The Sun.
London, England, 1808-12-13 00:00:00

in a very extravagant manner. She talked a
great deal.of„Mr..:BOdulph the: banker, and of an
estate which sh.e,saicl: she had in Wales. However,
thellaisuiff's-wife begarr taYstispea that all was not
right- with. her guests:; upon which Mrs. Willet told'
Mrs. Robinson, that she was going tb the Bank-of
England to receive her dividend, and requested Mrs..
Rob; nson -to accompany her, and they went together
accordingly. When they .arrived at the Batik, as
the place was, pretty much crowded, Mts. Willet'
contrived to give Mrs. Robinson the slip, and she.,.•
never Sa-v her nor her companion vAirs.Takior aaaig.
Sometime afterwards it was discovered, that Mrs.
Ta).lor is a married woman; and her hutsbantil)eing
.found Out, was arrested for the debt his wife had thus
incurred for board and lodging ;- upon which he' gave
this promissory note.
The waiter of the Inn 'proved these faas,- and that
all the articles were furnished open the credit of
Mrs, Willet, who had thus turned out.to be a s,‘
iud-
ler. it was artenipted to he proved, that Mrs. Tay-
lor was the mere servant of Mrs, Willet ; but that'
Attempt failed, because Mrs. Taylor sat down-aliv43
with Mrs. Willer, and appeared as genteelly as she
did ; and therefOre they must be- taken as com-
panions.
. .
Lord ELLENBOROUGH was of OpllllollohataS the
credit appeared to be given to Mrs. Willet, she: was
the only debtor in this case,' and consequently' that
this action could not be rmintained.

Plaintiff wished to have that pointatvied in full,
Court, he Would go With th cause. .11:- linen-
draper of the name of Wiils, was then, caned to
prove the furnishing of the goods, but,it was obje4t-
ed., that lie was not a-competentwits, 134-cause he
himself, in 'ease "this' attion did not' Stic'eeed:would
J3e.liable as the• drawer.- But Ate Pla•ntitf having
released him, his evidence was -rp,:eived,, and tie
,stated, that he had furnished linet3- and sdk stockings
to the Defendant, -to tire: ainount'of the bills, froM
December,. 1805, to June, 1806.- Being asked -whe-
ther part of the goads were not Indian, and contra-
band, he replied, that he could riot, undertake to say
whether they were or not. He had no doubt at the
time of .the trade carried:' n by the young Lady, but
did _not answer to the questioni whether or not, he
had visited her often.

, .
Here Sir J, AilitiSFlELb interposed, and declared,
that neither he nor the Jury could devise any' mea-
ante as to what might be the necessaries suited .to
the condition of a priestess of this .kind, whose temple
was in Uneen Anne-street East.,. The worship
was besides dot toletated by the laws of this coun-
try, and consequently the•law
.would not compel
payment for the necessaries that might be; required
to carry it on. The Plaintiff was therefore non-
suited.

MAINTENANCE-OF A CHILD.

EROUGHTON #. BEAVAM.

Adr.-.P4iRK submitted, that it might, as the hus-
band had so far a,knowledged the debt on the part
of his wife, by giving this note for it-Lbnt no—for
Lord ELLENBOItOUGH held that this note might
have been given by the Delenlint in ignorance of
the fadt that Mrs. Willet was the per On to whom
the credit was given : and the note could not change
the relative situation of the parties at the time When
it was given ; and therefore the. Plaintiff was non-
suited.

. Mr. Serjeant VNLIGHAY stated, that the Defend.
apt was a Magistrate in Wales. He, had "wen. for-
merly an Officer at Mililia, and had met Miss Ann
Broughton, the Plaintiff, a milliner, in Devonshire.
They cohabited together, and a boy was. the'fruit of.
their intercourse. The Plaintiffgot.a..note; Of hand
from the Defendant for .the paytnent,of fulf yearly,.
for seven years, towards 'the Maintenance of the'
child ; but: he rekgitig to pay; site Was'cOmpelied toh
.bring this action ; and the Leavneil•Serjtiatit expiess.,.
ed his astoni,hment at hearing, .Learned.,
Brut her (BEST) liadAbeen in,trueed to defend it.
Mr,.iierjeant BEST, 'h(i'We:-C..÷;) iMili4draidely, gave
up the cause,:and a verdid was giveit 'for the- Ilttint
tiff.
~;

COURT OF CHANCERY,,Dtc. 12.

