The National Register.
London, England, 1821-11-11 00:00:00

LAIV INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
WEIMESOAY, NOV. 7.
ELOPEMENT WITO A WARD OF THE COtRT.

Elisabeth Sr ales, Margaret Scaks, and Elisabeth Scales, in-
fants, v. Trapp and Scales.
Mr. Ching, in ',hesitance or a Rpecial appointment this
rimming: made a motion for the committal of Thomas and
Joseph Barlow, to the Fleet Misfit], for contempt of the
court. Ile staled that the motion was supported bj the
affidavits of Mrs. Scales, her uncle and appointed goal-
(ball ill a snit in Equity slow pending in this Court; and
also by that of Air. Brookshank, the solicitor in the cause.
From these affidavits, which lie read, the following par-
tielll:ll9 appeared: Mrs. Scales had sworn that Miss M.
Scales, one of the above-named plaintiffs, was a lady
about nineteen years of age, and Mr. Scales being her
guardian, lie had placed her in a boarding school near
London to receive an education equal to her fortune,
which would amount to several thousands of pounds on
her attaining the age of 21 years. Having remained at
a school till Alidsmniner, 1820, she was taken home to
reside with Mrs. Stales, at Whittington, near Chester-
field, where, fur a considerable pet hut, her conduct was
most exemplary, and that of a young lady el Ler fortune
and expectations. About six weeks since her conduct
lied nefort unmety been the reverse, and her manners haul
become disssolitte and it regular, from a connection which
site had formed with a young man, named 'rhos. Barlow,
a journeymen toohmaker, residing at Staverley, about
four miles trom Whittington. Upon the intercourse be.
Me discovered, it was immediately discountenanced, and
Miss Scales seriously aditionielivil tot holding a connection
ehoether so unworthy her station in life. This admin.
Cent not meeting with its desired effect, Barlow received
notice In desist Isom continuing his connection with her;
of the consequences that would result to himself from a
non-attention to this advice, be was informed she was a
ward in Charcery, and of course that lie must be in-
volved in serious troubles, if his conduct made an appli-
cation to the Court necessary. The good advice given to
the lady was also unheeded , and on Monday evening, the
of October, she left her grandmother's house, es-
caping through the garden gato, ahem Barlow was in
attendance to receive her; and they directed their course
across the country, in such a direction as to elude the vi-
gilance of those aho pursued them for a considerable
lapse of Mute. These circumstances were communicated
to the attorney in the suit, and he immediately made an
a ?plication for, and produced an order of the Court,
ill-
recting Barlow forthwith to restoie the lady to her guar-
dian, and interdicting them front contracting a mart loge.
It also cited Barlow and his brother, who was also an
petite agent in promoting the elopement, to appear Lobo e
the Court on the first day of 'feint, to show cause aby
they should not stand committed for contempt of the
Ceurt. On the 31st of October he traced the fugitives
to Chesterfield, and was intermed by the agents that had
Lt e n engaged there, that the lady with T. Barlow, and his
In-tither had left that place on the preceding day for NIA.
verley. When the parties arrived at the house ut Bal low,
a great resistance was offered, and it was not till alter
much opposition that he and his brother were served wit in
a copy of the order of the Master of the Bolls, and the
pursncrs tt ere successful in obtaining the custody of M
Scales. On their art ival iu London she was given into the
'mode of her nude, with whom she has since remained.
In a conveisation which, r. Brooksbank had with Joseph
Barlow, he appeared to hate a perlect knoalege of the
snit in Chancery, of the lady being a ward of the Court,
suit of die amount of property it was probable she would
Lc potter,med of. He also said that he had expended up-
wards of an hundred guineas in assisting his brother in the
flapement, and they had actually been married at Gretna,
tot the [Nuyr statement, it is believed, is untrue.
'flu. Lord Cleineellor.—What is Joseph Bat low t
Mr. elting.—lle is muster toolmaker, and his LI edict
Thomas is his join neyman. Frum the inquiries which
had been made, it appeared that thc whole of die family
of the Barlowx weir illiterate„ and of low habits and
condition. In concluf ion, it was observed, that in Whig-

