The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-03-15 00:00:00

sou -s cot!RT.

ONNSIAL PITITION IPAY, THIA ATINI/10, AT SIT. .
Edmunds v. Acland Feredny v. Adam. Fellows r. Grantlef
Brougham v. Idle Ulithint v. Howell Martin v. Yorke
In re Cornwalli.Charlty Masten/ v. Mardeve Ma/hem v. M'olffe •
Macdougall v. Brown Peacock v. sowers !Ameba/Ater v. Ramada
In re Providing Bro- I Dreyer v. Man/de/day tialilni v. Gallinl
... . . .. ... .

then' Society
in re At!e.m4on

Campbell V. Chesty;
Andrew T. Ellim

la re Sharpe
Baker V. ftalgery
Stafford

Freeman v. Fiddle
In re Burton
Peath v. Bushell
Harcourt v. Henniker
In re Bileoek'a E dates
Milne v. Gordan
Griffith v. Wynne
Bradley v. firad.ey
Baker v. Nickson
ilildiert v. Cooke
Bayley v. Warta
Milne v. Gordon
Ex-parte Barton
Richards v. Richards
Charley v. Haynes, two
Petit km,
Blair v. Soppitt
Robinson v. Hopkins
Nicholson v. Webster

Hughes v. Wynne
Wilson v. Shaw
Kirkpatrick v. Kirk-
patrick
Bailey v. Baxter
WIICOX v. Horsley
Houton v. Platt
Lord v. Gouslin
llyinmock v. Ashton,
tw r Petitions
Collin v. Were
I Hughes v. Inglis
Murray v. Adderbrooke
Piumpton v. Halloos
In re Davis
Willis v. Black
Rainford v. Parke
Hushes v. Inglis
tiambler v. Matthews

Smith v.
Elder ♦. Elder
Moberly v. Moberly
Atwell v. Smith
➢irch v. Ilodelnecnii
Aldridge v. Yob
Brown v. Page
In re Bend •
In re Read
Ex•parte Hunt
In re worthy
Harriman v. Harrimsri
Allen v. Callon
Shelly /. Shelly
Dunnage v. Whitt
Barnard v. Barnard '
Bird v. Matthews
• Spildt v. Masy •

LA IV INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S CORI:T, TUZSDAY, MARCR 14.

TANSANDAU V. PETAH HOWIE, ESQ. M.P. 'AND OTHERS.,
This was a suit instituted to dissolve a Joint Stock Company%
called the Bridals Annuity Company, one of the recent joint stoce
speculations. Of this Company Mr. Peter Moore is Chairman;
ant John Wilke, jun. the Solicitor.
Mr. HEALD moved that it might be referred to one of thE
Master% of the Court. to inquire ii the fourteen answers flied by,
the fourteen defendants, who appeared by Mr. Wilks. as their Rolfe
citor, were substantially er in any anti what respect different, Ike!,
and in support of his motion read an affidavit, by which it ap4
peered tlta the fourteen answers were verbatitn copies of each
other, and that the defendants, whose interests were identical, had
so answered under the advice of Mr. Wilks, for the purpose of
multiplying the costs of suit, anti thereby of preventing the pre-
secution of the suit. The Learned Gentleman further stated, filet
• two of the defendants had refused to swear to the like ansWee.att
those sought to be referred, and that others who bad sworn to Bleat
had since expressed their regret that they had been induced to de
so. That the ailidavit, although Nelerely reflecting upon the cha-
racter of
.Mr. Wilk& as the solicitor fer the Company, was wholly
unanswered. Mr. Heald in conclusion observed, that the motiot:
was novel in its character, but that it was rendered necessary in
consequence of the unjustifiable practice put'sued by Mr. Wilks,
on the part of the defendants. and intimated that the motion was
preparatory to ulterior proceedings.
Mr. P CoYa and Mr. Knit:to: also addressed the Court for the
plaintiff
;lir. Han r, Mr. BitmawiLL, and Mr. WAKEFIELD, were
heard against die motion.
His Honour the VICE-CHANCELLOR then, without calling
upon Mr. lleald for his reply, said, if fourteen t.efendants, filling
the same character in a suit, and Faring the same common Due.
rest, and appearing by toe same solicitor, think fit to tile fourteen
separate answers of great length, to the same effect, instead of one
answer, which be the common and general answer of all;
if such ire the case, not for the purpose of any eapedieney in
res: -.!ct to the defence of the parties, but solely for the purpose of
checking toe progress of
,the suit accumulating expense to the
plaintiff, it is plainly the duty of the Court to protect the plairrele
from such consequences, and it is no answer to say that the bill
itself is absurd and vexation:it this is not the proper sea-on to.iti-
quire into the merits of the bill, and if the bill Pere admitted to
be absurd and vexatious, still it must be honestly anti fairly met
on the part of the defendants. I cannot adopt this motion to tier
terms in which it is made, because it does not altogether foliose
that if all the answers are similar they must therefore he vexatious.
But I consider this motion as being mean
sine ely to fctoid an in-
quiry into the actual circumstances of the case, and I consider my.
self at lilterty to adopt the inquiry in such terms as to appear to me
ultimately to lead to the justice of the case, I have, therefore,
during the argument, penned what I consider to be tee proper in.
quits., and it is in these words :—" Whether it was necessary, or
for any and what reason expedient, on the part of the fourteen de-
fendants, or any and which of them, who have filed their unseats
through the intervention of Mr. Willis, ;le their solicitor, that se-
parate answers should be tiled by each defendant ; and if the
Master should be of opinion that it was not teccsaary or expedient
for the purpose of their defence that separate answers should bs
Fled by any of the defendants, then let the Master state how it
happened that separate answers were tiled, and let the .Masterstate
any special matters at the request of any party." I quite agree
that the Court is prima Lithe to presume that these answers were
not tiled for the purpose of oppression and vexation. becaese the rots
of the Court requires that the signatures of Counsel should be given
to answers, and I am persuaded that there is no Counsel practisim;
in this Conn, who would lend himself as an instrument to *bpi
fourteen similar answers. And I assure myself that it will- he
found, when the records cone to he examined, that these fourter.t
answers were signed by fourteen different Counsel, who were eaten
ignorant of the fact of the other answers being filed of the epee
length and purport.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

