The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-11-17 00:00:00

'ER OF THE ROLLS.

RS THIS DAY.
Tuc„ker v. Tucker—Further Di-
rections and Costs
Berkeley v. Palling—ditto
Hughes v. Hashes—Exceptions
Pater v. Stewart
IVhitruck v. Lysaught—Rehear.
i ng
Fort v. Weston—Execution,
further Directions, and Costs
Sharp v. Daahwood
Bull v. Pritchard

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
LONDON CAUSES TO BE TRIED AT THE SECOND SITTINGS
IN MICHAELMAS TERM. THIS DAY—AT ONE.
Curtis v. Barker Wragg and another v. Smith
Bush v. Turner Tomlinson v. Henzell and
Brookes r. Davis another
COURT OF ,XCHEQUER.
CAVS'EII THIS DAY.
Shrewabnry School v. Mrddock Firlden v. Meynell
—For further direction% Evans v. Williams
Miller v. Jackson—Part heard Bamford v. Archer
Price v. Spencer itossingham v. Boar
' Hugo v. Job . Hamilton v. Earl of Strathmore
Dean and Chapter of York v. —On Sequestration
Mlddleburgh Gibson v. Butler
Atkinson v. Hutton Wade v. Stubington

Court
Coley •. Co

s at Tea.
!—Exceptions.

WINTER HOME CIRCUIT.

The days for holding the Winter ASSilei for the Home Counties
have been fixed as follows :

Hertfordshire—At Hertford, on the Ist December.
Einent—At Chelmsford, on the lid December.
Surrey—At Kingston, on the 10th December.
Susses—At Lewes, on the 19th December.
Rent—At Maid,totie, on the 2d January.
"The Judges appointed to go the circuit are Mr. Baron Hut..
LOGY and Mr. Justice LITTLEDO.E.
The Gaol Calendars in all the counties are stated to be heavy.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, U.:EDNESDAY, Nov. 16.

DEVAYNES V. /COBLE.
The Court was occupied during the whole of the day in hearing
the further arguments of Counsel in the long-depending case of
Devaynes v. Noble, which is of no public importance.
SIBS v. RIDGE.
The Soucivort-Gtwvrtm. said that in this cause proceedings
were going on in other Courts while the minutes were drawing up.
The Loan CHANCELLOR directed the case to be menuoned
to-morrow (this day).

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COfIRT, WEDNESDAY, N0v.16.

