The Sun.
London, England, 1839-12-06 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 6. 1839.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Dim 5.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE EARL OF STAMFORD

AND OTHERS.

Mr. WI6RAM replied this morning in this case—the
arguments in which have already occupied several days.
The LORD CHANCELLOR postponed giving judgment.

NEWLAND V. HOLMES.

This case came before the Court upon appeal
from the decision of his Honour the Vice-Chancellor,
refusing to dissolve an injunction which he had granted,
restraining the defendant from taking out execution
upon a judgment which he had obtained in an action of
trespass. The principal question in the case was, whe-
ther personal property in possession given to a wife for
her separate use, previous to marriage, became the pro-
perty of the husband on the marriage taking place. The
short circumstances of the case out of which the ques-
tion arises are as follow :—The plaintiff, Mrs. New-
land, previous to her marriage, was in possession, un-
der her father's will, of several leasehold houses in West-
square, near the Elephant and Castle, together with a
large sum of money in the Funds, and the furniture in one
of the houses in which she and her husband resided. The
defendant Mr. Holmes, also lived in West-square, a few
doors from the plaintiff. Some time since, under tho sup-
position that a stable in the occupation of the defendant
was part of the property devised to his wife by the will
of her father, the husband of the plaintiff took posses-
sion of it by means of uncovering the roof. For this
forcible entry the defendant brought an action of tres-
pass against the plaintiff, and recovered damages to the
amount of 2001., together with the costs, and upon the
plaintiff refusing to pay the amount, the defendant in-
structed the Sheriff to levy execution on the property,
in the possession of the plaintiff. The Bill was then
filed, and an injunction obtained, ex-parte, from his
Honour the Vice-Chancellor, restraining the defendant
from taking out execution, on the ground that the pro-
perty being the separate property of the wife could not
be made applicable for the payment of the debts of the
husband. Afterwards an application was made to dis-
solve the injunction, but his Honour refused the motion
for that purpose with costs, and from that decision the
present appeal was brought.
Mr. Jacob, Mr. Richards, and Mr. Bethell, appeared
in support of the appeal, and Mr. Wigram, and Mr.
James Russell supported the judgment of the Court
below.

The LORD CHANCELLOR, at the conclusion of the
arguments, stated that he was clearly of opinion the
order of the Vice-Chancellor dismissing the motion for
dissolving the injunction, with costs, could not be sus-
tained. It was not his intention, at the present stage of
the case, to give any opinion upon the merits, because
in so doing he should be setting aside, upon motion,
several decisions pronounced by other branches of the
Court relative to property left to the separate use of a
lady before marriage. Those cases had been before
him upon appeal, and now stood for judgment ; and it
was his intention to pronounce his decision upon them
before Christmas. The order he should make
in the present case would be to discharge
the order of his Honour the Vice-Chancellor,
dismissing with costs the motion for dissolving the in-
junction, at the same time making an order restraining
the Sheriff from selling, and giving liberty to the plain-
tiff either to pay the amount claimed by the defendant
into Court or to go before the Master and give such
security as he should approve of, and upon that being
done the Sheriff must quit possession. The effect of the
order, therefore, is to dissolve the injunction.
The defendant, who was in Court during the whole of
the arguments, upon hearing the decision of his Lord-
ship, exclaimed in a hysterical tone, that it would be her
death, that she was a ruined woman, that she had been
married for some years, had several children, all of
whom, upon her death, would become beggars. Several
gentlemen at the Bar endeavoured to pacify her, but
their attempts were fruitless, she continued to cry out
that she was ruined, and was ultimately removed from
Court in a fainting state.

EXCHEQUER IN EQUITY, _axe. 4.
HAWORTH V. ROSTOCK.

