The Sun.
London, England, 1837-02-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCERY, FRB. 18.
WILLIAMS V. CORBET.
Sir Corbet Corbet being possessed of considerable landed
property, consisting of 130 farmhouses and 700 holdings,
made his will in 1822, whereby he devised all his estates to
trustees, upon certain trusts in the will mcmtioned, and, by a
codicil to his will, he appointed a Mr. Williams, a barrister,
to be auditor of the accounts of his estates, and, should he
refuse, the trustees were to appoint some other barrister to be
auditor. The testator died, and the trustees undertook the
trusts. The testator, during his life-time, employed a Mr.
Furter as his steward, who allowed the farms to get into a
state of dilapidation, and his accounts into confusion. The
trustees (Sir A. Corbet, Mr. Brasier, and Mr. Pigot) hove.
ver, allowed him to act up to 1825, when a Mr. Bratton was
appointed steward. . The trustees not being satisfied vk ith this
gentleman's conduct, also discharged him, and, in conse-
quence, a dispute arose, which was settled by a reference to a
Mr. Hill, who was to act as arbitrator. Mr. Williams, the
auditor, was dulled as a witness before the arbitrator, and gave
his evidence in favour of Mr. Bratton. Soon after this it was
alleged that the trustees discharged Mr. Williams from his
office of auditor, charging him with fraud and collusion in that
office. This bill was filed by Mr. Williams against the trus-
tees for the purpose of being restored to his office of auditor.,
and of having a fair remuneration for his services.
Mr. KNlGirr, for Mr. Williams, contended that the trustees
by the will had no power to discharge him.
Mr. WIGRAM, for Mr. Pigot, claimed his costs.
Mr. JARVIS, for another trustee, also claimed his costs.
Sir WILLIAM Holm; and Mr. TEED, for the other de-
fendants, will open their defence to-day.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FEE. 18.
MATTHEWS V. naArrnwArra.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a carpenter and
builder, to recover compensation for injuries which he alleged
himself? to have sustained &Om the defendant's servant negli-
gently driving a waggon against a gig in which the plaintiff
and his brother-in-law were riding. On the part of the
plaintiff, it was attempted to be proved that the plaintiff called
out several times before the accident happened, but that his
cautions were disregarded by the defendant's servants.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed up, atid the Jury found a
verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, FRB. 18.
WOOLMER V. LATIMER.
Mr. KELLY stated the case. The plaintiff was the pro-
prietor of a newspaper published at Exeter, called Woolmer's
Exeter and Plymouth Gazette. He was now an alderman of
Exeter, and formerly mayor of that city, and was married, and
had a family of five children. The defendant, Mr. Latimer,
was also the editor and proprietor of an Exeter newspaper,
called the Western Times, which was a political rival of the
plaintiff's newspaper, and which had an extensive circulation
both in Exeter and the county. In November last year a
Town-councillor of Exeter had a female living under his pro-
tection, and a quarrel arose between them, on account, as it was
understood, of some intercourse which had taken place between
her and another ii an. On the supposition that the plaintiff
was the person with whom the intercourse had taken place, a
paragraph to the following effect appeared in the defendant's
paper, the Western Times, on the 26th of that month :
" The Liberty of the Press.-_A gallivanting contemporary,
who is a Tory Alderman, is the hero of a tale of scan, mug.,
in which the kept-mistress of a Town-councillor is also con-
cerned. The hero is a great stickler for morality, and attri-
butes to Reformers a general disposition to treat such matters
lightly. We have not space nor time to show up this best
public instructor at present." The plaintiff's name was, to
be sure, not mentioned ; but there could be no doubt be was
the person alluded to. In consequence of the paragraph
in question, the report spread that Mr. Woolmer hid been
guilty of adultery with the cast-off mistress of the town-
councillor—a report for which there was not the slightest
shadow of foundation. Almost immediately after the appear-
ance of the paragraph in question the defendant was waited
upon by the plaintiffs solicitor upon the subject, but no satis-
faction could be obtained ; and the defendant stated, that on
referring to the town-councillor, he had been informed that the
report was not without foundation : and instead of contradicting
the report thus maliciously spread abroad, the defendant in
his paper of the following week, and which was dated the 3d
of December, gave to it still greitcr currency, in the follow-
ing paragraph :—" Mr. Alderman Woolmer—We have re-
ceived sundry communications touching the tale of scan. magi..
which has kept all our good citizens on the qui vice for the last
week ; but which we must decline publishing, as it is probable
that the whole affair will ho investigated in a Court of Law."
A third libel appearbd in a subsequent number of the paper,
but with regard to it he did not mean to offer any evidence,
and would not therefore further allude to it. It was only on
the libels which he bad read to them that he would now seek
for redress on the part of the plaintiff They were, as the
Jury would see, cruel, unjust, and wicked in the extreme ;
and calculated to inflict a deep and lasting injury on the plain-
tiff and his family, and defeat and destroy all their hopes of
future advancement in life. He therefore hoped the Jury
would award such damages as would, in some small degree,
compensate for the injury which the plaintiff had sustained.
Witnesses were then examined for the plaintiff.
Mr. TIIESSIGEL, for the defendant, said it struck him as a
very singular feature of the present case, thAt it should have
been brought to trial at so great a distance from Exeter, the
place where the parties lived, arid where alone the injury
sustained by the plaintiff could be properly estimated. Equal
justice could have been done to the case by a trial at the Exe-
ter Assizes ; but there was no doubt that the sole object of
the plaintiff, in getting, the case tried in London, was to heap
a ruinous expense on his political adversary. lie admitted
that the Jury must, as a matter of course, find a verdict for
the plaintiff, but he was sure they would see that there was no
ground whatever for awarding heavy damages.
The Jury gave a verdict for the plaintitl.--Damages, 1001.