SURREY ASSIZES, KnrosToN, MAC 14.

Before Mr. Baron Gs Ali AM.

John Jambe, alias the Honourable John Julian' Hamilton, was
indicted for feloniously intermarrying with Catherine Fitzgerald,
spinster, at St. Michael's, Bath. on the 23d January, 1817, his
first wife, Dorothea Donovan, being then alive.
This case stood over front the last Assizes at the instance of the
prisoner, who was a young man of fashionable appearance, and
wore a formidable pair of mustachios.
Mr. Baottatce opened the ease for the prosecution, and
stated that it was cundu:ted at the instance of a lady named
Frances Vitalea Reaptildo, the widow of an Italian. with whom
the prisoner was said to have formed a third matrimonial alli-
ance. The following witnesses were called :.
Mr. Benjamin Jones, brother of Mrs. Raspaldo, produced an
examined copy of the register of the marriage of the prisoner with
I torothea Donovan, at Cove, Cork, on the 6th April, 1313, at the
church of St. Union, in that mirth.
William Rogers, water.bailiff of Cove, peeved that he was pre.
sent at the marriage of the prisoner with Miss Donovan, whose
mother had kept a hotel and tavern at Cove, but had tailed in bu-
siness. The prisoner lodged in witness's house at the time. Miss
Donovan went to the church front her aunt's house, and her mother
consented to the match. Iler father was dead at the time.
Mary Hare proved that she also was present at the marriage.—
The prisoner was married by the name of John Jacobs. About
two years since the prisoner called upon witness to prove the mar-
riage in a Court of Justice. She knew the prisoner to have lived
both in England arid Ireland with Miss Donovan, as man and
wife. At the time of the marriage, :Hiss Donovan was about six-
teen years of age. On her cross.examination by Mr. Law, she
said she did not know the age of the prisoner et that time.
Joseph Tucker, parish clerk of Walcott in the city of Barb,
produced an examlued copy of the register ef the marriage of the
prisoner with Catherine Fitzgerald, which took place on toe 23d of
January, 1017.
Captain Butler, formerly of the Life Guards, was present at the
marriage of Miss Fitzgerald with the prisoner. Witness was him.
self married on the same day to another lady.
Ambrose Parish, clerk of the papers in the King's Bench Prison,
roved that the prisoner was apprehended in that Prison on a
warrant for this felony, and taken to Union Hall.
1
Frances Vitale, Haspahlo, the widow of an Italian, proved that
she was introduced to the prisoner in l'aris, by the name of the Hon.
John Julian Hamilton. She produced a pope., which she said was
the certificate of her marriage with the prisoner. About two
months since, she received from the prisoner's first wife a let.
ter, of which the following is a copy. Witness could nut read or
write.
" Truly, my dearest Dora, I have cause to he wretched tied
unhappy ; but never mind—nothing but firmness and resolution
must now bear me through this dreadful fate. Cheer up, love,
and be assured of this, that let my fate be what it may—let me IN
where I will, new. never shall I so loudly love another as I its.
you. Let me do what 1 may, be assured, my dearest creature, your
alone will be my first and only love ; do not, Dora, desert yme
pont unhappy Jack. Do what you can to extricate your pair
fellow from the fate that awaits him. Leave no stoic unturned to
find Mary flare, and see If you can keep her out .of the way until
the Kingston Assizes are over. Should you do that, all will go o a
well; if not, God Almighty only knows what will be my fat..
Moat truly do I grieve to hear you are so truly wretched and
