The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-05-15 00:00:00

THE BRITISH PRESS..

LAIV NOTICES.

COURT OF CHAN:CRT.
Mo Sittings In Chancery, ttfl Tuesday, May 23, which Is Second Seal
Day. Motions only.

ROLLS COURT.
General Petition, at the Rolls, on Tuesday, the Moth May, at Sato Oa
Evening.
Petitions must be set SOWN and copies left with the Secretary, before
two o'clock ou the preceding day.

COURT DP KING'S nr.:Icn.—WRONMIDIY, AT TIALr-FAIT NIXII.
London Common Jurlcs.

.•
I Gayleard v. Blnnday
Bernaacord and other;

I ZSDAT, AI TIN.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Wen
hliddleser Common Junk
Denmark V. Townsend Gay v. Rickman
Donnatty v. Crowder Fisher v. Stcckdale
and another Felton and another
June., v. Cottle and Assignee v. Long
another Allatt v. Douglas and
Prelate.? T. Thwaltes another
Doe v. Barton Rtvenhall v. Coles
Coster v. P. Tatting v. Milburn the
Short v. Henkel and elder
another OvenAton W. v. Davis
T•t•aanwv, Mw Id.
Special Juries.
Sella v. Smith I Batley v. Beaumont.
tam appointed for Friday, May 19.
Rehtlen v. Wright,Eter. I dourter v. Lord Lorton.
anent Day, on Monday next, the 72d lost.

A44g v. Yallop, gent.
Mayhew V. t. hesterman
Ashmore and others,

Exam. v. Bart
Wright v. Bryun
1)..e v. Miller
Nutley v. Wyatt

Fairlie v. Herring

Syrelal it
Walter v. Bremah

LAW lA*TELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCII, SATI:IIDAT, NAY 13.

The Court was occupied the whole day in trying causes of no
public interest. Monday and Tuesday there will be no sittings ;
but on Wednesday the Lord Chief Justice will hold the adjourned
sittings after Term, at Guildhall.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, SATURDAY, MAY 13.
RICHARDSON V. TRY.
This was an action to recover compensation for injury received
by the plaintiff, its cormequenol at the seduction of his wife by the
defendant.
Mrs. Lawrence is sister to the plaintiff; was present at his mar.
riage with Mary Ann Poole cm the 30th March, 11132; did not
know Min P.'s family before she married t her brother lived with
witness for about two, months after his marriage, and then went to
Mule, near Bristol her brother is an attorney, and was twenty. i
two years of ale on the day of his union • the settlement upon his
wife was executed on the day of the marriage ; the property he set-
tled upon her was the whole of which be was pow-aged ;he derived
it front his uncle ; Miss Poole had no property ; it was a marriage
of affection ; they appeared very fond of each other ; during the
time they were in witness's house, they seemed to be very kind to
each other ; there are two boys, one about three years old, the other
eighteen months, the fruit of this marriage.
Cross-examined.—Miss Poole was two or three years older than
witness's brother 4 it was a runaway match, the friends of Miss P.
not having consented to the union. Miss P.'s father is an attorney
at Bridgwater. Saw very little of them after they left her house,
and cannot say how things went on.
The marriage settlement was then proved, by which it appeared
that the plaintiff had made over certain lands and reversionary pea.
perty. to which he war entitled; to his wife.
J. Price, Vicar of Work, in Somerset, is acquainted with the
plaintiff; and, since the marriage, with the wife ; ha seen a great
deal of them at various periods ; they appeared to be exceedingly
kind to each other, and to live upon the best terms. It is nearly four
years since they came to Worle, but witness ceased to call upon
them for the last two years; has no acquaintance with the defen-
dant, hut had seen him during some years; witness ceased to visit
plaintiff subsequently to the defendant's coming into the neigh.
beurhood ; the reports that prevailed at the time respecting the levity
tN der conduct towards the defendant, and his attentions to her,
were the tenons that induced witness to cease visiting.
Elizabeth Fry is a married woman ; lived in the service of plain-
tiff and his wife ; went there the day after last Christmas-day, and
remained until after Mrs. R. left; the defendant was in the habit
of going there very often when the plaintiff was absent. Remem-
bers once, when the defendant and Mrs. R. were in the parlour,
from whence a noise proceeded, witness went softly to the door,
and could see what passed in the room. The plaintiff was not it
home. Mrs. R. was sitting on defendant's knee. She afterwards
saw them together. On a former day had heard a similar noise.
After this occurred, defendant asked witness whether she had seen
any thing pass between himself and 3lrs. R., and also wanted to
know whether she had mentioned it. Told him she did not know
if she had or had not. Defendant then asked her not to tell how