The National Register.
London, England, 1819-05-03 00:00:00

AETICLFT OF THE !FACE.

The Rail of Darnley, at the sitting of the Court, exhibited ar-
tidos of the peace against a gentleman named Bligh. The arti-
cles stated, that Mr. high had been some time ago bound over
not to molesChim, but since the term had expired. he had an-
noyed the Noble gar! in the molt outrageous manner, by follow-
ing him in public, staring him in the fare, and u.ing gestures to
provoke him to fight a duel. He had followed him from I.on-
don to Paris. from Paris to Italy. and from Italy so Englrtml.
At the Opera be always insulted him in the way before described,
and frequently put his hand to his pocket, as if he was drawing
a pistol. The exhibitant. under these circumstances, was obligul
So apply to the Court for protection.
The Court ordered the articles to he filed, and ordered the de-
fendant to enter into sureties to keep the peace for five years—
himself in 6000/. and two °Otero in 3000 f. each.

COURT OF CHANCERY. SATURDAY, MAY I.
BET/FORD CIIARITT,

Ilia Lordship in this case said. that whenever an abuse took
place in the charity at Ledford for the support of the poor, and
for the mointe lanee of a school, the case might be brought before
Lim lily a person living in the town. In the present instance, the
eiders of a London Jewish Synagogue were complainants.
and he could not consider them as proper parties. Ile would
dismiss the application. so far as they were concerned, and would
'ext week dispose of it as to the other parties.

*COURT OP Cmi sON 14:17.Ati..—$;suRnAr, Mitlf 1.
BREACH OF CONTRACT BY A COACH PROPRIETOR.

BARCLAY V. HONN

This was an action brought by Mr. Barclay. a gentleman of
respectability. to recover from the defendant Isl. Iss. nd. being
tl.e amount of expences incurred in removing his family from
Hastings to London. The facts of the ease were these:—ln the
month of August last, Mr. Barclay and his family. consitting of
three adults and three children. were upon a visit at Hastings.
Having determined-to return to London on Friday. the 45th of
that Diulth, he sent his mother in-law to the office of the defend-
ant. who was a proprietor of the Ilasting,s coach, to secure
.places. The Lady proceeded to the office, and saw the book-
'it epee, of shorn she bespoke the coach, and paid the usual de-
pomt. She particularly acified the day, and the book-keeper
said. •• it was all right." On Wednesday. the rad, a person
called at Mr. Barelay's for his luggage, but was of course told.
that as the family did not intend going until the 45th, it was
unnecessary to send the Inggage so soon. Thus matters rested
till the Friday, when the coach departed without the intended
passengers, and Mr. Barclay and his family were kft behind.
At. expination was demanded, when it Was raid there had been a
r.i take. As, however. Mr. Barclay could not remain at Has-
t:.„4 without considerable personal inconvenience, and as he was
Lo: :ed to incur this, in order to indulge the negligence of
11. e defendant. he sent for a post-coach. and in this manner pro-
ceeded to London. For the amount of the expences thus incur-
red. the present action was brought.
On the part of the defendant, It was contended that the mis-
take hag originated on the part of Mr. Barclay. and not with
the servants of the defendant. To prove this, the book-keeper
and one of his assistants were called, who swore that Mrs. Bar-
clay had bespoke the places for IVednesday, and not for Friday.
and that when the entry was utaqe. it was read over to her, and
rf...e assented to its correctness. This, however, was negatived by
the feet of Mrs. Smith. one of the partners of the defendant,
having admitted that the disnrintrnent arose from mistake.
.ad M tail Was added the anditiot.Ql el:cum:tame of a formal

TUE NATIONAL REGISTER,

tender of 4 pont .-41RiSe Wit int( been made by the defendant, at
the how.; in which Mr. Bar lay hsd reUilizi, subsequent to his
departure,
The Jury, under the direction of the Learned Judge, found 4
verdict for the plaintiff.—Dainages, 12L 134. ad. i roses, 40s.

