The Sun.
London, England, 1837-02-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Fin. 2.3.
GOMPERTZ V. ANSDELL.
Mr. TIERNEY moved in this matter to discharge an order of
the Master of the Rolls, which restrains the defendant from
continuing to receive the dividends on a sum of 10,000/.
Three per Cents., part of the proceeds of the estate of the
late Benjamin Isaacs. By the will of the father of Isaacs the
property was to descend to Joseph, the brother of Benjamin,
and to Joseph's eldest son in the event of Benjamin dying
without issue. Benjamin died in 1829, without issue, his
brother Joseph and two sons of Joseph having died before
him. One party put in a claim to the property in right of the
eldest son of Joseph ; another party claimed in right of the
second son, the eldest being, as they maintained, illegitimate,
there being reason, to believe that the parents were not mar-
ried before the birth of the eldest son. All parties, by the advice
of a person named Dean, the clerk of their solicitor, agreed-to
a compromise, which divided the property among all the claim-
ants. The plaintiff, who is entitled as remainder man, in the
event of Joseph Isaacs dying without issue lawfully begotten,
filed a bill in July 1836, alleging he had evidence to prove
that both of the sons of Joseph Isaacs were born before
the marriage of their parents, and that he, therefore, and not
the defendant, is now entitled to take the whole of the pro-
perty. The Master of the Rolls being of opinion that a ques-
tion had been raised which must ultimately be determined by
a Jury, through the means of an issue, to be directed by the
Court, granted an injunction, which deprived the defendants
of any control over their share of the funds, and as they now
contended, of all means to resist a claim made on the part of
the plaintiff. The Learned Counsel therefore prayed that the
injunction might be dissolved.
His LORDSIIIP directed the injunction to be continued, and
an issue on the question of the legitimacy of the second son of
Joseph Isaacs to be tried at the next Exeter Assizes, the par-
ties having resided in Devon. .

Co UR T OF KING'S BENCH, FEB. 23.
SMITH V. GRIBBLE.
This was an action to recover damages from the defendant
for alleged ill treatment of the plaintiff, by flogging him and
then imprisoning him with irons in the gunner's room. The
plaintiff had been a seaman on board the Illargacss Camden,
which sailed from London in July, 1835, and arrived at the
Whampoa River in July, 1836. The defendant was the captain
of that vessel. The defendant pleaded a special justification.
Lord DENMAN summed up, and the Jury returned a verdict
for the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FRE. 23.
REILLY V. LANE.
This was an action brought by the executors of the late Mr.
Reilly, who was proprietor of a large establishment, called
the York Hotel, in Bath, against Mr. Lane, an extensive
stage-coach proprietor of that city, to recover compensation
for a breach of covenant. Messrs. Lane and Reilly having
been in partnership as tavernkeepers, the proprietors of the
York Hotel, and as coach proprietors, dissolved partnership,
in 1826, upon an understanding that Mr. Reilly should
have nothing more to do with the coach business, which was
to be left entirely in the hands of Mr. Lane, the profits and
business of the inn being reserved to Mr. Reilly. The deed
of partnership, however, contained three covenants, to the
effect :—First, that Mr. Lane, in his management of his busi-
ness as coach•proprietor, should advance, as far as was in his
power, the interests of the York Hotel, by inducing the pas-
sengers in his coaches to stay there ; secondly, that in case of
the death of Mr. Lane, or of his desire to relinquish his bu-
siness of coach-proprietor and horsing stage-coaches, Mr.
Reilly should have the option of taking that business upon a
valuation by two persons, to be appointed one on each side ;
and, thirdly, that Mr. Lane should do no posting business, by
letting out for hire post-horses in the city of Bath or within
ten miles thereof. The declaration alleged seven breaches of
that covenant.

The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff on all the is-
sues—Damages on the last (the seven.h) issue, 1001., and on
the rest 1601. each.

PREROGATIVE COURT, FRB. 23.
HARRIS V. REED.
The case had not concluded at the rising of the Court.

MIDDLESEX COUNTY COURT.
KINSGATE-STREET.
CRIMINAL CONVERSATION.—George Johnston, a helper in
a gentleman's livery stables, was summoned by a sallow-look-
ing livery servant for the sum of 11. 19s. 111 d., money lent to
the wife of the defendant by the plaintiff. The wife of the de-
fendent apreared in Court, and with her snub nose, together
with her sad temper and terrible evil disposition, the whole
Court was sadly puzzled with her presence.
Mr. Commissioner DUBOIS (to the defendant)—Pray what
do you say to this? Defendant—That man, Sir, has been
the ruin of my mind; he has not only basely weatied the affec-
tions of my wife from me, but he now wants to fairly swindle
me out of 21. I do hope, Sir, that I shall have justice at
your hands. I have been wronged and robbed on every side.
The Wife—And sarve you right, you good-for-nothing
feller.

COMMISSIONER—Keep silence, madam, if you please.
The Wife—Keep it yourself. I dare say too—eh—keep tt
yourself.
COMMISSIONER—Officer, if that woman is not silent you
must hand her out of Court.
The Wife—Yes, you try it on, and see how I'll tear your
eyes out.
Defendant—Oh, this ain't nothing, Sir. I've pulled her
out of the stables about a hundred times ; and, in fact, Sir,
I don't know what to do with her.
The Wife—Do ! yer wagabond I Why do the best you
can ; and, mind, don't you expose me, or I shall very soon
expose you.
COMMISSIONER—You are making a sad exposure of yourself,
madam. Pray what did you borrow this money for ? Wife—
To pay the rent, Sir, that's what.
Defendant —Why, I gave you the money long ago.
Wife—Yes, but I'd spent a couple of pounds, and so I was
obliged to borrow more more, mister.
COMMISSIONER—And did you apprise your husband of the
fact ? Wife—No, I did'nt. I'm not obliged to tell him
everything.
COMMISSIONER—Nor shall we compel him to pay everything.
This appears to be a most infamous affair.
Wife—And you're a hinfamous feller for saying so.
The Jury, after a short consultation, dismissed the case, ex-
pressing at the same time the utmost disgust at the conduct of
the plaintiffs. Immediately the parties got outside the Court,
a scene took place that beggars all description—the wife and
her paramour fell foul of the husband ; the latter being a very
sturdy, thick-set man, the criminal parties got the worst of it,
and they severally rolled in the mud, the husband being at all
times uppermost. After about ten minutes' hard screaming,
bawling, and hard fighting, the police interfered, and the
little black-complexioned woman walked off with the poor
crest-fallen and well-beaten plaintiff, amid a torrent of execra-
tions and hissing from the crowd.
LIVING IN HOPE.—An elderly defendant, probably about
75 years of age, on being asked yesterday if he had any fa-
mily, replied with great naivete—" No, Sir, not at present."