The Sun.
London, England, 1837-05-13 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

HOUSE OF L ORD 5.—.2114r 12.
APPEALS-THE DUKE OF HAMILTON V. MATHER.
Lord BROUGHAM delivered judgment in this case, affirm-.
ing all the interlocutor except that part which gave costs
to one of the parties. The case was one purely relating to
the rules of the Scotch law upon the discharge of teind
duties by payments made by the tenants.

WISHART V. WISHART.
-This was an appeal from a decision of the Court of Ses-
sion. A brother of the applicant, a very eminent surgeon
and occulist in Edinburgh, had married a I.lily named Wil-
son, and had entered into a settlement at the time of the
marriage, by which he bound himself to pay certain sum. to
trustees for the purposes specified in the settlement: The
appellant entered into a bond in the nature of what wou:d
he iu England a warrant of attoraey as security for this
payment. The husband died, and the money not having
been paid, the trustees took out execution oa this bond.
The appellant filed a bill of suspension in the Court of Ses-
sion, and the Court pronounced against this bill, acd this
was an appeal against the judgment of that Court. Lord
BROUGHAM now gave judgment, and reverse] the decision
of the Court of Session.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Mir 12.
HAYWARD V. PLATT AND HIS WIFE.
This was an action for work and labour as an attorney.
The plaintiff had prepared the marriage settlement on the
occasion of the marriage of the defendant. The lady was
the daughter of Sir Y.H. Dyke, Bart. It did not appear
that any positive agreement had been made as. to the person
who was to pay for the settlement, and the question was,
whether the father or the husband Was responsille for it.
The opinion t f the Law Association'tad been taken on the
matter, and the members of that learned hody had decided
that the father was the person properly responsible.
The Jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Mir 12.
WISEMAN V. FRANCIS.
This was an action of libel brought by the plaintiff, Miss
Katharine Wiseman, against the defendant, Miss Ann
Francis, who had lived on terms of considerable intimacy
with the plaintiff's family. About July, 1835, the plaintiff's
sis cr became subject to aberrations of mind, and was im-
pressed with a variety of extraordinary.delusions—as that a
conspiracy of all her relations had been formed against her,
to poison her—and that a party of smugglers, with Alder-
ma❑ Lucas at their head, whom she pretended to have
seen at Herne Bay, were constantly endeavouring to trace
her out. Her insanity continued undiminished for some
length of time, during which she frequently expressed the
greatest dislike towards her sister, and consequently the
plaintiff thought it advisable to remove her to a lunatic
asylum,; and accordingly, early in 1836, she was conveyed
from her sister's house to an establishment in Westmorling,
Kent, where she still remains. Subsequently to that re-
moval Miss• Francis, the defendant, bad written a letter,
imputing to the plaintiff unnecessary harshness in the treat-
ment of her sister, and that letter was the libel now co►n-
plained of.

The Loitn CHIEF JUSTICE summed up, and the Jury
returned a verdict for the defendant, on the ground that
the letter had not been written with any feeling or malice.

ADMIRAL7'Y COURT, .31.4 r 12.
THE PRINCE OF COBOURG.-BOTTOMRY.
This is a question as the validity of a bottomry bond
granted by the master of the ince of Size Cobonrg, for
advances to that vessel, amounting, with commission, to
6421. 9s. The vessel, which was on her.voyage from Cadiz
to London, with a valuable cargo of quicksilver, &c., put
into Lisbon in a leaky condition, and the bond was put in
quit by the holder, but opposed by the owners of the vessel.
The bond was dated in June last.

After hearing Counsel on both sides,
The Letirned JUDGE said that in no cases except where
necessity actually commanded it were the masters of vessels
justified in granding bottomry bonds. It was actually re-
quisite on the part of the Court to put a stop to those sales
of bottomry bonds, and the Court should therefore, under
the circumstances, pronounce against it, and with costs.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
• .
OLD COURT.

At ten o'clock Mr. Justice PARK and Mr. Justice. LIT-
TLEDALE took their seats on the bench.

THE CASE or SARAH GALE.—Mr. PRICE, in the course
of the day, applied to Mr. Justice Park for the sanction
of the bench to see and converse with the convict, Sarah
Gale, at such times as Might be proper without any other
individual being present. In answer to which his Lordship
observed that there was great impropriety in his applica-
tion. The Sheriffs were by law the gaolers of all persons
convicted within their jurisdiction, and in that capacity
could issue what orders they considered essential for the
security of those in their custody. He (the Learned Judge)
had no power to interfere.

Here the conversation dropped. *
Thomas Lee, alias Beresfurd, and Maly Lee, alias
Beresfiwd, were indicted for coining.
Police-constable Duckett, of the E division, on the 181
of April received information which induced him to go to a
house in Rose-alley, Red Lion-square, and look through a
window, when he saw the male priooner sitting by the fire,
with something white in his hand in the shape of a mould,
into which he poured some white metal. Duckett hav-
ing procured assistance, after some difficulty got into the
room, and found an iron spoon on the fire_with some lumps
of white metal, and the bowl of a metal spoon was taken
from the male prisoner. On the female were found two
counterfeit sixpence?.
'['he jury found both the prisoners Guilty, with a tea
commendation to mercy on behalf of the female.

Thomas Oliver, James Ruck, alias Green, and Harriet
Woad were indicted for a similar offence, but the evidence
being insufficient the Learned Judge directed an acquittal.
DISCHARGE OF THE GRAND JURY.—At five o'clock the
Grand Jury brought in their last bills, which having been
read over, the foreman said that he was instructed by his
brother jurors to state to the Court the high opinion which
they entertained of the efficiency, goof conduct, and the
clear and able manner in which the new police had given
their evidence, in all the eases in which they were engaged.
Mr. Justice PARK—Gentlemen, I am very glad to hear
you entertai❑ such a high opinion of that body ; front my
experience, I feel happy in being able to agree with you.
The Foreman—There is one circumstance to which we
feel it to be our duty to call your Lordship s attrition. We
deeply regret the multiplicity of bills which have been pre-
ferred of a trifling nature against children from eight to
twelve years old. We are of opinion that the Legislature
ought to be applied to on the subject, and that a Court
ought to be established for the purpose of trying those
children.

Mr. Justice PARK—Gentlemen, a few Sessions ago the
then Grand Jury made a similar comptaint to me, and my
brother Alderson and I, in our joint names, wrote a strong
letter on the subj,:ct to the proper quarter ; but whether
any notice has been taken of our faint remonstrance, I can-
not say. -

Mr. Justice PARK, after thanking the Grand Jury for
their services, discharged them.
The Judges retired at live o'clock, and were succeeded
by the Recorder on the bench.