The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-05-27 00:00:00

I.AW NOTICES.

COURT OF CITANCERV.—FniS DAY, IV LINCOLN'S INN.
'IDS LORD CIIASCELLOR AND VILL-CHANCIILLOR•

Muti.ni only.

COURT OF ARCHEi.
Second 8214100 In Trinity Tenn, 1824.
BEFORS SIR JOHN NICHOL, SITS ♦T TEN.

COl'itT OP COMMON PLEAS.—TaiI PAT, A? Twxtvx.
Middlesex Causes.—Y'de lirpt Ottlnt( in Trinity Term, IWO.

MIPIPLIOSZT I.Olll‘lOV JURIST.
Bernina—Doe v. Miller.
New Causes.
Hackett v. Hancock
and another
Rudd v. Creswell
Mars v. Carpenter
Phillips v. spongier
TONDAY, MAT 29, AT TliN
London Special Juries.
Rands T. Pratt.
London Common Jolty.
Davies v. Bahr ;by pro-
viso)

FMK), o. Bones
Orchard end an Ater v.
an.
Yarned V. Brent

Wooster v. Banes aid

another
'Cornier V. Garbett
Badman V. Redman

Dermer v. Robins
Pratt v. %Thiry
Wright v. Townley
lincidiou.e v. Aynirley
Dobree and others v.
Royce
Take v. Charnel

Littler v. George
Harvey v. Davide and
another
Willis v. Cu Light
Company
Charlton v. Cooper.

Fletcher and others v.
Bottomley
Bower v. Noon
Loyd and others v.
J tecr

COURT OF

EXCIIEQUEII.—Tots 1
Before the whole Court.
1 Olding v. Glais, excel).
1 tionv

oAr, AT MT.

Aland v. Can de Wall,
exceptions

Olding v. Waters. ex-
ceptions.

Attorney-General v.
Mercer's Company
Same v. Same, fur
Judgment
Williams v. Saluabury,
1.-tition
Stok, v. Flurrell, re-
port,

TI:IBDAY, MAY 30.
Jactaun v. Bourne
Brookes v. Parker

Hollingsworth v. Dot.

Putney v. Wentworth
Cowne v. Douglas •
Hastings v. Sheppard,
bill and answer

son
Willi; v. Stone
Clarke v. Hudson
Triolty.huuse v.
Klrkus
Stephenson, v. Tom-
linson.

Edwards v. Stoward
Palmer v. Spell

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, FRIDAY, MAY 26.

This being the that day of Trinity Term, the Judges. King's
Counsel, Misters in Chancm.y. Ike. breakfasted with the Lord
Chancellor in Lincoln's Inn Hall, and proceeded with the usual
formalities to open the business of their respective Courts in West-
minster Hall, with the exception of the Lord Chancellor and Vice-
Chancellor, who sat inil.incoln's Inn, the new Courts at Westmin-
ster undergoing the necessary alterations.
The Court was occupied the whole of the morning it partly hear-
ing a motion to discharge an injunction, the subject of which was
wholly uninteresting to the public.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WierrstnieTsa, MAY 26.

TRINITY TERM, 7th Gm). IV.
(In Banco.)
BUSINESS OF THE COURT.

This being thefirst day of the Term, 11;eitLordships did not
not conic into Court
.until half-put one o'clock. When the flu
was full—

The LORD Cuter JUSTICE intimated that the Court would
take business in the following order during the present Term :—On
Mondays, the Peremptory Paper; on Tuesdays and Fridays, the
Special Paper; on Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, the
New Trial paper. The order made during the last T-rm remains
in force, as far as regards the sitting of the Court every morning at
ten, and the taking of motions every day previous to the business
'being entered on, in the manner already mentioned.

MANSLAUGHTER.
Mr. BRODEUTCK moved that two young gentlemen, named
Joscelyn, and another named Fitch, who were now in custody under
a charge of manslaughter, on the warant of one of the Coroners
for the county of Essex, might be bailed. The depositions taken
by the Coroner were read, from which it appeared, that a little
after eight o'clock one evening, during the last Chelmsford Fair,
the three defendants were riding very carelessly along the road from
Chelmsford to Writtle, when they knocked down a man named
William Borrington, who fell on his head in the road, and after-
wards died of a concussion of the brain. _ _

The COURT bailed the three defendants, on their finding four
sufficient sureties in the sum of 1001. each ; but saki that they
did not require the defendants' own recqrnizances, as they were all
minors.

CONSISTORY COURT, }Pamir, M►Y 28.
[Before Sir C. Rourxsox.]
SMITH V. eIIITR.

This is a suit originally instituted by the wife against the
husband for the restitution of conjugal rights, and the Court pro.
nounced in favour of the former; but in a month—" a little month"
after the parties returned to cohabitation, various acts of cruelty are
alleged to have been committed by the husband, on which the wife
has now grounded an application for a divorce, with the purpose of
obtaining a separate provision. The suit is defended by the husband
in a great number of allegations, setting forth that the wife is a
woman of profligate and abandoned character; that she has been
guilty of acts of adultryould that she is at intervals nen compos
ntentis. The case has only proceeded to one of its intermediate
stages, and the wife now petitioned that to enable her to continue
the suit, her bill of costs should be taxed, and the amount paid by
tile husband. The prayer of this petition was opposed on the part
of the husband, and waited for the judgment of the Court.
Sir C. ROBINSON said that the practice of adjudging the
husband to pay the expenses of a suit instituted by his wife, arose
out of the relative situation of the parties, and upon the prcsump.
don that if such a facility was not afforded to the wife, she would
hare no adequate means of defending herself. There was nothing
in the present case to induce the Court to deviate from the ordi-
-1 nary practice. Even if the allegations on which the proceeding
was founded were entirely disproved, charges of a most grave and
important character had been made against the wife, which she had
a right to have an opportunity of explaining or contradicting.
Under these circumstances, and as it did not appear that the pay.
a ant of the sum of money now asked for could prejudice the
husband's interests in the future prosecution of the suit, the Court
pronounced for the petitioner, and ordered the amount of expenses
incurred by the wife to be paid by the husband.