The circumstances under which this case came before
the Court are rather singular. M. Simkinson said this
was a bill filed by the plaintiff Sarah Haworth on behalf
of herself and all the other creditors of her late husband
Jahn Haworth, and her claim was founded upon the
trusts of a deed of separation. The defendant in the
original cause was Fanny Bostock, the executrix of
Mr. Haworth, who was represented in the bill as the
devisee of all his real estates ; but in consequence of her
having insisted on several other persons being made par-
ties to the suit, the bill was amended in that respect and
their names were inserted. The object of the bill was
to have an account taken of what was due to the plaintiff
in respect of the arrears of an annuity secured to her by
a separation deed and bond, and for payment thereof;
and for the usual accounts. The facts of the case were
as follow. In 1794 a marriage took place between the
testator and the present plaintiff ; they some time after-
wards separated, and a deed of separation and a
bond were executed bearing date the 22d April,
1797. By the deed an annuity of 1631. 16s. was
secured to the plaintiff, and Mr. Haworth became
bound to Geo. Fielder in the penal sum of 2,0001.
After this instrument had been executed the par-
ties lived separate, and the annuity was paid down
to the year 1803, or thereabouts. It appeared also
that, on the 13th November 1797, Mr. Haworth
executed a bond to George Fielder the younger,
for the sum of 1,4001. The latter individual died in
1799, having appointed his father his executor. In
1800 a bill was filed in the Court of Chancery by Mr.
Haworth, against George Fielder the elder and the
plaintiff in the present suit, stating the separation deed,
&c., and that the bond for 1,4001. had been obtained
by fraud and imposition ; and it prayed that the bond
might be delivered up to Mr. Haworth to be cancelled,
and that an injunction might be issued to restrain fur-
ther proceedings in the matter. An injunction was
obtained for want of an answer, on the 16th January
1801, to restrain any proceedings at law, until a full
answer should be given, and that injunction had never
been dissolved. George Fielder the elder died in 1805
intestate and insolvent, and administration was not
taken out, until for the purpose of this suit. Mr.
Haworth died on the 25th November 1831, leaving a
will dated the 22d April 1824, by which, after direct-
ing the payment of his debts, general and testamentary,
he gave to the defendant, Fanny Bostock, all his real and
personal estate, and appointed her his executrix. The
grounds on which the present claim was resisted by
Miss Fanny Bostock, were, first, that the deed of
separation was void, because at the time it was executed
the plaintiff was living in a state of adultery with George
Fielder the younger, and Mr. Haworth was ignorant of
that circumstance; secondly, that if the deed were not null
and void the annuity secured by it had been redeemed
by the bond given to George Fielder the younger, and
the payment of the 1,400/. ; and thirdly, that the
plaintiff was barred by the length of time which had
elapsed. The Learned Gentleman submitted that these
were not ♦alid objections to the claim, and cited a great
number of cases in support of his argument.

Mr. TEED followed on the same side.
Mr. TEMPLE said a more ungracious attempt to levy
money from the executors of a deceased husband had
never been made than by this unhappy woman. She
was now at a very advanced period of life, and it would
be proved, from the time when she deceived her bus-
band in 1797 (when she was living in adultery with Mr.
Fielder), that she had for a long series of years been
living with other persons in a similar state of adultery.
During that period she could have no claim against her
husband. But perhaps it might be unnecessary to go
fully into that part of the case, as he should prove that
the claim was barred by time, and that Lord Lyndhurst
decided this point, in the case now before the Court, in
1833.

Mr. Baron ALDEnsoN said if that were the case, the
discussion had better stand over until Monday. In the
meantime inquiry might be made as to the order given
on that occasion, and perhaps the judgment also could
be produced.

SHERIFFS COURT, Did. 5.
HARRIS V. PRIDMORE.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of
91. 12s. The defendant had hired apartments from the
plaintiff at the rent of 281. per annum, in Percy-street, in
September, 1838, and had left in August, 1839, and
this action was brought to recover 71. ss. rent up to
the end of the quarter, and 21. 7s. for dilapidations.
The UNDER SHERIFF said that he did not think that
the plaintiff could recover for the dilapidations.
Witnesses were called, who proved the taking of the
apartments by the defendant's wife, at the rent of 08/.
per annum, and it was admitted that the rent was
paid quarterly. The witnesses admitted, on their cross-
examination, that they had heard defendant had given
notice to quit.
For the defence, it was contended that the tenancy
was quarterly, and not yearly, and that it terminated at
the end of June, at which time the defendant's wife was
in such an ill state of health that she could not quit,
when the plaintiff consented that the defendant should
remain as a weekly tenant until such time as it should
be convenient to her to move. A witness was also
called, who stated that he had tendered 2/. 18s. to the
plaintiff, which he had refused, as not sufficient, and
which had bee❑ paid into Court.
In reply, it was denied that any permission had been
given, or any tender made.
The UNDER SHERIFF summed up, and the Jury
brought in a verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF EXCISE.
MOCK AUCTIONS IN THE CITY.--Yesterday, Robert
Tate, connected with one of the mock auction marts in
the Poultry, Cheapside, appeared before the Court on
information, charging him with having sold goods and
charged the auction duty upon them, he not being a li-
censed auctioneer, whereby he had incurred a penalty of
1001. The case was fully proved by Mr. Garer and
Mr. France, who stated that they went into one of the
d saw several lots put up
to different bidders by the
fon
offiu
rcet i
aao
tl nei n
gn
and
dsr t s inka
unoc
te the
de
erd,Poultry,owa nnwhore the defendant was
defeudant. One of the lots was an instrument contain-

