaintiff is at ptelebt in possession of a
competent property, though at the time when he married he wasa
traveller for a London house. Having had occasion to go, in the
course of business. through the West of England, he aecidentall
became acquainted with Mr. Latcham, a solicitor, near Bristol
31r. Latcham had a daughter, with whom the plaintiff formed an
attachment and married. This took ewe in 1612. A thousand
pounds were given, by way of fortune, by Mr. Laminar, which was
settled upon her, the plaintiff's brother and fatiter..in.law being
appointed trustees. After the marriage the plaintiff and his wire
came to London, where they remained eight nr nine months ; and
then he was induced, by the wish of 'his wife, to reside among
1 er friends, and go down to Bristol and set up business as a
plumber, in partnership with one Jeffries. The 10001. which had
been settled on Mrs. Parkes, Mr. Latcham was persuaded to ad-
sauce, by way of loan, tonesist ip carrying on the business; sot.
withstanding this, they failed in 1814, and this money, for which
Jeffr:es gave his bond, was entirely lost. From this period till estiy
to the year 11318, the plaintiff and his wife lived together, 124 baying
170 employment, when he once more returned to London, to sae,
it he could get something to do. Toward the e... 1 of this yaw, or
the beginning of 1817, he succeeded in obtaining at appMirtmeste
in an establishment near Soho-square, in which he wad his wills
were to reside jointly. He then went down to Bristol to bring
her up, but she refused to return with him. From this period
be had taken no further notice of her, although her father's
antes having become embarrassed, and she, with her two chit.
Oren, had very little means of support; not only had he not
sent for her again, but he had never ant her even • farthing
to help her. About the close of the year 1819 she was in.
troduced to the house of the defendant, with whom very shortly
after she formed the criminal connexion for which this action was
brought. They left Hannan' Court, went to Exeter, thence to Ex.
mouth, where they resided some dme,and thence to Lyndhurst, near
Sauthatnciton, in Hampshire, where they remained another period.
11 this time Mrs. Parkes had three children to the defendant, one
of whom died. Towards the latter end of 1822, the defendant,
tired with the obscurity in which he had been living, and satiated
with his victim, returned to his residence near Bristei and die-
. isimed his connexion with Mrs. Parkes, but when pressed with
the charge by a Mr. Fry, an old acquaintance of Mrs. 'Parka's,
to whom in her distress she had written, her father and mother
being Stith dead, he admitted that he had lived with her, and had
uoly abandoned her in consequence of her depraved habits. Mr.
.dry, determined to ascertain the truth of this charge, went to see
tier, and found her listing indeed in a state of great poverty, but
diligently labouring to support herself and children, and appear.
ing to conduct herself with propriety. In the course of the year
1824, Mr. Parkes became possesst of a considerable property ;
be then brought this action, anxious to obtain • divorce, and rid
himself of his wife. It appeared that In the successive migrations
• the defendant and the plaintiff's wife, they had assumed& new
name at every stage, a circumstance on which the A tiorney.Gene-
;al relied, as proving their desire to keep their connexion a secret
'from their friends.
Mr. Latcham, the brother of the plaintiff's wife, proved the mar-
riage. On his examination be said, "My father is a solicitor, and
at the time of the marriage was residing; near Bristol. My sister
war then about 19 ; she was the only daughter; she is a first cousin
181 .61r. Parkes, her husband. The marriage took place with the
approbation of her family. Mr. Parkes was then a traveller to a
bowie in Laudon. He mosamsed property to about 10001. and mad*
a settlement on his wife. He was about thirty years of age. Mr.
and Mrs. Parkes after the marriage went to reside in London.
After a few years they returned to Bri;tol, and Mr. Parkes entered
into business with a person of the name of Jeffries. This partner-
ship was after some time dissolved, and llr. Parkes returned to
London, Mrs. Parkes continuing to live with ha father arhl mo-
ther. In the March of 1821 her mother died, and her father in
December 1822. The &leaden' has acted as a magistrate of
Gloucester and Somerset. In the years 18111 and 1820, he was
living at Hannan Court. Dlr. Latcham, Mrs. Parkes's father, acted
at clerk to the magistrates; they became in consequence acquaint.
44 Mr. LatcLam was for several months at Hannan Court. It
it twalwo•yeaessisas hived aids my father.,, Ii year KM Ma.
Pokes was missing from Bristol. On my fhther'e dot th I suc-
ceeded him."