JO AAAAA D HIS RITE 17. SIR FRANCIS AND LOOIS DESANOTS.
The plaintiffs in this CARI were Isabella Jones, formerly De-
',engem, and John Jones, her husband. The defendants were Sir
Francis Desanges and his brother Louis, sons of the plaintiff
Isabella, by her former husband, W. Deranges. The bill was
filed some considerable time back; an answer was put in, which,
on being referred to, the .latter declared to be impertinent and
scandalous. The case was DOW called on to hear exceptions to the
Master's report.
The bill stated that the late William Deranges was • silk-dyer,
residing in Wheeler-street, Spital-Sehls. He died in 1807, and by
hit; will left his widow all his freehold premises, dyeing-pans, &c.,
together with'4.ooBl., and expressed his desire that his widow and
son Francis should carry on his bu.siness in partnership. They did
so till 1814, when the other defendant, Louis, was admitted into
a share of the concern. This continued till June, 1821, when the
defendant Louis sent his mother • letter, telling bar he was mar-
tied, and that she must give up her share in the partnership. They
each realised about 8,000!. per annum by the business. The plain-
tiff, therefore, at first refused to give up her ;bare, but at last she
was, by the conduct of her sons, compelled to sign a deed, by
which she yielded up the concern on soodidon of the payment of
2.5001. per annum. To secure this to her, the two sons gave a bond
for eighteen thousand pounds. The bill, after stating several in.
stances of rude and overbearing behaviour on the part of the
sons, goes on to state that, in the year 1823. the plaintiff went to
Margate for the benefit of her health, but that she was obliged to
return on account of the persecution of her sons, who sent permits
down to watch and insult her. On her return she was obliged to
take to her bedl on account of illness, and whilst in that state
tier sons by fraud and false representations compelled her to sign
• deed, by which she only became entitled to 2,0001. per annum.
This deed they made her sign, because they suspected she was
about to marry, which would deprive them of the longer enjoy.
moot of her property. Both before and after signing the deed she
experienced the grossest ill-Image from the defendants, who threat-
ened to put her into a mad-house. Some time after the signing of
the deed she became the wife of .1. Jones. Thebill further stated that
she was totally ignorant of the contents of the deed,and that she was
compelled to sign it. She had never had it in her possession, nor
bad she ewer seen it. She now applied foe a rule to set the deed aside.
The answer put in to this consisted, first, in a statement of all ac-
, counts between the parties ; and, second, of an answer to the
idiiseges brught against the SOUR by the plaintiff. This part of the
pamper stated, that when the plaintiff went down to Margate, the
defendants learnt that she there, for the first, met Mr. Jones,
whom, upon inquiry, they. were informed was a man in indigent
circumstances, and had twice compounded with his creditors, in
the last composition only paying 4s. in the pound. The plaintiff
their mother, was 75, and Mr. Jones, they were informed, was
only 35. H'hilat at Margate, he contrived to obtain an influence
over their mother. Their mother, on her return to town, denied
haring any idea of a marriage with Mr. Jones, and asked how they
could think her such an old 1,01. She, however, soon after
this, again set out for 31argate, upon which they sent Mr.
Church, the family solicitor and intimate friend, having known
him twenty years, to try and persuade her to come back.
He overtook her at Canterbury, and she invited him into her
carriage, and they went oa to Margate together. Both on
the road there, and whilst there she laughed at the idea of such a
marriage. hut still refuted to return, whereupon Mr. Church came
hack to London. Sir Francis Desanges then went down, and per-
suaded his mother to return to town with him, which she did of her
own free will. When she returned to town, so far from being ill,
she wa: in the most perfect health, and herself desired the deed
now in question might be prepared • this was in October 1823.
Several alterations were made in the detd by her own desire; among
others there was a clause she caused to be inserted, which enabled
her merely to will away 3,000!. When the deed had been signed,
she laughed, and said she hoped every one would be satisfied, as
whatever match she might be with 18,0001. she could be none with
merely 3,000 t. She, however, married Jonas in about a month.
The answer further refuted the charges made by the bill against
them, but it will be needless to enter at further length into it.
The Master had returned SR impertinent the description of Jones
as an indigent man, and as having been a bankrupt, &c. He had
also struck out many of the reasons brought forward by the de-
fendants, accounting for the steps they had taken with regard to
their mother.
Alr. Flonwe, with whom was Mr. Theonat.h, now excepted
to the Master's report. He contended that the defendants were at
liberty to give their reasons for, and otherwise explain the conduct
imputed to them by the bill, and that the answer was relevant.
Mr. AGAR, with whom was Mr. Ducrwoarw, argued on the
ether side. It was not pretended in the answer that the defendants
had paid even the 2,500/. they had bound themselves to pay, nor
had they denied the charge of threatening to put her in a
nnulhouse.

The Vict-CreawLELLon—The question is not now whether
the answer is an answer concerning the relief prayed for, but whe-
tl.er the defendants were not called upon by the charges in the bill
to gi✓e the explanations which have by the Master been considered
as Impertinent. It would make the Court of Equity a Court of Ini.
quity if parties were allowed to make such charges u are here made,
end the parties so charged were not allowed to answer them. lam
of opinion that the derendants are justified in setting out the history
of the transac time at Margate. The Master's report must therefore
be overruled.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, IVErrmwsun,
WliDtilllDAY, NOV. 16.

HABEAS CORPUS.
ITOORE T. FI rZGIBBON.
It will be rememhered that in this case, a few days ago, the
plaintiff obtained a writ of habeas corpus to bring up the body of a
child of his, of which the defendant claimed the custody.
Mr. &MULL:AT now prayed that the return to the habeas corpus
be read.
The return was accordingly rend; from which it appeared then
the child is at present In the custody of Mr. Butcher, cif Cam-
den-town • that it is labouring under the measles, and incapable
of being brought up before the Court ; and that he (Mv. Butcher)
was ready to abide by any order which the Court may make con-
cerning the disposal or it.
Mr. SCAaI.Irr then tuner., that the Court order the child to be
delivered ores to its lather, Mr. Moore.
Mr. Consow-Sr.ankawr have affidavits to show cause
against this application.
r.' SceaLLT T —Alt they the nose as before ?