The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-08-20 00:00:00

CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER.

Joists Ilapsord was capitally indicted fur having feloniously
killed and slain Jane, his wife, on the 2th July last.
It appeared in evidence that the prisoner .a his wife were walk-
ing home from Gaston. near Manchester, in • state neither tipsy
nor sober ; that they walked along for a certain distance as lovingly
as husband and wife are wont to do on such occasions, but that all
of a sudden the wife fetched her spouse a blow, which so kindled
his wrath that he fetched her another under the ear, and of which
sae never lived to complain. After she fell her husband called for
her to arise, but she made no answer to the call ; she was lifeles,
and no more. The huhand again called her by the mat endearing
names, 15. it lore and life had fled together, and she spoke no more.
The surgeon who inspected the body said, In his opinion the
death of the deceased was occasioned by the blow under the left
ear, which left a livid mark, and produced a great estravasation of
blood.
The priginer, in his defence, called the father of his wife, who
sad that the prisoner had been • remarkably good husband and
father, and had always treated his wife very well. In fact, the wit.
ness could not say whether he felt more at the sorrow of the prisoner
or at the death of his wife. Verdict—Guilty.
Mr. Justice BATLILY. taking ail the circumstances Into his con-
sideration, looking at the provocation the prisoner had received, and
at his character for good conduct, sentenced him to fourteen days'
imprisonment.

L.4W INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, FRIDAY, Au 0.19.

IX THE MATTRR Or KIRBY RAVENSWORTH CHARITY.
Mr. RALPH said that he was Instructed to real this matter to
Ms Lordship's recollection.
His LORl,llltr thought this matter had been disposed of ages
ago by the Commissioners of Charitable Uses.
Mr. Rocru stated that It was not dispesed of yet. There had
been certain matters in dispute referred to the Commissioners, but
theiZt it impossible to dispose of them without first having the'
ju ent of the Court upon the petition.
is LORTIIIIP then desired to hare the papers returned, which
had been taken away from him several years ago. It would have
been but kind, he said, if some one had mentioned long ago that
this matter was still pending here, because the Court most dis-
tinctly uuderstoei that the case had been taken out of its hands at
Ism three years ago; but this was the manner in which the Court
was treated in many instances.
REY. ALEXANDER ruvrcnra w. INAIGARRT RIACEKUIDO,

AMORY, BROWN, AND NET.
Mr. HART moved, on behalf of the Rev. plaintiff, for an in-
junctim, to restrain the defendants, Aldermen Brown and Key
(Sheriffs for the county of Middlesex), from taking out execution
upon a judginent confessed by Mr. Amory in favour of his co.de-
teodant, Mtn. 01sekmurtio. The circumstances of the case were
these: the Rev. plaintiff is the occupier of a cottage and several
acres of land, situated at Ilomerton ; he obtained a lease of the
saint, from the owner, Mrs. Itlacktnurdo, in the year 1810, for 61
years, at rent of 801. annually. In the lease there was a clause ;no-
nibiting the plaintiff from selling, letting, or setting the premises,
without the permission of Mrs. M.; but there was a covenant, that
if the plaintiff should desire to retire from the premises, and ten-
daed a respectable tenant to Mrs. M. that she should sanc-
tion the assignment of the lease, and accept of the new te-
nant. Soon after this agreement was entered into, the plaintiff
lild out about 1.0001. in repairing. and improving the estate; in
ainsequence of which, with other circumstances, the plaintiff be-
cime in want of money, and Mr. Amory, a merchant in the
city, lent him the suns of 4001. as . a security for which, the'
lure of the premises was left in the hands of Messrs. Amory
abd Coles (one of those gentlemen being the brother of Mr.
Amory, one of the defendants). The transactions went on be-
tween the plaintiff and defendant, Mr. Amory, until he advanced
another sum of three hundred pounds, and then the solicitors
who held possession of the lease, made an assignment of the
feline to Mr. A., which they tendered to the plaintiff for, and
obtained his signature to, and which was at once a flat forfeiture of
the lease, in consequence of not having previously obtained Mrs.
M.'s consent; anti, upon the back of tins, followed an action of
ejectment brought by Mrs. M. against the plaintiff. The plaintiff
then consulted his Counsel (Mr. Hart) upon the subject: that
Counsel recemnendett the plaintiff to send a notice to Messrs.
Amory and Coles, that it would be necessary for them, in due dis-
charge of their duty, to take care that he (the plaintiff) was pro-
perty protected by them. After the assignment of the lease, how-
ever, was made, Mr. Amery executed another lease for the plaintiff,
making him, therefore, his lessee. Subsequently Mr. Amory had
an interview with 31r. Ashley (the plaintiff's then Solicitor),
when an agreement was proposed, that, in consideration of 2001.
more to be paid to the plaintiff; be should relinquish all title and
interest whatever in the premises. Upon this agreement having
bin produced to the plaintiff; to be signed by him, he refused
to do in, stating he had never given any authority for entering into
such an agreement, nor was 111 r. Ashley his agent on such an oc-
casion. After the notice alluded to had been sent to Messrs.
Amory anti Coles, Mr. Amory undertook to defend the action of
ejearuent; but before the action could conic on for trial, upon
she Ist of August he entered into an agreement with Mrs. M. for
thr purchase of the freehold, at the sum of 3,n)081.; and on the fol.
loving day (2d of August) very dexterously confessed judgment in
favour of Mrs. 111. ; upon which he got the Sheriffs to interfere to
tern the plaintiff out ; or, in other words, to turn Mr. Amory out,
foe the purpose, in truth, of turning him Into the possession of the
pr mists. And it was under these circumstances, verified by the
affidavit of the plaintiff. that, the Learned Counsel submitted, a
nearer asse of cognition between Mrs. M. and Mr. A. had never
emu before this Court; and therefore he trusted his Lordship would
grant the Injunction.
#llr. WAKEFIELD was on the same side.
Mr. SUDDEN opposed the motion. Ile thought the very name
ofthe plaintiff sufficient to carry with it an impression, at least to
him, that the plaintiff was the last individual whom he (31r. S.)
sr ;old ever think of attempting to take advantage of with success
in any one thing, being an persuaded of his qualifications in legal
uetia, as well as in every thing else, to protect himself against any
thing like imposition ; a.til therefore the Court, in this instance,
*se not to understand that there had been any thing like fraud
tr ictlied towards hint, particularly that frau! which lie imputed to
.4r Amory, and which, if true, (but which was flatly contradicted),
v.r:ld make him one of the most degraded persons In society. In
this toss there was a cmitract, which he (Mr. Sugden) thought
~.staid no:, in any way of putting it, effectually be disputed, to the
port of the plaintiff or his agent, and that all should be done which
hid been done.
fits LOA nsncr interrupted Mr. Sugden, and asked, whether or
not Mr. Ashley had made any affidavit ;
Mr. Buono w said no, but that he had expensed a willingness to
di au, if the Court should give an intimation that he ought,