Cross-examined by filr.Seauxr rr—l did not object to the mar-
riage. They married on the 9th November 1811, and then went to
La/am lam sure I don't know whether they were in London
two or three years. When I was in London on business, I called
at their house, but never slept then. Parkes, on going to Bristol,
canted on the business of plumber and gluier for several months.
They failed. and Parkes returned back to London. Parkes,
and her two children lived several years with my father and mother
a..er this. They had no support but what my father gave them.
y father supported her, notwithstanding she went to Mr. Picker. '
lug's and Mr. Fisher's. I do not remenber seeing Mr. Parkes!
atm he returned to London. I may have said that " Parkes be.
baved like a scoundrel to his wife." 1 don't believe they lived
happily together. She refused to return to London again. -I know
the handwriting of Mr. Milward, the plaintiff's attorney. (The!
witness here verified several letters which were put into his band.)
A tter my tether's death, the eldest of the children was brought to
me to support it. I wrote up to Mr. Parkes about it, and got no
answer, and sent it to the parish, who sent it up to him. Mr. Cm.
wicks, about the years 1019 and 1020, was under great embarrass.
meets. I know nothing of his concern now.
Thomas Tippett—l lived at Exeter in 1020. I remember the
dAndant coming to my house in August 1820, with a lady, end
intmduced her as Mrs. Humphrey, calling himself Mr. Humphrey.'
They did not take lodgings in Exeter. He afterwards went to Ex-
Liouth and took a cottage there; I then became snore intimately
a,quainted with them. He never spoke of her but as his wife. She'
had a child there; after the birth of the child be frequently tame
to Exeter. He made no communication to me about leaving Ex.
month. The child was brought to Exeter. The child was nursed
by a Mrs. Ford. They left this neighbourhood in 1021 ; the child
was left behind at nurse; the. never returned again together. In
February 11122, I againsaw /dr. Creswtcke; he stated his object
to be to take away the chile. I brought away the child and gave
is to Mr. Humphrey. Previous to this he declared who he really
was, and said the lady was not his wife. 1 had known before who
she was; I might perhaps have mentioned this to him before be
told me.

Mrs. Sarah Gourlay—l am niece of Mr. Abraham Kenna, ; my
uncle has a cottage at Exmouth. I remember Mr. Huniphrey
tailing on him about the cottage ; my uncle stated the rent was 1001.;
the lady wished him to take it, aa it was expensive living at an
Inn ; after some time, I observed she wee in the family way ; they
were there shout eight or nine months ; I saw him again in Fe-
bruary 1822. and he said than he did not know where she was.
Mr. Clarke-1 reside in Exmouth ;in 1820, 1 was requested to
attend Mrs. Humphrey, and on the 27th Nov. delivered her of a
male

Mr. Clarke—l am a surgeon at Crtdherst, near Southampton ;
I remember a gentleman and lady of the name of Hill coming
there. and delivered her of a child, in January, 1822; the lady
passed as Mr. Hill's wife. 1 frequently visited them. I have su►.
sequenily ascertained their real names. She is now living in a state
d rest poverty, and her two children with her. She supports her.
..et by neiAle.work. I have not seen him there Ekes the 10th No.
'ember. 1022.
Mr. pr,-1 taw the defendant after We Man. I showed hidi,
?Are Par►es's letters to me. Ile promised to give me M. ►tr them
next morning. He did not pry this sum to me the next morning,
ino lie did afterwards. Ile said that he had lived in Devonshire
9vh her. He said he had one child by her. I found her in a
imtage at needle.wolk • she appeared to be conducting herself
r•ith propriety. The defendant said one of the children was
and ascribed another to Doctor Clarke. lie asked me for her let.
terw to me ; he got them about a fortnight ago; he paid me the
204 fee her about a fortnight since. I sent the lets,* to him a few
dart age. Ido not know that Mr. Creswicke possouirs considerable