SHAW V. LINDiAY. '
111 this case a commission had been issued for. the.
examination of witne'sses in Scotland. On- the part. i
ASS AU LT.
of the .Plaintitf, Mr. Richard HOtclikis, Writer to L.,
, ,
the Signet, was the Commissioner named, and by I GOSLING V. CLARK.
'I'TifIO.VAS'A‘II (a'd ion for dainages in consequence of
the Defendant, tvvo.Gentletn,in named Smith 'andl
I
an assault; The Plaintiff' it appedred,-had been id
Niairne. On the part of the Defendant no witnesses.:
thehabit of Aolding.tip two fingers! above - •fris fibre
'-,.
were examined, nor did it appear, that the COMlTlii-
sioners named by him - had qualified themselves to head when he saw the Defy' radant-, which:sign of
aet as such.—For the Plaintiff, however, Mr. Robert-, the latter conceited to be an Aptirnation that h„rns.
Strachan,Witter to, the Signet) his agent in Scotland, . ,he was a cuekold. Some bh;Ws ' f)lt'sseain consel'
waS adduced as a witness, and the Commissioner, cpience between.hini and the'llaintiff..l The hotdingt,
up of Ihe fingers .vat admitied um the part of the
Mr. Hotchkis, intsead of calling- him before Intn,,
'Plaintiff ; .but it was contended that this was a sign
and making hire, there answer the interrogatories put
*0 .in masonry, and that neither lidnis nor • cUckoldord
to him, accepted of" a detailed statement in s% riting,
previously prepared by the witness, as evidence (A. :were . meant.% .Verctia fOr 'the Plaitniff=—Daniages,
his knowledge of the transaCtions between the par- one Farthing.
..
ties, and as
,sucli.had admitted it:as Mr. Strachan's
deposition under the Commission.

I

COURT OF ARCHERS, DOCTORS COMMONS,

Sir A. -PIGGOTT and Mr% }SELL. moved to have the
deposition of :Mr. Strachan suppressed, as :having
been irregdfarly, improperly and unwarrantably re-
ceived. This, it was to be observed, was not the.
case of a cots non witness. • The person: so ad-
mitted to frame his ow n- story, and• that, too, at his
leisure,' was, the Agent of the Hanna; and the-
nature of the evidence ,required of him, was not as-
„to common or indifferent transactions, to whichi
more personslhan himself might have been privy,
but tommunications between the 'parties, with
which the WitOrsi himself alone might have been
conversant, and on which therekne, as depending_
in a great measure on the recellettion of verbal con-
versations, the change or colouring of a iew wards
might produce a wonderful eft-ed.
sir- SAMUEL ROMILLY,' Mr. HART, and Mr.:
CooK, forr-the Plaintiff, contended, that it was con-
trary to the praCtice of the Court to suppress deposi-
tions before publication. The ,books,ot practice laid
dOwn what was contrary to the rules of the Court,
and it was therefore not unfair to suppose, that what
was there treated as not contrary to, should be
esteemed consistent with, these rules. Such _was,
the case in question. Moreover, however, it, would
be inconsistent with justice to punish the Plaintiff
for any irregular or improper act done by the Cum- ,
missiuners, who, (pow' that act, \vele Officers of H
Court. The Commissioners .named by the De-
lendant, too, it was to be observed, were not altoge-
therexcusable, for one of them, Mr. Nairne, it ap-
peared, .was present, and did not °hied to the mode
of proceeding adopted.
Ssr A. PIGGOTT, in r:tply, contended, that it
was perteftly immaterial in judging if the rule of
evidence observed in that Court had been violated,
to'consider by whom. that violation had been occa-
sioned. It, was sufficient for ,the, Court to know
that such was the faat, to induce it to grant the ne-
cessary relief. Without throwing out any reflec-
tion on the country in' general, he might be' allowed
to say, that those Gentlemen in Scotland, to whom
the execution of the present ,Commission was en-.
trusted, had exhibited most excursive ideas of the
'law of evidence ; but it was no argUment against the
Defendant to say, that because they seemed all equal-
ly ignorant, therefore the evidence improperly ad-
mitted tor the Plaintiff must be received.

