The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-02-09 00:00:00

corn? OF CO7.!MtIN SATURDAY, Fca. 7.

OCKILIMIT V. MAW.
31r. Sergeant VAl'Oß•lt recalled the attention of their Lord-
ships to the rule which had been obtained is this case by Alr. See-
-1 ge.iat Pell, at the eununencementelf the term. for the purpose of
setting aside an execution issued by the plaintiff against the goods
lof the defendant, for levying a sum of Mi. It will be recollected
by our reader., that this was a second action brought against the
defendant for ilegligeuce in the corduet of a school in Yorkshire.
There had been a trial against the same defendant on the previous
day, and the plaintiff in that action having recovered the sum of
ZIOL damagia, the plaintiff in the present ruse accepted a verdict
'for the same sum on the following morning. The damages in
the first action, and the oasts of both, having been paid. Mr.
Ockerby °Klett to give thedelenilant time for the payment of these
accepted dannves, and the defendant offered to cuter into some AT-
I TA, gements, chic"), not mcetirg with the concurrence of the plain-
tit, the exceution heal been issued, and the motion to set it aside
was then moved, on the ground that it had issued in breach of
faith between the parties. The burned:it-want now. stated, that
although he might base discharged this auk some days since,
he had yet forborne to bring it on, in order to give time foe allepr-
rangement which he believed had now taken place. He wet In-
formed that none of his Learned Brothers had been instructed to
support this rule, and be therefore moved that it might be dis-
diaAl Sergeant PELL said, that he had received no instructions
whatever sine: he had obtained the rule, and it was therefore dia-
-1 charged.

rowtre v. erett.ty.
This was an action on a promisanry note, which was milled on
for trial at the sittings after last Tenn at Guddhall, when the
plaintiff rot appeuieg, he was nonstuited. , I
Mr. Ser;:eant PELL, on a former day, had obtained a yule to I
Ishew cause why the further pmextlings in this cause should not be
i stayed, on the ground that the nonsuit had been obtained by a
breach of faith. lle founded his motion on affidavits, wbieli stated,
that the Plaintiff had set down the cause for trial, end was in daily
attendance at the Court, fully prepared to go on, but that the de.
fondant repeatedly importuned hint to settle the matter, and at
leng'i, in a conversation between them at a publie.house near •
, Guildhall. it was agreed that each party should pay Ins own coats,
• and that they should toss up for the debt; that he should be the I
winner who gained twice out of three throws, and that if the plain- I
'tiff won, he should accept a hill for half the debt only, payable at
three months; but that if he lust, the defendant should be altoge.
the? absolved. That they acenrcliegly p to toes up three
times, and the defendant won the throws, by which he became alt_
solved tont the debt, but remained hound to pay his share of the
;pmts. The affidavits then pruceetled,te allege, that the defendant,
in breach of the engagement, when the cause was Hied oe for
ois", had appeared and entered a nonsuit against the plaintiff, who
was absent trout Court, believing the business concluded by the
I agreement.
Mr. ricvjeant VAVOTIAN now stewed cause against the rule, and
produced atlidaysts on the part of the defendant, which stated the
arrangement to a very differeat manner. From them it appeared,
that the 'darning had requested an arrangement, and that the de-
(indent being at last driven. by his importunity, to grant
request it, ac-
ceded to his on the following terms the debt should
he cancelled, that the plainutf should pay his own costs, and that
they should toss up three times to determine whether the plaintiff
should not pay 101. out of the defendant's cows. That they did
toss up, and the Scientism wan themes, mi that he then med.
shred this rause at an end; but baying instructed counsel, and the
cause being called on the next day, in breach af the arrangement,
his counsel had appeared and chilmed a nonsnit. The affidavits
also alleged, that the cause was called on in the presence of the
Plaintiff. his attorney, and several persons whom defendant believed
to be his witnesses. The Learned Serjeant submitted that, sup-
posing this to be a valid arrangement, the plaintiff ought to have
withdrawn his record, sine that not having done so when the cause
was called on, in breach of the supposed agreement, the defendant
bad a right to claim a nonsuit.

The Court being of that opinion, discharged the rule.

ARCHES' COURT, SATURDAY, Fes. 7.

THE REV. SORT. FITE. 11:11.ra AND OTHERS r. LANE.
This was a suit brought before. the Court at the instance of the
Rev. Mr. Fuller, the Rector of the perish of Ling Held, in Surrey,
against the defendant Lane, for the purpose of trying the question
of right which he alleged himself to hare to the sole possession of a
' pew in the said church. The facts stated to the Court, by Dr. Lush-
ippon, on the part of lane, to 'hew his right of exclusive occupa-
tion of the pew, were briefly these:—Mr. Lane had married a lady
whose ancestor had erected the pew in question, and who had pos..
session of it until his death, and he bequeathed the same to his
heirs.