THACSANEY V. 1119110LD.
This was si action tried before the Lord Chief Justice at
Guildhall. at the billings after last Tenn, and was an action
brought against the defendant, the recently dismis.ed Secre—
tary to the Norwich Insurance Office, for the publication of a
lihel reflecting on the plaintiff's character, and imputing to him
a fraud on the Office. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.
Mr. Serjeant Cooky now stated to the Court that he had been
Counsel for the defendant at the tried, who had since intimated to
him bib dissatisfaction at the verdict, and his intention of apply.
ing to the Court fur anE a trial. Toe Leatned Sergeant enquired
the grounds on which he meant to make the application, when Mr.
Bignold said, he sat near the Jury box during the trial at Guildhall,
and overheard several persona about him making observations,
and uttering reflections extremely prejudicial to his character, in
a tone of voice so loud they must have reached the ears of the
Jury. and, as he conceived. tend to prejudice them against him
on this ground he intended to apply to the Court. Ile (Mr.
Serjeant Copley) on Leasing .his statement, declared his opi-
nion that the ground was insufficient. If Mr. Bignold bad sup.
htied he stifli:red prejudice front what he had stated, he should
ave represented it to his Lordship at the time, who would have
protected his interests with the Jury. This opinion thus deli-
vered had, he believed, displeased Mr. Bignold who, as he un-
derstood. intended to instruct his Learned Brother to make the
application. He had felt it due to himself to state thus much to
the Court. _ . _ . . .

...- --...-
Mr. Serjcant Vaughan assured his Learned Brother he had re-
ceived no instructions. . . . .

The Chief Justice observed. Mr. Setjeant Copley had acted
11106 t properly in the advice he had given. Tile Learned Judge
then adverted to the particularci of the trial, and intimated an
opinion that .here woe no grounds whatever for diatuzbing the
vet diet.

CONSISTOHY•COURT, FRIDAY, APRIL $O.
LADY HERBERT t•. LORD DEANERY.

This was a suit fur restitution of conjugal rights, instituted by
the Hon. Octavio Spina.lli, Princess Dowager of Butari, in
Sicily commonly called Lady Herbert, against Robert Henry
Lord Herbert, son of the Earl of Pembroke. By the libel, it
appeared that the parties contracted a clandestine marriage et Pa-
nn the 17th of August. 1614, and that the lady arrived in
London in ti,e month of March, 1817. Of the 39 witnesses
examined in this matter. tire greater number were so examined
in order to speak to the identity of the parties; the marriage was
proved by the priest who solemnized it, according to the rites of
the Roman Catholic church of Sicily.
Sir William Scott, having defined the nature of the present
proceedings, pave schtence. He observed that the parties in this
rause were neither of them minors; Lord Herbert being upwards
of :1, end themforefore competent, in the eye of the law, to take
the step he had decided upon; and the lady Oesevia Spinelli,
although somewhat older than himself, was yet not of an ago
which of itself implied any incongruity in the match. he ap-
peared that Lord Herbert. being in the year 1514 in Sicily, was
introduced by Lady William Bentinek into the family of the
Prince de Butari, slime palace was the great !evert of all the
English nobility, who vi►ited that country, and who were always
received with the utmost hospitality. Of that be pitality Lord
Herbert was a constant partaker, being frequently with the fas
mily once or twice a day, both at Palermo and in the country.
He appeared to have sedulously endeavoured to gain the favour-
able opinion of the Princess, whose husband dying in June, 1814.
she shortly after, according to ..he testimony oilier sister, the
Duchess di San Giosanni, clandestinely married Lord Her-
be a. Having commented on this part of the evidence, and on
the manner in which the marriage was celebrated, the
learned Judge remarked, it Was not for him to entertain any
consideration as to the propriety of the match on either side, the
only question sari as to the validity ache marriage. It was esta-
blished by law, that it a marriage was valid in the country
where it took place, according to the rites and usages of that
country, it was a good one here; and this was so held upon
a sort of jar gentian' ; for, however naked the forms might
be, huwevir meagre in substance, provided they conformed to
that standard, the canonical law r.cognized them as perfectly
valid. Now, the evidence as to the facts attending the celebration
in the present cave, established the certainty of those forms having
been complied with. and the opinions of several judges of Pa-
lermo. annexed bathe perm before the Conn, clearly determined
the validity of this marriage, althoi.gh a clandesCue one. Aster
some further allusions to the scope and intention of the law of
Sicily, regarding marriages of this description, the Court strongly
reprobated the idea that it should be expected to call in the asstof
a ibreign criminal enactment, mcknowledged to be almost doe•
mant in its operation. in aid of its civil jurisdiction—a measure to
which it was incompetent, and in which no principle could be for
one moment made out. And at whose suit ? Not at that of the
father, the party contemplated by the enactment ; but at that of
Lord Herbert himself, who had avowedly infringed it. From
the whole of the evidence, the Cou•t thought the lady entitled to
her prayer ; and therefore decreed Lord Herbert to receive her ea
his wife with conjugal aflextion, and to certify to it, by the first
day of Michaelmas term, that he had complied with its injunc.
Lem.

Lord Herbert is at p-cunt abroad. not having visited England
since the pus: 1814. Tile suit was commenced in 1815.