unies-eastriined by Mr. BCAILETT.—Before I sent the letters
to Mr. Creswicke, I tried to make something of them by Parkes.
I asked hint If he would not give me a aunt of money for them. I
legged at Mr. Latchanes four years; while there I knew Mr.
Creswieke only by name. I left shortly after Mrs. Parkes and her
children came to the house in 1816. I stayed two months after she
tame. Mr. ',wham was very poor. I did not have to make room
for her. I had known Mrs. Parkes 20 years. Her father wns not
style to support her She went first to kir. Pickering's, and then to
Mr. Fisher's. I saw her frequently while there. Ilex child was
put to school by Mr. Pickering, who is a naval cflieer. She ye.
moaned there two months. I have heard of her inlvtr,rd getting
an... little matter' of plate away. I was not in the lishit of seeing
Mr. Cresenke. It was suspected, when Mr. Creswickc and lifts.
Valles disappiered, that they were gone off together. I know
no-
enng of Mr. Creswicke's circumstances. I do not 'know that lie
went all to avoid being arrested.
Re-evamined by Mr. ATTORIZT-GENTRAL.--Her mother
held about two years after she went down to Bristol.
thornes Parkes.—l am brother to the plaintiff: I lived in the
know. of Mr. and Mrs. Parkes eight or nine months after they *ere
matriat. I was in the habit of visiting them afterwards. tie in-
dulged her In every thing she could require. When my brother
...nue to bond'', In 1816, lie did so on the advice of his wife's fa-
tter, who said he would take rare of her till my brother got a Ctua..
matt- My I indite gut a situation in the latter end of the year 1818.
lie went down to Bristol for the purpose of ininging her up. In
18/4 my brother became possessed of a considerable property.
t,:rens..eattmitted by Mr. Ecnat.Err —He gas his property by s
*natant relation. Front the latter end of the year 1816, or the be.
gt.inmg of 1817, till the year 1820. I believe he neversaw her. He
..ever went to bring tier up again to my knowledge, nor to my
knmelidge did he ever make any inquiries after her till the year
I

Thomas Joseph Fievetn—After the plaintiff and his wire were
married, I we* in the habit of ?jettison then in town. They ap.
P.seat to be brine very happily. 1 did not risk them much.

By Mr. BR nutmeat... A-low did they live during the years 1817,
1818, and 1819 P
The Loan Cntxt JUSTICE-Why do you ask such a ques-
tion ? They were not living together then.
Mr. BacouGUAll—l thought this question as much to the point
as that of the A ttorney-General, who asked how they Dyed during
the first six months after marriage.
Three latent were here pat in and read, to show the connexion
between the defendant and the plaintiff's wife, and to show on
what terms they were toward each other. Two of them were
written in 1823, after the defendant abandoned her in Hampshire.
They only related to two small sums of money which he was send.
ing her, and were no way remarkable, except as showing the diffi.
etilty which he had in raising such small sums as 51. and 31.,
which were sent on each occasion. The other letter was written in
1819, and marked the period at which this connexion first began.
Its formal tone clearly Indicated that up to theffieriod of its being
written no Illegal intercourse had taken place between them. The
contrary was .attempted to be established by the plaintiff's Counsel.
" My dear Madam—Having conferred with Mr. Latham,' think
it best to defer Matilda's coming home until Tuesday -or Wednes-
day, when I will fetch you beth. Should her remaining with
you not be attended with any inconvenience, will thank yon-to
hand her the enclosed ; otherwise do not do so, but give me a line.
I feel more than obliged for your kir,dness, and remain, dear
Madam, your obliged Setvaut,
" Dec. 25th, 19. "HUM. Cnrswtcxt."
Mr. Se All LETT, for the defendant, addressed the Jury at consi-
derable length. He did little more than restate the facts as they
had been disclosed in evidence, and argue from them that, before
the Magnal intercourse took place, the plaintiff had abandoned
his wife, that he had sustained no damage, and that he brought
this action merely because having recently and unexpectedly
become possesaed of a considerable property, he wished to have a
divorce. _ .

