The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-03-02 00:00:00

LAW NOTICES•

COURT OF CHANCERY.
ITITTOPT TIIT % ter, lIANCRLLOR, T/119 VAT, AT PALITTAST TRW.
KnlOt v. Kuleht--Part 1 &flume v. Witham Member T. tiolchs-
heard I Boleti v. Whyte worthy
Dawkins v. I.ord Port- 0,...At1y I. Prank:in Leach v. Mhapeon—At
more Bratlrtsvw T. Peer d:lentlAnC4 request
Cwt.. V. Murrell Ha set v. Taylor Emus v. Ilauttuy.
11411114 in V. !fermata

• ROLLWcorwr.
IRIS DAT.
The Matter of the BAIA wIU rk thle evening, at Ste.

COI
LONDON SPCCIAL
Clara. v. Your

URT OF RING'S BENCH.
30111111, WWI DAT. AT lIALT-PAST NINA.
Ag I Wright y. Jackoon
LroVDOV COICAON .IvalRA.
1 Junco v.Aritinetall Norton v. Bentley
i llopley v. Gardiner Sicrison v. Le Crew
Aw.titi v. Pagshas Samuel v. Levy
Hoye v. Simpson Benjamin v. Gyihy
Price v. Drown Lutwyche v. WOregor
lianroni v. Gee Taylor v. Trott,
Tanner v. Williams Berridge v. Compton
Wilkine v. Ito.gter Regan v. John White-
Wright v. Fran. ' heed
Fro. 4 v. Ilryitiit Same V. Jao.Whitehead
lAA. it. AV ArPOINTISETT4—TO-7.101A0W.
—Lint, I solid:v.oo r. Neitor
L;ato-te v. Thumpvon

(ieoe•e v. fallout

Hubbard v. lla.h

%Wilkinson v.Middleton
:Savage v. Humphrey
il'hite v. Mackeurie
Oppenhelm v. Jackson
Illnoand v. Paten

Gibpn V. Smiihvois
Bingham
Jennings e. Rests

-innuov SPICI
Stone v. MR/flab-
by Older

LONltts'i t
The Xleg v G.od-pred
Burn and anuthar :e.

It'r OF COMMON PLFAS.
ommo• JURIX% TRIG PAY, AT TRV.
liiggl v. Cove Churchyard v. Reed
lieset v. Claridge Yeatev v. Chapman
anders v. l Rippea *
sumev v. Hunter
enninev v. Day ltouchrr v. Abbott
Doe v. Cole. Fate, v. Hodge
Dowson V. Cole Brown v. stapviton
Ames and another v. Clarke and another v.
H e Von M'aller
Tonle and others v. Pieker,pill v. Clement
1111941lati Same v. 'Dorcas.
- - -

Rills v. maws
Vrieuur V. ,

Itedtsid v. Thompao.
Servers v. L.A.'s.
Bettf.yrd aad another*.
Mitchell

cOl.t.VT:itifekard

PW INTELLIGENCE.

COUI4. 11,ANIDEItY. WitintzenAy, 11fAscit 1.