THE NATIONAL REGISTER

mg the case hafore tha Court, there was no feeling of a
vindictive nature, the sole object being to prevent an
improvident expenditure of the young lady's fortune,
and to protect her from the miseries which such au alli•
once would in all probably impose upon her.
The Lord Chanecllor.—When will you be ready with
your affidavits, Mr. Reopen, to answer this case?
Mr. Houpell conceived a very short time would be re-
quixite.
The Lord flaneellor.---I understand the two Barlows
were in emu' yesterday, and I cannot conclude that they
refuse to attend, before the breaking up of the cont. I
shall remain here till half-past one, and if they are not
then present, I shall conclude this case.
The court was then occupied with other matters until
the above mimed time, when the Lord ChattedMr depart-
ed without 'nuttier noticing it.
NOV. 8.
CONTEMPT OF COURT.—SEALES V. BARLOW.
_

Mr. !Loupe!! stated that the affidavits on the part of the
defendants were of great length, and their contents vier,. of
such a nature, that he had to request his Lordship would
hear him in his private room.
The Lord Chaarellor—" If the Counsel and Solicitors of
the parties ss ill attend me now in my private-room, I will
hear it

His Lordship then retired, and after being :anent an hour,
returned, . .

The Lord Chancellor—" I hnd some difficulty in hearing
this case out of Court ; or any case where n ward of Court is
concerned; hut whore both parties consent, Ido not think
I ifir4lst to refuse.' His Lordship commit,' d one to the
custody of the warden of the Elect, and observed that he
would rend the affidavits, and further consider how he would
deal n ith the other.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
WF.ONESD.III, NOV. 7.
Rigid of Bathing on the Sea Shore.
IILUNUNI.L, U. COTTER \t..
When the Judges took their seats this morning, judg-
ment was given upon this interestiug question. It was an
action of trespass tiied before Mr. Justice Bayley, at
Lancaster. The plaintiff, who is Lord of a Manor, and
owner of soil on the River Mersey, where he claims an
exclusive right to fish, sought to exclude the defendant,
who keeps an hotel on the spot, iffein flossing machines
between high and low water k, for the purpose of
bathing. The defendant insisted on the common law
right of all subjects of the King, to bathe on the sea
shore. 'flue question censequently arose, whether per-
sons had a commofflaw right to pass over the barren sand
of the sea for the purpose of bathing?
Mr—lnslice Best first delivered his judgment upon this
important question. He commenced by expressing his
concern that he was compelled to (hike from the Court.
4fler giving this rase all the consideration he could, he
fmmil Himself bound to say the subjects of this country
had a co 11111 l on law e ight to pass over tjle sand of the sea
fir the purpose of bathing. The right of fishing, claimed
exclusively by a Lord of the Manor, could not interfere
with the politic right of the sniiject—all the legal authori-
ties be could find were against it. To claim such a right
was inconsistent with the law of the land.—The learned
Judge cited .the Wein of Judges found in various legal
authorities, and conchided by declaring, that the defer.
dant, npon his view of the law,was entitled to the judgment
of the Court.
Mr. Justice Hohoyd was of opinion, that the right to
hathe on the sea shine was not to be found in the common
law, and consequently held that the plaintiff, in this vase,
ought to have judgment.
Mr. Justice Bayley said, the question in this case was,
whether there was a co 1111 l ion Law right in the King's sub-
jects to pass the sea shore to bathe, notwithstanding a
person had it preset iptivc right to fish? He was of opinion
the public had not the right of going on the sea shore to
bathe. The sea shore belonged to the King, who conferred
the right of navigation and fishing, hut it did not follow
that they had the right of bathing. If that right did exist,
it would not be confined to one spot, but extend to the
whole extent of the sea shore. The Crown had the right
of the sea shore, and it would nut withhold the right of
bathing where it dill not Mies fere with private property.
It bathing had been allowed ou any tit and proper part of
the coast, it would become a light by custom. The pas-
sages from Lord Hale fell short of the establishment of
the claim contended fur. The only authotity he could
find to make out chat the jus pato/irons was, lie found in
liracton. Their it was said, the public had a right to
fasten hers on the banks of all navigable rivets, but could
it really be possiole to allow that right in the absence of
authorities to show such right exists? Not satisfied with
the a tit hot ity in Brat:tom the Judges considered the
this case entitled to recover.

- -
J lid guirnt was accordingly entered for the plaintiff.
CHA DN. IC& V. SILLS.

