The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1822-12-23 00:00:00

••,

LAW INTELLI6MCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Dimon' It

Me. Busses requested leave to asentiou to his Lordship
Bin ease of WkiteSows T. Riskiness, which involved • placa-
tion as to the Vice-Chanosillor'sjurisdict ion. In this cause, the
Plaintiff having obtained an injunction, the Defendant pat is
his answer, to which exceptions bad been tiled, and some of
I them had been allowed by the Master. The Plaintiff then ob-
tained an order from the Muter of the Rolls requiring the
Defendant to answer the exceptions and the amendments at
' the same time. A notice of motion was then given before the
Vito-Chancellor that the Plaintiff should make the amend- II
menus within len days,or that the order should be discharged.
-On opening the motion a doubt had been expressed
whether, under the Act of Parliament erecting the other of
Vice-Chancellor, he had any power to discharge such an or-
der,and his Honour had requested that it might be mentioned
le his Lordship.
The Loan Casisenu.oa-" I am quite clear that he has no
each power ,• I remember that in the Act referred to, every
sible caution was taken to prevent the Vice Chisseellor
interfering with, or controlling any, error of the Master
e Rolls."
ROwE V. LANE AND OTHERS.
In this case, Mr. Shsdwell, some days since, applied fa •
jade Rowe, for an injunction to restrain.the Defendant( Lane)
Bum receiving, and the other Defendants, who were True •
Ire of an Insurance Company, froiß paying the sum of
WM., being the amount of a policy of insurance on a life
which had dropped.
Tbo Plaintiffbad assigned this policy to LAO. and Bennet
as a security fora biller costs. He did not dispute the debt
nor the security until about Sic minutes before the money was
to be paid, when he lilted his bill and gave notice of motion
1 for an injunction.
1 Mr. HART now appeared to shew CAM against the injunc-
tion on the ground or the unreasonable delay.
His Lordship isonetiried with Mr. Hart, and refused the
injunction.
ADAMSON V. HALL.
Mr. Snsnwsu. applied for an injunction to restrain the
Defendant from continuing a manufactury for boiling soap,
which he bad erected near the Plaintiff's residence, and also
to oblige him to build • party wall between the manufactory
and the Plaintiff's house, which was endangered by the
furnaces and other apparatus of the Defendant.
Mr. HART opposed the application on the ground that the
nuisance, if there was any, was matter of indictment rather 1
than for the interference ura Court or Equity.
His Lordship refused the injunction.
Several unimportant and unopposed motions were then
I proceeded with. On one being called on, where Mr. Heald
was of Counsel, Mr Hart said he was not in Court.
The Lone Citaxcur.oa-" Remember, that if there are any
motions which can be made to-day and are not, I will sot
bear them on Monday."
--....5u..

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Wevriststessa.
Ds ccccc a
Wedileawr Sittings, Were tie Lone Cause Jorrica and a
Common Jury.
TB* ZITO V. THR REV. RICHARD BINGHAM, CLIEZ.
lids was an indictment for wilful and corrupt perjury, al.
leged to bare been committed by the D..fendant in an afilda-
vit Sled In this Court, for the purpose of setting aside an
annuity granted by the Defendant to persons of the names
of Rilvington and Boston.
The Solicitor General, Mr. Mezryatt, Mr. Gurney, and
Mr. Zspittasse, were for the prosecutiou ; and Mr. Scarlett
and Mr. Adolphus were for the defenoe.
The substance of the case for the prosecution was this :
In the year tile, the Defendant being perpetual curate of
the curacy of Gosport, and possessed of freehold property
at rarebits', Titchfield, sod Alverstoke, in the county of
Southampton, was desirous of raising upon the security of
tbe latter, a sum of 3,0001. by way of annuity, and for that
purpose applied to Mr. Beujamin Lewis, an attorney of
Mart-lane, to megotiate_ the lose. At this limo the Rev
Defendant v good -Arassed • - freehold -
tate.
there
Mr. I
leodant

secured
Boston,

of Decembe►.

to. _
rawest

ilrt'