MONDAY, DEC. 12.

OSBORNE, FALSELY CALLED gOLDHAM, V. SOLjDHAM.
This was.a suit or proceeding-of:Nullity of Mar-..
riage, brought on . the part of the. wile against-her
husband; by reason of ininori.y. This was an appeal
from the Bishop of London's Court, which Court dis-
missed:the. sun, on the ground that dissent on the-
part of the Mother of the lady was not proved. It
appeared from the proceedings, that the mother (a
widow during the minority of her daughter), inter-
married in the name 431 Jackson, whose real name,
was Buxton. The Learned Judge (Sir. Wat. WYNNE) ,
was of opinion, that the mother being married to.a,
person in a fialtiOClS ILUDei she still
.retained her
power of consent, and that although shy Was unac-.-
quainted.with the
..marriage at 'the time it iwas:so-
.lemnized„, yet, as she never expressed ~any ;dissent
carne
after it tuber knowledge, he held it fo be a
tacit consent; -and therefore affirmed the'stSuience of
the Court below. ' _

THE BAEBERS the, year 134.8,
22 Edward 111. the whole company and fellou. slap -
of. Barbers, within the precinls of Ox.ford; appeared .
before the Chancellor, ' and intending thence for-
ward to juin and bind themselves in amity and love,
brought with them certain' ordinations and statutes, -
drawn
.up in writing for the:weal of the craft of bar-
bers, desiring the said Chancellor that he would pe-
rue and correct thetxi, and when he had done so,
to put the University seal to 'them. All Which or-
dinations_aml.statutes being seriously considered by ,
him, certain Doctors,. and the two Pro Mors, he was
pleased-to put the University -seal tp them the next
day; and Make the said barbers'. from thenceforth a
Society or. Corporation. '''•,..•

The first article stipulates, under certain penal-
ties,,
that the said craft should keep, and maintain a
light before the image of Our Lady, in our Lady's
Chapel, within the precinds •of St. Frideswydc's
Church.

The second, that no person of the said craft was
to work on a Sunday, only on the market Sundays,
in harvest time, and to shave none but such as were
to
,preach ' or do a religious act, on the Sundays, in
any part of the year.
Another, that all such as were of the craft 'were
to receive- at least. 6d. a-quarter of each cuitomer
that desired to be shaved every week. in his chamber
or house, &c. .

The LORD CHANCELLOR seemed mucik,in-clined
to suppress the deposition. He instanced, a,cuse in
Which, where the Commissioners had appointed the
Solicitor for one of the parties' Clerk to, the Com-
mission, the whole depositions had been suppressed;
and intithated 'that he had requested of the Secretary
to inquire, • against to-morrow, into the practice,.
as to the disposal of suppressed depositions, and it
the information then turnishd to him was not very
different from what he expected, he should then
determine the present question, on which he had
at present little doubt.

The-shoal' of hefriogS which have annually visited
the north and. west parts-of: ITeland.and the Isle of
Man, for many years, have-this season extended :their
visit to the Solway Frith, and great numbers of very
fine large' ones werelast week caught along the coast,
to the &teat joy of the inhabitants of- Cumberland,
and south of Scotland.

On the 12th ult. an apple was pulled from tree,.
in the town of Old Deer, which weighed 12 oz.
Ord was 12 inches in circumference.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dic, 12.

There are at present in the garden'of Mr. M‘Pber-
son, at Ardersier, two magpies building their nests.

NECESSARIES FOR A LADY OF THE TOWN.

WILLIAMSON V. 'NATI!.