miserable ; for God's sake, and for nip sake, do hut—do sod fret ;
you will add to my misery by so doing. God knows my situatio.;
is moat dreadful without other additions, not having a penny to get
bread, and compelled to accept favours from strangers. Never
mind, Dora, if my fate ordains me to leave this country, my On.
duct abroad must be such as to merit the lenity and notice of the
Governor, and thereby liiihten the severity of my fate; and I
hope I shall have this cheering prospect upon my return lit'
living), to be received in dee arms of my own dear Dora. . 11
possible, come down on Friday, about four o'clock, and I will he
at the gate to receive you. Truly do 1 commiserate your pre-
sent trouble. Cheer up for my sake, and don't let me see roe
miserable when you come down. If she should cell again, endea-
vour to learn if the payment of the money will iuduce her to detest
from the trial; if an, we must endeavour to get it for her. God help
me ! Why did you not get Slaty II are's address e 'fry if yea
can, and let me know. Adieu, God bless you. I shall rely mane
seeing you on Friday. Believe me ever your attached and meat
faithful, " JACK...
Ibis letter was put in and read, for the
purpose of establishing
' the validity of the feat marriage, and the anxiety of the prisoner to
suppress legal proof of its celebration. This was the case for the
prosecution.
The prisoner being called upon for his defence, said he did not
wish to say any thing.
Al r. Isaac Jacob*, a glass-manufacturer of Bristol, father of the
oder the age wf
21, sad that it had taken glace without the consent of perchts.
. atimil.nerthe dui.ewa:f Ithheelfincatl"marnageby th.h•Prbileer'wes an.inan, Cauflitile‘ to show that
u

- Witness being a Jew, wen sworn on the Old Testament. Ile'
stated that the primmer was his son, and was horn on the 4th of
Atm, 1796 and wanted five yews and two months of being 21 at
the time of his marriage with bliss Donovan. %Witness had known
nothing of the marriage until afterwards, and he certainly never
gave his consent to it. The prisoner's name sou Jacob Jacobs,
and in the Hebrew language Jacob and John were the same thing.
The prisoner arrived from Ireland in 1814; but witness had never
seen his first wife. The prisoner had told him that he was married,
but he did not believe him. At the age of 16. witness had sent the
prisoner as supercargo to Demerara, having confidence in his ability.
Did ant know of the second marriage with Miss Fitzgerald until
after it took place ; understood that by her the prisoner had two or
three children. Did not know what the prisoner was by profession
or Wainer. Never knew him to be a Captain in the army ; saw
him in the King's Bench prison about two years since.
Mr. Law and Mr. PLATT submitted on this evidence, that the
first marriage was void, it having been contracted by the prisoner
during infancy, and without the consent of parents. and conse-
quently that the second marriage was lawful and binding.
Mt. BRODRICIC, contra, urged that infancy was no objection
in the first marriage ur.der the circumstances stated, inasmuch vs
the prisoner had aftiontid the contract by living with his first wife
after he came of age. In addition to this he relied on the letter
sbove.mentioned, as decisive of his argument.
Mr. Karon OnAllAll said he would reserve the point for the con.
sideration of the twelve Judges, if the Jury should be satisfied
that the first marriage had been in fart solemnised.
The Jury, under the Learned Judge's direction, found the ',ri-
sotto Guilty, end the judgment was postponed.