Mr. Scarlett moved to set aside the verdict and enter a
nonsnit. It was au action against the defendant upon a
contract. It was stated in the declaration that the defer'.
dant undertook, as a common carrier, to convey 14 chests
or black dye, four iu 4 Kill!), to 11r. Chadwick, dyer, at
Leeds. The chests were not sent four in a skip, and by
the biemelt the plaintitisurtained a loss. A written order
was sent to the defendant in 'the following te,ins :—" To
be forwarded, four in a skip, to Mr. C. Chad ait k, dyer,
Leeds." The paper %vas slatted by the defendant's servant
with the initials W. IL 14 inn lilt paper was IsiOdsiced at
the trial as evidence of a Cillittilet, Mr. Scat lett contended
that it could not be received, being a contract which re-
quired a stamp. Tire learned Consisel now contended, in
support of his motion, that it was evidence of a contract,
and could nut be received without a stamp.
The Court held that the paper was not to be considered
a contract, but evidence of the ilslivety of goods to the
Irtilinger, upon which a contract arose.
The rule tot a tionsuit was consequently refused.
PAIIKtiR V. INGHAM.

Mr. Gill nil noted for a new unit iii this case. It was
all action on a bill of exchange (or 'lite defence stt
up was usury. There bad barn a discounting of the bill,
and silver articles taken, to the amount of ltd. At the
a person who was desct shed to be a captain of local
militia stated, that lie took the silver articies to • pawn-
broker (Arclibutt) on the Surrey side of Westminster
firidee, who declared they were worth no more than 41.
The gnt•stuntaause on that esiilenee,whedies the plaintiff,
in taking WI., had received a usurious consideration for
diset.ooting the bill:
Dory found for the defendant.
'Mr. Gainey now stated, that as soon as Ilic trial Was
tat a , the plaintiff %scut to the paw uhreker, and fund the

story respecting the 41. a wicked Imposition. The fact
was, they pawned the articles, and never made inquiry
respecting the value.
The learned Counsel said, he had the affidavit of Mr.
Archbntt, proving that the articles were pawned, and that
to the hest of his judgment as a silversmith, 101. was not
an overcharge. The plaintiff had since endeavoured to
get an inspection of the articles, but without success.
The Court granted a rule to slicw cause.

THURSDAY, NOT, H.
THE KING, V. TURNER.
The defendant appeared at the sitting of the court to
plead to an indictment preferred by the Constitutional
Society, for publishing Car works. The indictment
was read by the officer, and the defendant pleaded not
guilty. He was told his trial would come ou at the Sit.
bugs after Term.

RICHARDSON, V. SIR R. HEAVE.

This was an action against the defendan6he Sheriff of
lEsssex, and another, for an assault and false imprisonment.
—The cause was tried at Guildhall before the GliiefJustice,
and a verdict given for the defendant.

Air. Searlett in this instance moved fir a new trial. It
appeared that the plaintiff, who resides in Essex, was going
to London, when he was stopped by the officer of the Sheriff
of Essex, who said he had a writ of Ca. Sa. against him._
The plaintiff said it must he some mistake, as he did not owe
any person the sum for which the writ was sued out. The
name in the writ wits William Richardson, and the plaintiff's
name was John. The officer insisted on his caption, and
took the plaintiff to his house, where it was discovered that
the writ bad been sued out by some malicious person, and
the plaintiff was discharged. He then brought this 'action.
The Chief u•tice, in his charge to the Jury, said there was
no doubt the arrest had been malicious. but the Jury had to
consider whether the officer had received instruction suffi-
cient to point out the plaiotiff as the person to tie arrested.
The Jury found a verdict fur the defentlant.—Mr. Scarlett
now comended that nu instruction received by a sheriff,
officer could justify the arrest of a person whose name sat
not in the writ.

The Cow t granted a role to stew• (-attic.
VET V. ANDRE:IIR.

Mr. Gurney moved to set aside the nonsuit in this case
and cuter a verdict for the plaintiff. It was a penal action
upon an act of the 55th of the late King, brought in by Mr.
Davies Gilbert, to prevent parish officers supplying the poor
with provisions. The net applied to five parishes in Sussex,
in one of which the defendant was guardian of the poor.—
It appeared he had made a contract to sell sheep to a person
maned Griffiths, and it was contended he had incurred a
penalty of 491. by infringing the aforesaid act of parliament.
The learned gentleman contended that the contract was oh.
viotedy an infringoment of the act, which had been passed to
prevent the very thing which the defendant had done. If
half a dozen guardians of the poor made contracts with the
farmer, they had an interest in the provisions supplied, and
consequently could not exercise a proper superintendence
over the concerns of the poor. In that view he submitted
the nonsuit ought to be set aside.
The Chief Justice.—There is enough to induce the Court
to grant a rule to shew cause.