The LORD CHIEF Jr9T ter merely directed the attention of the
Jury to the principal features of the case.
After a short consultation, they returned a verdict fot the plain-
tif--Damages
LIBEL. • -
WILLOUGHBY v. YET-strive.
This was an action for libel published by the defendant in the
Chester Chruir;ek, of which he is the proprietor, imputing perjury
to the plaintiff in an affidavit on some proceedings in Chancery.
Mr. SCARLETT stated the CMe to the Jury. He began by
making some remarks on the caution which editor,' of newspapers
ought to exercise in the admission of any paragraphs reflecting on
individuals, and much more how cautious they should be in making
such paragraphs, which were not unfrequently contributed by in-
terested parties, the foundation of any remarks by themselves. He
complained of the general inaccuracy of the reports of law pre-
ceedins in newspapers, especially in regard to the technicalities
and the legal 'language used in the courts, except on some
very great and interesting occasions, when more than usual
care and exertion were made to give the proceedings in all
their detail; he seemed to Insinuate that the reports were gene-
rally pregnant with blunders and inaccuracies. It appears that the
plaintiff is a publican, and formerly kept a-public-house at High-
bury, where he acquired a considerable property. In consequence
of representations by Mr. Crossley, the agent of Lord Grosvenor,
the plaintiff was induced to take the Royal Hotel, Chester. The
plaintiff's conduce, for some reason or other, had not been sods-
factory to Lord Grosvenor or his agents, and, his rent tailing in
as-rear, an execution was put into the house. He applied to the
Coon-of Chancery for an injunction to stay the execution, which
was afterwards dissolved, anti the money paid brthe plaintiff to avoid
the sale of his goods. Parties, it appears, ran high at Chester, the
aironick and the Courant being their two organs. The plaintiff
having procured the insertion in the Courant of what bethought a '
fair account of the pmeeetlings in Chancery, the matter wry taken
up in the Chronicle for the 2fith Dee., 18'24, in a paragraph en-
qtled " The Willoughby Controversy," and which, in effect,
called him a liar.
E. Willoughby examined by Mr. WILLIABII.—I am son of the
plaintiff; he has resided in Cheater since 1819. I know the defen-
dant; he is proprietor of the Chester Chronicle. I know Mr.
Crossley, the agent of Lord Grosvenor. He Interfered in the
letting of the hotel.
Cross-examined by Mr. ATTORITIT-OIHrRAL.—I took
seve-
ral papers to the Courant; they were taken by Mr. Itrilloughby's
desire. I suppose they were taken for the purpose of being inserted.
1 did not pay foe the insertion. I did not reettat their ppeply in-.
sertlon. They were not sealed. I did not real thong" "'t ,had
taken them a few days before the article entitled " the Willough-
by Controversy" appeared in the Chester Chronicle. Ido not re-
collect that I ever had any conversation with my father about them.
I never heard him say " how well I have trimmed Me. Crossley."
I know my father wrote the second of them. My father's goods
were seized in execution by Lord Gmsvenor. The execution was
suspended fourteen days duriog some proceedings in Chancery, till
the money could be paid into Court.
An affidavit that Fletcher, the defendant, was the printer and
publisher of the Chester Chrossick, was put in and proved.
The ATTORKEIA3THRRAL addressed the Jury for the de-
fendant.
The Limb Cs= lowelertnid the Jury that as the publica-
tion bad been proved, and no justification hail been put on The re-
cord, they must of course find for the plaintiff : the amount of da-
mages was for their consideration.
After retiring from the Court for some time, the Jury returned
and gave a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 3901.