MARRIAGE IN CONTEMPT.
?AMASON V. DOL.
Mr. Settees stated that this was an application by petition, on
behalf of Aim Summon, the legatee, in reversion of the whole
estate of the Ipte William Dar, an eminent tallow-chandler in the
'Beeough, toateteirithe ettki Anne Sampson against the effects of a
Marriage with Wiliism Hayward, in contempt of Court, she being
a ward of Chancery, and hiving contracted the marriage without the
Lord Chancelines convent. The object of the application was to
emu= the property, which would eventually fall to the share of the
said Anne Samoan, who was an infant. end had resided with
the teetator, Wilgam Doe, previously to his den o. The petitioners
-were, Thos. Doe geld the other executors and trusters of the estate of
the late Wm. Doe.. By the will various legs ties were greeted, among
others a legacy of ha to the father of the plaintiff. 1001. to the
plaintiff herwelf, UK to the. Doe during her lifetime, and the
residue of the property was bequeathed for life to Thomas Doe
(his brother, as we undo-mood the ceee, and the mune tif the plain-
tiff.). Atter the death or the said Thome,' Doe the whole property
was to devolve to' Mise Sampson, and was in the mean time, ac-
cording to the provisions of the will, to be laid out in the funds,
under the directions of the Lord Chancellor. The edaintiff was suf-
fered to continue under the protection of Mrs. Doe, the widow of
tee testator, and the attained the age of 111 years in August last. A
person to the none of Wm. Hayward, of the age of forty-five, ob.
mined the young lady's consent to marry her Her father ob-
jected on various grounds, and suggested the propriety of an ap-
plication to Thomas Doe, as he was the executor of Vl'lllitim Doe's
imitate. ll eywerd accordingly applied to Thomas Doe, the resi-
duary legatee, and consequently the executor of %Wm. Doe, for his
consent to the marriage, but was told by hint that Miss Sampson
had a father, and that the npplication must therefore in the first in-
lettuce be made to him. The father, on a second application being
made, told Heyward that he thought it necessary that the Lord
Chancellot's approbation should be obtained, as the lady was a ward
of Court. Advice had been given to Mr. Hayward by a barrister
that this anprohatioi was not necessary, and he so represented the
case to the father. This advice was clearly wrong, as had been
proved in the case of Butler and Freeman; and though the opinion
of the barrister was not now to be produced, it certainly looked sus-
picintia for that reason. One scruple still remained to be overcome
on the part of the father ; it was not very easy to induce him to
convent to the marriage of his daughter, a young lady of eighteen,
with a fortune In expectation of twenty-two thousand pounds in the
Four per Cents., and thirty-four thousand pounds in the Three per
Cents., to a person who was not less than forty-five years of
age, and was only a curate, and an usher in his brother's academy.
1 his scruple was removed by a pecuniary inducement, the Patine
having then no dependence tint his annuity of 501. from Wm. Doe's
estate. Mies Sampson called on her father, according to an affi-
davit read in Court, to induce him to consent. Mr. Hayward pro-
mised to give him 111/. shoo: and 101. when the marriage shotild take
place. On Ig Mg him der father told Miss Sampson that he saw
Isle irtrdifiqsa happy if be did not consent, and intiolleted ate in.
1
tention of dr ing his opposition eh, the match. The marriage
accordingly-Wok _place on theelat Decatiber. Three were the cir-
cumstances of the contempt which the trustees had thought proper
to bring before his Lordship.
Mr. BEASIES admitted that the Rev. %William Hayward was 12
years of age, while the young lady was not more than nineteen;
but the marriage did not, as alleged,*take place only after a few
months' acquaintance between the parties. Their acquaintance
bad commenced at 'Midsummer, 1824. It was fully established, he
'admitted, that the Court must consider such a marriage as a con-
tempt. There could be no doubt on that point ; but there were
circumstances of palliation to be considered. Mes Sampson had
only IOU!. a year at present. She would have 3001. a year, it was
true, on the death of Mrs. Doe, and eventually she was to become
possessed of the whole property ; but her present income was only
1001. a year, while that of Hayward was 2001. He met with the young
lady at the house of Thomas Doc, about Midsummer 1024, when
visiting, as he was in die habit of doing, the diffeent parishioners
with whom he was connected ; and he had been introduced to her
by that gentleman himself. When Doe first refused his consent to
the marriage, he assigned no reason but that the young lady was
yet too young, and that it would be time enough for her to think of