ing two penknives and a pair of scissors, which was
knocked down to Mr. France for a shilling, upon paying I
which one penny was demanded by the defendant as "auc-
tion duty," and that he also paid.
The defendant, in extenuation, said that he was a
cripple, and had no other way to get his living.
The COURT said that he could not be permitted to
break the laws. Latterly a great many persons con-
nected with mock auctions in the city had been prose-
cuted by the Board of Excise for infringements on the
Excise laws, and it was necessary for the Court to act
with severity in such cases.
Mr. Mayow (the Solicitor to the Court)—This is
the fifth time the defendant has figured in this Court.
He is an old offender against the Excise laws.

The COURT—He is fined 1001., without mitigation.
The defendant was heard to mutter that he would
not pay 100 pence, upon which an execution was or-
dered to be issued against him.

_ -
Various publicans had spirits confiscated, having been
round by the Excise officers under proof.

LEWISHAM PETTY SESSIONS.

THE TABLES TURNED.—Henry Wallis was charged
with intermarrying with Mary Reading on the 19th of
November, 1837, at the parish church of Croydon, in
Surrey, his first wife, Mary Wallis, formerly Mary
Hallett, being still alive.
Upon the evidence being gone into, it appeared that
the prisoner Wallis had married Mary Hallett, who
turned out in the course of the investigation to be the
wife of a man named Charles Wright, then present to
give testimony. The prisoner Wallis subsequently left
Hallett, and at Croydon, on the 19th of November
aforesaid, married another woman, Mary Reading.
The case against Wallis fell to the ground, inasmuch
as it was proved that when be married Mary Hallett
she was the wife of Charles Wright. He was conse-
quently discharged, he being only legally married to
Mary Reading.
Mary Wright was then charged with intermarrying
with the before-mentioned Henry Wallis, her husband
Charles Wright being alive. The case was gone into,
and she was fully committed to Maidstone to take her
trial for the offence. Thus in the attempt of the pri-
soner to prove Wallis guilty of bigamy, she is now her-
self the sufferer.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

BOWSTREET.
Yesterday Joseph Hynzes, described as a dealer in
cast-off clothes, was brought before Mr. Twyford,
charged with committing a robbery under the following
ercumstances :
Mrs. Harriet Lane, a purchaser of ladies' cast-off
wardrobes, residing in York-street, Westminster, stated
that she was in the habit of dealing with the prisoner,
and as he went his usual rounds on Wednesday, the 20th
ult., while she was in the act of making a purchase of
some ball dresses, she asked him if he knew any person
who would buy them, as they were but very little
damaged, and he said he did, if she had no objection
to accompany him, and make her own bargain
with the customer. Witness instantly stowed the articles
which she valued at 355. into his wallet, and proceeded
with him to make out the promised purchaser, but
the prisoner kept her in conversation until they ar-
rived at the Pavilion Theatre without giving her any
information at what place the ball dresses were to be
disposed of, and suddenly stopping, he desired she
would wait for him until he exhibited the articles to
a person inside, with whom he would make the best
bargain he could. After a short delay he returned,
saying that the person he expected to meet was gone ,
but he was told where to find him out, and on her saying
she would wait until he came back, he threw his wallet
over his shoulder, promising not to delay many minutes,
and she did not see him again until he was in custody.
Constable Carter, 5 F, having received information
of the circumstance, he met the prisoner in the after-
noon of Wednesday last, and knowing there was war-
rant out against him, he took him into custody.
The prisoner said he had purchased the articles from

the lady for twenty-five shillings, and being in the habit
of purchasing old clothes at the station-house, he had
no doubt several of ithe constables would give him an
excellent character.

Mr. TWYFORD said he entertained no doubt the pri-
soner had from the commencement intended to commit
a robbery, and ordered him to be fully committed for
trial at the next Middlesex Sessions.