E

Aduduvc
meat of the oteatinakdiedemlnis and the mestaltan
should remain a Yr. 8. Lewis's hands. This was tisiesasi
of a previous conference, before the deeds ware slammed.
After some time being occupied in the litiostineat of Mired
de• to the mortgagee, a bundle of baisk-iothe, whit* he
supposed to be Wool., was banded over by Mr. B. Lewis td
Mr. Bulletin, in this manner! Mr. B. Lewis held °cued of
the bundle of bank-notes and the defendant the other, and
then was returned by the defendant to Mr. B. Lealn id
bulk. This was witness's own impression limn his memory
,of what took plats seven years ago. The mortgage meet,
waspaid by Mr. B. Lewis to Mr. Rouse, the mortgagee. no
rest a the money remained in the Windsor Mr. B. Lewis, the
latter claiming slie guineas for 116 bill of costs. The Agee-
dant only carried away tool.: he wanted more; the defended
was In haste, and wanted to get away by the mail-coach.
Cross-examined.—The °nisi ending judgments ageing the
defendant, at that lime, amounted to more than I,cool. Had
no recollection of Mr. B. Lewi, counting out the notes ; would
not swear that they bad nut been counted out. His impres-
sion was that the mortgage money was paid by Mr. Lewis to
Mr. Rouse, and not by the directions of the defendant. World
not swear the contrary. Did not know of the motion moo
by the defendant to set aside the annuity.
Upon this evidence being given,
The Lone Cater Jounce interposed and said, it
to him that the whole question in the cave was as to fret
mony used In paying over the consideration money of the sn-
ottily. The wltnessjust examined gave bis evidence with,
real propriety, and he was evidently impartial. If, thee, ac-
cording to his impression and recollection, that °courted
which the defendant had sworn in his as it, it seemed but
reasonable that the Defendant might also have imbibed the
same impression ; and if so, it was too much to say that the
'Ward in question was the result of a deliberate determina-
tion to sum that which was untrue. If the Counsel for the
prosecution viewed the Me in this light, it would hardly be
necessary to proceed further.
The But.terroa-OZNUAL said, that liner such a suggestion.
he could not think of carrying the case tart her.
The Jury were then directed to acquit the Defendant, and
be was accordingly found—Not Gouty.

L *COW V. 111100111 S, OTHERWtSIL ISAACS.
This was an action for goods sold and delivered to the
amount of 4161. The Defendant pleaded, that when the debt
was contracted she was a married woman, being the wife or
one Henry Higgins, an attorney of Dublin.
Mr. Scarlett; Mr. Espinasse, and Mr. Dowling, were fee
the plaintiff; and Mr. Solicitor General and Mr. F. Pollock
were for the defendant —The plaintiff was a fashionable par•
ftgaer, and his wife a Court dress-maker, Using at the we
sod of the Town. The amount of the bill in euestim was be
articles of perfumery, and for elegant dresses sold and deli-
vered to the defendant, by her own order, from Mum+, 11119,
to December, 189o' the plaintiff believiiig raw all the time to
be • widow Indy. She was described as a very elegant dash -
lag woman, thing in splendid style. To sustalyi the:Zip
pleaded. it was proved that in the year Ills the del' •
then the widow of a Mr. Isaac, an crater in an African carpi,
was living in Paris, and was married to Mr. Henry Higgins,
an attorney of Dublin, bran Irish olergymaa named Sullivan.
at en hotel at Versailles k that since then they had pawed as
MU end wife in England and Ireland, had !.ad a child; and
were visited and received by their friends, relatises, and ac-
quaintance, as • man and wife. The only witness to the mar-
riage called was Mr. Higgins Everard, who swore that be
was prase* at the marriage ceremony; but it appeared from
his own letters to the plaintiff's attorney, that it the latter
would pay him sal. he would leave the country, and not
become a witness in this cause. This was positively denied
by Mr. Everard.
In answer to the Defendant's plea, the Plaintiff's Connscl
relied upon the law of France, which it was contended.
would render this marriage abboletely null and void. By tho
laws of that country, before a mitering° can become Ictal, it
Is required that the parties shell be first married by the
Mayor of the district, where they mug bate been residine;
liar *Me than six weeks ; and that four male witnesses shall
be present at the ceremony, who roust swear that they bad
known the couple for many years. No clergyman, w hatever
lds reli iong may be, can perform the marriage ceremony,
mho cer t es te from the Mayor is presented at the
ratruch as they would be subjected to criminal pu-
An ambassador has a right, bet in his own house
of Alpel only, and In his own presence, or that of his repre-
e - ap' such
it