CONSISTORY COURT, FEB. I F,4,
COLLETT V. COLLETT,
This is a suit for divorce on the ground o.f Cruelty and adul-
tery, promoted by Emma C.-Alet! ;:gaino her husband. The
parties in the suit WeN ;named In July, atN, and cohabited
for ten years, till June, 1830, when, on neuouut of the suspi-
ciung Airs. Coltytt that her husband had been guilty of
on4er/t she left linTl4. and they lived separated from each

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, Pkn. 18.
William Lees, aged 17, footman in Ow service of Mr•. Com-
mon Sergeant Mirehouse, was indicted for a violent assault on
George Havard; and with having stabbed him with a knife.
The prisoner persisted in his plea of Guilty.
Mr. CLARRSON said the prisoner was sorry for chat he had
done, and threw himself on the mercy of the Co',L.t.
The CHAIRMAN told the 'prisoner the Court bad humanely
considered his case, and the Justices hoped be was a good lad,
and that remorse would be a greater punishment than the
sentence he was about to receive, which was that he be impri-
soned and kept to hard labour for one month, apart from other
convicts. During that time he would have leisure to reflect
upo:t the sin of ungoverned passion.

CO UNTY COURT, KtArGsaA rE- STREET.
FAMILY JARs.—A very John Bull-built swarthy-looking
peri:onage, of about 40 years of age, tvcs-summoned by his re-
lative fur 11. 10s., the value of a watch, intrusted to the de-
f..ndatit to be set going, but which had for the last six month's
stopped altogether. Although the names of both parties were
Jenkins—there the affinity or similarity ceased, for the plaintiff
was a very Johnny Nowcome, and his voice whistled forth after
the manner of a fractured boatswain's whistle I—like the re-
nowned Ichabod Crane—he was long-necked and no-backed,
and formed an amusing contrast to the walrus of a defendant.
Mr. Commissioner Donors-r-What do you say to this, de..
fondant ? Defendant—lt's very true, I've got the watch !
COMMISSIONER—Then why havn't you given it up to the
plaintiff? Defendant—Because I didn't choose—it's a family
affair !
Plaintiff (in a shrill pipe)-oh, that's jist what he always
ses, mister; and the worry day as he knocked my father down
fur hitting mother—he Imps and tells the magistrates they
had'nt got no bisness with it, cos 'twas a " family affair."
Defendant—Why you squeaking booby, what has that to do
with this here?

COMMISSIONRR— Silence, sir ; silence I
Defendant—l shan't—nobody ain't got no right to hinter-
fere in famerly affairs ; reckerlect, my lord,
" Them as in quarrels hinterpose
Will often vipe
I dare say you knows the rest; said the defendant, willing
very knowingly.
COMMISSIONER—You're a very impertinent fellow, sir, and
you will certainly find that I shall interfere—not with your
" family affairs," as you call them ; but I shall certainly make
you hand emir The watch.
Defendint—*Gh; and so you think you're agoing to come
the " non-int&v:entimi," are you ? Now I can jist tell
yer that
navther you nor nobody else shar'n't make me give up my
watch, not till rich times as I likes it. That there ne'vy o'
mine is a radical, and he ain't fit to carry no watch.
A Juryman— Pray why ought not the plaintiff to have
watch ? Defendant—'Cos he always pawns it.
Plaintiff ( whining)—Yes, it's worry true ; its in the hands
of my uncle now.
Defendant—And there it sill stop, my fine shag and short
cut pipesucker. This here watch belonged to a reglar good
'un, one as never seed the union jack fbing without wanting to
tr:at every body, one as worn't ashamed to sing " God save
the King," an as dida't want to collar the door mats from
the church doors. Why my brother was worth a hundred such
tripe-faced baboons as you ; and you wants a watch, eh ?
there's the church clocks loominated, that's quite enough.
for you.

CONIMISSIONER—ReaIIy I must put an end to this mk'acr,
Your loyalty does you infinite credit, but in justice I must tell
you that you must either give up the watch or pay the 30s.
Defendant—Pay ? I'd sooner pay a hundred than part with
it; but he shall have it by instalments at so much a week.
It was ultimately decided by the jury that the value of the
watch should be paid in two months.