Dr. Jr:sews:it, on the part of the Rector, contendel, that Mr.
Lane had not a legal claim to exclusive possession, and argued the
question at considerable length.
Sir Jotmr Nichol., in pronouncing the judgment of the Court,
said, it appesred that the parish of Lingfield contains M families,
and 1710 Inhabitants, and the parish church contains Hi pews, for
the accommodation of those attending Divine Service ; therefore
it war evident that there was not sufficient accommodation for the
whole of the parishioners, in consequence of the great increase of
population in that parish. It had been airmen that most of the
pews were capable of affording convenient seats for seven persons,
but the pew claimed as the exclusiviteigke of the defendant was ca-
pable of containing sixteen persons. It also appeared, that the fa-
mily of Mr. Lane consiated of See 'persons only, and that there was
room foe eleven others; under these circumstance'', when the de-
fendant refused permission to admit only the members of Lis own
family into the pew, the Church being insufficient for the parish.
loners, the Minton' was bound to institute this suit. It appeared
that at the time of the citation Mr. Lane was not even a partshoner,
but at the present time he is possessed of a house and several acres
of ground, and had taken up his domicile in the parish. It was fur
the Court, under these eireumstances, to decide, whether his claim'
to tie exclusive possession of the pew was well founded ; and it
was the opinion of the Court, after attending to the evidence pro-
pounded, and the arguments therein, that the defendant was not
'lidded to exclusive possession, and therefore granted an admission
of the plaintiff's allegation.

JOHNSON r. JOHNSON,
This wan( a snit instituted by Mrs. Elizabeth Johnson, against
her husband, for divorce, on the ground of adultery.
Dr. Lusutizorom, on behalf of the lady, stated the case to the
Court and preyed the admimion of tile libel.
_ _ _

Mr:ADAMS, the Counsel for Mr. Johnson, addressed the Court
on behalf of his client, in opposition to the libel. The parties, af-
ter a courtship of acme time, were married in the year 1818, and
continued residence and cohabitation together till the latter end of
the year Hlt 1. During the last two years of this cohabitation they
resided at Linfield in Sussex, which place was alleged to be the
scene of the various transactions pleaded in the libel. It was al.
',led, that from the month of March, 1820, until the 2d of Octo-
ber, 1822, the defendant, Henry Leach Johnson, endeavoured, by
means of solicitation, entreaty, and force, to have criminal inter-
course with several of his servant girls. It was stated by a female
named Elliot, that she was a servant in the defendant's family from
I thejth of October, 1819, to the 31st of August following, and the
I defendant freqnently solicited her to consent to an adulterous inter-i
I oours- with hun daring the abwrnce cf his wife front home. An-
other female servant named Fleet, also stater the saute fart, and
by the affidavit of a female named Weston, it appeared he hail sub-
sequently to that period acted in a similar manner towards her ; and
all these deponents say, that btu for their resistance he would have
effected his purpose. The Learned Doctor (Adams) was of opi-
, shin, that allatever were the intentions ot Mr. Johnsna, the charge
ofedultery had not been established, and upon looking into the de-
positions of these women, it appeared that they did nut cry nut for
astostance at the time, nor did they inform their mistress, or any
one else, cf the conduct of the defendant, but they continued tore.
side in the house for a considerable time after these attempts., and
concealed the circumstances until they were Interrogated by Mr.
Owen, the father of the lady. The Court therefore would weal*
der what degree of weight was to be given to such evidence.
Sir Joni( Nrcrtot. s.tid, that it appeared by the affidavits, that
the dettneara Johnson, for a longperiod, was in the practice of at-
tempting the chastity of his servants, but that his assaults were Te•
sisted, and he was unable to accomplish his object. He subse-
quently formed a connexian with loose and abandoned women, and
the consequences were fatal to his health. He had at that time
bran married about foist years to his lady, and had had two chil-
dren by her, and in consoituence of his cruelty in this respect, she
separated hem him, and then he addressed a letter to her, urging
her to forgive him ; solicting her to reside with him again, and
pledging himself that his future conduct should make amends for
his past impropriety. This letter was, to a certain extent, an ad.
ariasion of the allegation, and he (the Learned Judge) therefore
'eh himself bound to pronounce for the admission of the libel.

LENT ASSIZES.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.

Befog Sri hall' EU/110DM! 113:14 Sir JOHN RICHARDSON,
11;:ltx.

Borthamptao—Monday, Alarth 8, at the Castle of Winchester.
AVilts—Saturday, 31arch 13, at New Sarum.
Durset—Wednesolay Much 17, at Dorchester.
Devon—Monday, ~,larch 28, at the Castle oif
City and County of Exeter—Ditto, at the Guildhall of ditto.
C:rowall-3iontlay, March 29. at Launceston.
Somerset—Saturday, April',, at the Castle of Tannton.

MEETINGS OF CREDITORS;
AT TILE Ii•XXRUPTI. COURT, UASIRGUAL4STRRET,

TO.3loltHo.s.

THIRDLk TING. se.
Pratt, J. Ilatton-wall, Rattan-gartlu), paaiour 10