marrying in seven or eight years after ; but he had since stated
that he had opposed the match in the moat decided manner from
the very first time it was proposed. The young lady's father
was afraid to give iiis consent, because he was apprehensive hie
doing se would offend her uncle, on whom he was dependetit, being
a cripple, and having no income or means of subsistence but those
which he derived from the annuity of 501. Lett him by William
Doe. Hayward, to remove this apprehension, told him he should
not lose a frieed by giving his consent to the marriage; that his
daughter would continue to stand his friend ; and that he would
give him 10/. then, and 101. after the marriage should take place.
He paid him the first 10/., but he did so only out of charity aid
compassion. It being reported at Milton, where Hayward resided,
that Anne Sampson was a ward of this Honourable Court, Hay.
ward applied to a banister, who gave it as his opinion that she was
not necessarily so according-to the will, and that there was no occa-
sion to apply to the lewd Chancellor for his consent. Mr. Hay-
ward was willing to make any settlement that may be thought tie-
' ele nu.
i
The Loan CITANCP3.I.O4—What settlement can he make?
Ile am only settle hinteelt.
Mr. SEAMF.S said he was in possession of 2001. a year, while
shetati only India AA !night never litre any more. lie married
her wi-h the consent ohthe widow and the either. The lather was
satisfied that the marriage was necessary for the happiness of his
daughter.
The boon CitawcreeLeon—For the happiness of the daughter
and 201.
Mr. Beemns hoped that the Lord Chancellor, under the cir.
cumbtances of the case, stud satisfied with the affidavit which had
Leen made by Hayward that he was in ignorance, at the time when
be were e,... ad Weieevesefeare that Miss Sane:wan was a ward of
Court, would hesitate le tabidog him with the punishment usual
Ire eases of contempt. •
'Ala Svarit mow eoraplidned of the delay of the petitioners. lie
appeared no behalf of the widow and father. The petition states
that Thomas Hayward expressed his entire disapprobation, anti he
ought long ere this to have made his application to the Court. The
tither appealed to be a tray ignorant person, and was not therefore
to be blamed. There might be some palliation for the receipt of
1 the two sums of 1101. ; as he did not give his consent on that account,
but to prevent the miser/ of his daughter. The Learned Gentle-
! Dian thought that the petitioners should have confined themselves to
wshirg that it Should be referred to the Master to see how the pro-
', petty should be taken care of. It was hoped, therefore, that thin
i poor man would not be dealt with as is usual wi-li poisons who
1
have been guilty of a contempt. of Court. The qtteetion submitted
so the Barrister alluded to was whether the will rendered it abso-
lutely heee•antry that the plaintiff should he a word of Court, and
he had given his opinion merely upon that point.
Mr. tiVENC.S sail the petitionets had not preyed that any person
should be committal to 'tile Fleet. He lied net been instructed to
mietete or give too high a colour to any pnraculars: he would
therefore abstain from all commie its on the affidavit of Hayward.
reverting his ignorance of Anne Sampson', being a ward of Court
at the time of his marriage. Ile would only state that it was mete.
tioned in the will that the property should be laid out in the fund%
under the direction of the Lord Chancellor. The fact of her beteg
a ward of Court could not theretore have admitted a doubt.
'Tile LOND CeteweELeoft bind his gnat object was, in this
case, to look to the happiness ut the lady, whatever blame might he
stippoeed to attach to the different parties concerned in the transac.
tient. The order therefore which he would make would be to refer
it to the Master, to receive proposals about the settlement of the
estate, and to make such arrangement as should secnrc the property
for her separate use, without any power of anticmation ; and, in
ease of her death, to go to any such pertains as she shell appoint ;
and, in default of such speetintnient, to go to her next of kin. No.
thing mere was nt present tacessery ; but it would he open to the
CAllitt treinterfere if any circumstances of the case should utter wards
req•iire arch interference. _ .

COURT OF KING'S BENCH. IVEDNEspAy, MAltcu I.

[Sittings In London before the Loan Clime JUSTICL and e
Special Jury 4
YMYERS AND oTtiatts P. TYE MAYOR AND CORPORATION

OF LONDON.
Till 4 Mil an action brought to recover compensation for damages
°""31°,41 by the pulling 'down of the plaintiffs premises, to make
room for the projected improvements of Eleet.markot. II was
broudbt under We 4tis Of (Setu IV., called the hint-market to-